User talk:ColinFine

I read (here in the teahouse): Please note that publications from any body of which [the subject of a draft] is a member, or of any gallery or museum where she has exhibited, is not regarded as independent, and so will not contribute to establishing notability.

Where a "gallery" is primarily a (would-be) retailer, I agree; where it could be called an "art museum" (cf "national galleries"), I disagree. I wouldn't claim that museums are free from questionable efforts to boost (or conceal) this or that artist (or art trend); but this doesn't have me deprecate museums in general. (Similarly, I've encountered some terrible books from major university presses. I'm now well aware that their books can be poor, but I still start with the assumption that a UP book is worthwhile.)

I've only ever created a measly two GAs, and the more recent by far (2023) is Teikō Shiotani. At the time, there were 52⁄3 books devoted to him or his works; I based the article on 32⁄3. Of the latter, the "two-thirds" book was published in conjunction with a museum exhibition; the three are catalogues of museum exhibitions. This didn't worry me or, I think, the GA reviewer.

Recently I've been working on an article that's a long way short of any GAN. Secondary sources are sparse, aside from two catalogues of exhibitions at noncommercial galleries. I've been making much use of one of these catalogues. (I lack access to a copy of the other.) Is this ... very bad of me? -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 23:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hmm. Yes, I guess I'm overstating it. The bulk of publications about an artist and their work from somewhere that exhibits them will not be independent, but will come from the artist or their associates; but there are sometimes independently-researched essays. It will be important to determine which category the cited material falls into.

Thanks for pointing that out, @Hoary. ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Well, a considerable percentage of publications about, say, a politician and their "work" (with or without those scare quotes) will come not from any authentically independent research but instead from the politician or their associates, via a more or less respected "independent" news source. But we'll usually accept what we get from, say, the Guardian, not merely because that source is plentiful, unhindered by a paywall and (often) the best that Google finds for us, but also because we start by assuming that the Guardian writer, sub-editor, etc will have applied a certain amount of their own scepticism to what they may have been fed by press secretaries, interns, spin doctors, etc. If a Guardian account is incompatible with some other, putatively credible account, then of course we can and should apply our own scepticism. Yes, the interwebs offer an awful lot of promotional and other twaddle about 20th/21st century art, and we shouldn't be too credulous; but neither, I think, need we be more demanding/cynical than about potential sources for other subject areas. -- Hoary (talk)^{WWU 👍︎} 05:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

20:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)