Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

The following article is currently completely unreferenced:

• Painted ceiling

Expert assistance would be appreciated in remedying this. Thank you. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Done, more or less. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Johnbod. I have just come across a related article which is currently completely unreferenced, which is:

• Prophet Daniel (Michelangelo)

Cielquiparle (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for a project, I just came across this substantial obituary on artist David Tinker (currently a redirect) on whom there is no article in The Guardian. He would make a good addition to our coverage. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Is anyone else watching Campbell's Soup Cans  4? User:Twixister, who I don't recall having interacted with just removed 32,294 out of 111,823 bytes of content, which is 28.9% of the article with the following edit summary "Pop art: condensed article to make more concise, there was a lot of repetition and excess detail that made it WP:UNDUE". Can someone give me a second opinion on whether this is a helpful edit or whether it should be reverted.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The article has been reduced from 55030 characters (9044 words) of readable prose to 30708 characters (4873 words) of readable prose, which is a 44.2% reduction in number of characters and a 46.1% reduction in the number of words.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the article was almost unreadable. It was very repetitive and included a lot of minute details not necessary relevant to the works. I'm and going through news sources to add more relevant information and citations. Twixister (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I am too close to the article (this says I am responsible for about 80% of its edits and 40% of its current content after your edits) to assess whether your efforts should be reverted, but the article has 133 watchers and this page has 302 watchers. People here know I am not an art expert, but I try to help out on a lot of art topics. I will wait for the art experts to opine. BTW, I was thinking of nominating this at WP:FAC in hopes of a promotion in time for Andy Warhol's 100th birthday. So your attention to the article is appreciated.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I didn't mean to override your work, but I was simply surprised that this article hadn't been cleaned up yet. There are many excellent book sources included, which I've kept. A few sections seemed to go off on tangents, so I condensed certain passages for clarity. I also reorganized the sections to present the material in a more chronological order, as it previously felt a bit scattered. This is an important article, and I'm just trying to help improve it. I've worked on quite a few articles related to Warhol's work and care about maintaining strong sourcing and clear structure. The previous lede was too long; it was longer than the lede for the main Andy Warhol article. I agree that mentioning the variations is important for context, and I've now incorporated that information to keep the introduction balanced while still acknowledging the broader scope of the series.Twixister (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• I must say one thing. You have removed "The soup cans series is generally thought of as referring to the original 32 canvases, but also his many other productions: some 20 similar Campbell's Soup painting variations were also made in the early 1960s; 20 3 feet (91 cm) in height × 2 feet (61 cm) in width, multi-colored canvases from 1965; related Campbell's Soup drawings, sketches, and stencils over the years; two different 250-count 10-element sets of screen prints produced in 1968 and 1969; and other inverted/reversed Campbell's Soup can painting variations in the 1970s." from the WP:LEAD and rewritten the LEAD as if the term Campbell's Soup Cans only refers to the 32 original series works. The current LEAD is quite short for an article of this length and does not adequately summarize the article, IMO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The lead has I think grown back a bit. The pre-Twixister version of the lead contains something of a contradiction (between the last 2 paras) as to what the term includes, which the version now may handle better. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    • My unsigned comment above prompted his summary of this topic that he had ignored in the LEAD. He has improved its presentation though.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Readability has dramatically improved, but the question remains, what content has been lost? You might want to put all the material that was removed together, find the important parts, and ask Twixister to consider adding it back. The thing to focus on is when to use lists effectively within and outside of prose. You had one list of blue links that was distracting. You still have an overuse of refs at the end of simple sentences. There's no reason "An edition of the second set, Campbell's Soup Cans II is part of the permanent collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago" should have ten refs, so consider bundling refs if needed. Ten refs inline for a simple statement is excessive. My rule is one ref at all times, bundle whenever more are needed. This is to help the reader. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I bundle, and will often have one ref that is online, and one or more to books that are fuller or more authoritative. But I agree ten is overkill. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• I am not sure if the editing has wound down or if there is a lot more to go, but I'll go to the article's talk page and go over some details.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
• I started at Talk:Campbell's_Soup_Cans#February_2026_revamp, but he yanked a lot of content (45% of a very big article) out. It is going to be an ordeal going through the content removals. So I have asked them if the revamp is still underway and whether the content removal is permanent.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • @Twixister:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
• @Twixister:, I am finished figuring out the impact of your efforts. It is clear to me, if I can get you to finish what you have started we will have a greatly improved presentation of the subject. I encourage you to consider my notes and comments.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Twixister:, you have greatly improved a lot of elements of the article, but you left a lot of areas in what seems to me to be a state of disarray. Are you done?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• @Twixister:, thanks for dropping in and doing some tidying up. I apologize in advance for what will amount to continued backseat driving. I am not sure if you are aware of the importance of this article to the English Wikipedia editors and readers. The editors have selected it as one of 17 specific works of paintings and painting series listed at Vital Articles level 4. I.e., in the entire world and history of painting this is one of the 17 that editors deem as a level 4 priority for editorial attention. You and I have a very serious responsibility to finish what you started. Hopefully, we can continue to be responsive to each other until we address all of my issues. Then we will pursue the invited PR and then a FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  No problem, and thanks for the note. I've addressed your concerns on the Campbell's Soup Can Talk page and made the relevant adjustments. I appreciate the care being taken with the article given its importance. Please feel free to notify me if you have any further concerns or suggestions, and I'll be happy to take a look. Twixister (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Twixister:, I apologize. Some of the issues that I thought were outstanding had already been resolved. I have clarified the issues that I believe still warrant attention. Your continued best efforts are appreciated.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Twixister:, I have been through a few processes where articles I have worked on extensively were overhauled tremendously by other editors for the betterment of the content. The vast majority of my WP:FA credits are cases where other editors were able to reshape my research into a better product. I hope that becomes the case with this article as well. I have never had a case where a collaborator on an article with FA potential became non-responsive after deciding to get involved in any of my editorial focuses. Most review processes on WP generally work in a back and forth point-by-point basis. People make lists of concerns and responses are supposed to be back-and-forth point-by-point. Your response above was a blanket statement that you feel you have responded to everything that needs responding to. However, general editorial etiquette here on WP is if the counterpart discussant continues to respond an a point-by-point basis with the expectation of further back-and-forth, we do our best to respond in like manner. As I have stated, this is an extremely important article for editors and readers. Wherever our back and forth may land, we already have an invited WP:PR, need to pursue an independent image review and are hopeful to be prepared for WP:FAC discussions. I am not sure how extensively you participate in review processes around here. However, I would hope you accept my request to pursue point-by-point back-and-forth resolution of the article as is the generally normal process around here. I'm not asking you to restore my content. I am asking you to review my talking points until we mutually agree the best solution to each concern. This may just be you explaining why certain things are unnecessary, but even so, the discussions need to be had.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  I have reviewed your talking points and have responded to the concerns you raised. My intention has been to address each issue and explain the reasoning behind the changes where necessary. I agree that collaborative review processes on Wikipedia work best through constructive discussion, and I appreciate the goal of improving the article. Where clarification was needed, I have tried to provide it in my responses and make adjustments where appropriate. Twixister (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artificial intelligence visual art#Requested move 11 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

If anyone has time to review, I just submitted a draft for review detailing the Monuments exhibition on view at MOCA in LA right now. Hoping to get it on main space before the exhibition closes in May so it can be a DYK while it's still on view. Thanks to anyone with the time/capacity to review! 19h00s (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Generative artificial intelligence#Requested move 6 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi all — I've submitted a draft on TJ Norris, a multidisciplinary artist active since the late 1980s, with sources including The Oregonian, The Boston Globe, and The Wire. I'm the subject (full disclosure on user page). Would much appreciate any eyes on it. Thanks! IntegersInSpace (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Carsten Höller article. DrThneed (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Generative artificial intelligence#Requested move 6 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking at Diaspora Revolt which includes a photo of La Destruction du temple de Jérusalem. The problem is, the photo is so underexposed, it's almost unrecognizable. I see this a lot in photos of historic paintings, and I'm always unsure how to deal with it.

One obvious fix would be to just toss it in a photo editor and correct the exposure. But is that the right thing to do? The photo is attributed to Bridgeman Images who I assume uses photographers who know how to set the exposure on a camera. Maybe the original painting really is that dark (or dimly lit, as common in museums) and they're just faithfully reproducing it? From a curatorial perspective, that might be the right thing to do, but from the "Here's an image to illustrate a historical event for a wikipedia article", it's almost useless. So what to do? RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Many paintings have become darker over time, often due to old varnishes that darken or turn yellow with age: it's not uncommon to see restorations that look something like this. Possibly an additional complication! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Opinions vary, with purists saying you shouldn't do anything, however, I prefer to make minor adjustments when they are truly needed. I just made a color correction to the lead image of Room in Brooklyn because the museum released a horrible photo of the painting to the public (they sell prints of the same painting online). So in that situation, I downloaded a professional reference image that I can't use on Wikipedia (the owner doesn't want anyone using their images) and corrected to match as closely as possible. I probably got within 80% accuracy, but there's something seriously wrong with the museum image to begin with, it's like they took a photo of a print instead of the actual painting, which explains the problem. Anyway, I ran into a similar issue earlier with a painting of From Williamsburg Bridge (it's in the same article farther down). The quality was much better but the darkness made for difficult viewing. So I lightened it just a bit; and while not ideal (I haven't yet found a good reference image to compare), it makes it much easier to see. However, I suspect it is slightly too bright, so that will need to be fixed again. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

BTW, there was recently a related discussion about this on either Reddit or Hacker News a few weeks back (I don't remember which), but the context was NASA photographs not paintings. The consensus seemed to be that modifying photographs for presentation was encouraged. Obviously, this rubs people in library sciences and art history the wrong way, but IMO there's no one true way when it comes to working with digital images. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

If you look at the highlights on the horse's rear, you can see that they are completely clipped. It's so clipped that it's perfectly white. This makes me think that this photograph of that painting is not underexposed, and that the original actually is that dark. If anything, the photo might be slightly overexposed. GranCavallo (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

In all likelihood that is true, but a photo still has many problems inherent to the technology alone that prevents the human eye from seeing it like it does in person. This problem is so common that editing photos to compensate for this is in some way recommended. I wasn't all that aware of this until I first ran into it with The Magpie. There are almost no photos that capture the painting as it currently appears in a gallery environment. There are many reasons for this, but the reality is that nobody has yet produced a good image. Of course, this is not always true. The image of Lise with a Parasol is of very high quality, and while I can't confirm that this is how it appears in real life, there are several indications that it is very close. The same cannot be said for Mountain Landscape, of which no existing photo exists that can capture its essence. I can go on, of course. I've recently been investigating a similar problem in other areas, such as voice technology. It turns out the reason women's voices were discredited for a century was in part because voice technology was designed to capture only the voices of men. The same is true for photography, which was designed by white people to capture photos of white people, which presents issues when trying to photograph non-white humans, etc. Every kind of tech has serious limitations, and I think it is reasonable to adjust for them. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The painting is almost two metres wide, and standing in front of it is I'm sure a completely different experience to looking at a tiny reproduction. It seems to be intended as, if not a night scene, then a dusk one anyway. But even in the best galleries, taking round a catalogue or guide book with photos they have no doubt supervised the reproduction of, and comparing to the actual paintings, can be an alarming experience. Oil paintings in particular tend to reproduce too dark; watercolours can be better. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Father Hesburgh and Father Joyce and Word of Life (mural) have been tagged for possible merge. Feedback welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that Word of Life is also known as Touchdown Jesus, a touchdown touchstone of Notre Dame. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)