Talk:New European Painting

New painting

I will try to work on this page in the next few months, all those who are interested are invited to join forces. It is clear that in the 1990s a new painting emerges in Europe with clear connections to American legacy of painting and to European history and questions of archive and traces of the war, and it is clearly different than other categories of painting of that time. This new kind of painting slowly begins in the 1970 in close relations to photography, reaches maturity during the 1980s-1990s, continues into the 21st century and become a distinct infleunce on a new generation of painters. We will have to examine its connection to question of archive - so to artists like Christian Boltanski for example and Jochen Gerz, and to the questions of abstract and color fieldArtethical (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Artethical (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Artethical (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The topic may be valid, but the title may not be, as it states a movement known as "New European Painting". In order to justify that, it is necessary to show that it is an established term for the phenomenon described. A google search[1] indicates that it is not such a term. Failing validation from secondary sources, it becomes a neologism, which is not permitted usage on wikipedia.

In other words, this movement should be clearly named and recognised as such by authoritative sources. Wikipedia cannot initiate the usage of the term, i.e. it cannot invent and name an art movement or bring together the elements of it. All this has to be done in secondary sources, to avoid violating WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH.

Thus, taking the current first sentence:

New European Painting have emerged in the 1970s and has clearly reached a critical point of major distinction and influence in the 1990s with painters like Gerhard Richter,[1] Luc Tuymans and Bracha Ettinger[2] whose painting has created a new dialogue between American Abstraction, figurality and the historical archive.

This may be true, but it is necessary to reference all these statements with sources that not only state these things, but state them in the way recounted here. At the moment this has not been done. If it has been, please provide below the quotations from sources that validate the wiki text.

Ty 14:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this indicate that the term constitutes a movement in art? Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd already checked that out as a possibility. "New European Painting from the Collection" is the title of a show, and descriptive of its contents, but is relative (to the date of the show) and specific (to MoMA). There is no indication that it should be taken with any wider implications or has the usage of defining an art movement. Furthermore, of the artists it highlights (Michaël Borremans, Marlene Dumas, Chris Ofili, Neo Rauch, and Luc Tuymans) only Tuymans is highlighted in this article, and the show doesn't mention Richter and Ettinger, who are in the article lead. There needs to be unambiguous usage of New European Painting by multiple sources with agreement as to its scope, and this is not the case. Ty 15:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

there are 2 real movements in europe that wikipedia ignored. one is the "archivist" art (connected to the new painting) and one is the new painting which is usually concerned as connected to photography, xerox and new madia, also ignored by wikipedia . this new painting is documented in thousands of essays, and in fact; take for example Richter, it is not included in any category and it is surely not the new expressionism and it is this special tendency. I too hesitated about the title - we will need some patience on all this, to build this correctly, as it will take time. I am adding Dumas and Ofili for the moment, feel free to add more - and the references will slowly follow in a joint effort.Artethical (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I agree that perhaps it is not "European" but perhaps simple "New Painting". I am not sure about this yet - it is defined differently in different sources - from New Painting to "New European Painting". There is also the move of "Archive Art" which is already clearly marked in contemporry art history and hasn't a category in Wikipedia. Artethical (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you put in wikipedia needs to have reliable sources that have already said that specific thing, in this case that there is a defined tendency that includes the relevant artists. What sources say categorically there is this tendency "connected to photography, xerox and new media" which includes these specific artists? It is not acceptable to find a source that says artist X is connected to photography etc and another that says artist Y is connected, then to define the movement with these artists in. This is WP:SYNTH. The source has to link the artists in that way. There is no point spending a lot of time and work on this, unless the fundamental of it can be established as sound. Ty 16:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Artethical — in doing a google search for "Archive Art" I am not finding anything. Have you found references for an art movement called "Archive art?" Bus stop (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In Europe it is often referred to a movement of archive "fever" so I corrected. More references will follow in time, I hope to discuss this further in the future. Artethical (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Give artethical some time to figure it out, I think her subject has weight, she needs to find sources...Modernist (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe for reasons of language, American and British art - with lots of documentation in English - gets good representation in wikipedia, while significant and recognized art movement of painting, that has emerged in Germany, France, Belgium, and is largely documented in Dutch, German and French, is not represented in accordance to its historical significance. It will take some time to build this as should be, with more references in English, but I will try in the following months and I hope others will join the efforts. Also, when I have enough documents in English on the tendency of Archive I hope to suggest this too - but in due time. The concept already exists mainly in France and Germany from around the 90s as well, and gaining weight, and if we think on the artists involved in both these movements - both, I think, merit attention and are already historical. The new painting is connected to American Abstraction and to some British artists of the same generation in interesting ways.I hope to put enough references to this too, including writings by Rosalind Krauss, Griselda Pollock, Hal Foster, Jacques Derrida (trying to find the English translations), Jean-Francois Lyotard and more. Artethical (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there is a direct connection via their abstract paintings between Jules Olitski, Walter Darby Bannard, Larry Poons, Bill Pettet and other American painters and Gerhard Richter and other European painters all of whom I would characterize as doing Lyrical Abstraction, although we still need to find secondary sources for use on wikipedia. Although the other aspects of Richter's work which depends on photography doesn't directly coincide with American abstraction, but then his landscape paintings do, there are simply many connections that need to be discussed...Modernist (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There are all these connections to be discussed and traced. Even the figural here can be traced to the legacy and potentiality of lyrical abstraction - and there is literature to support this kind of connection (to be inserted, to be continued). There are existing sources on the two tracks: the lyrical abstraction track and the photography/xerox/digital media with the archive fever track.Artethical (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Artethical (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This article appears to be a violation of WP:NOR, namely "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position", namely a specific art movement that has certain parameters, which therefore include and exclude particular artists. I'm not disputing that there is valid information which has a place on wiki (somewhere), but I am questioning the current way it is being used and presented. Please present a proposal for a way forward, as the article is ripe for AfD at the moment. Foreign language sources are acceptable where no English language equivalent exists. Ty 20:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all the remarks - my desire is to make this page a good page that can evolve and serve the community of readers. I have first put some sources as a general bibliography - will have to return to these sources and to others and put quotes here - will attend to this more precisely when I am back to the library - will try to do this by the end of this month.Artethical (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First attempt to reply to the request for citations (If more is needed I will continue the research). According to the historical book that accompanied the exhibition Face a l'Histoire in Pompidou Centre, Paris [Centre george Pompidou / Flammarion, 1996, that suggested a certain organising of Europen art into periods from 1933 onward with Curators Jean-Paul Ameline, Brigitte Leal, Marc Bormand (1960-1979) and Chris Dercon (1980-1996)], the period 1980-1996 in painting, with emphasize on Richter and on Ettinger, opens a new page. Each of these two opens a different new page. The arguments are in pp. 535-547 of the book. Citation below. I begin with actual citation is in Amir Khatib, editorial in page 22 of a recent Universal Colours 4-5, 2009: "Ettinger is associated with contemporary painting (Richter, Tuymans) and with "archivist" research in art (Messager, Boltanski)" at <http://www.eu-man.org/magazine/409.pdf>. Quotations by art historian Griselda Pollock): "Bracha L. Ettinger's artistic ouevre has already gained major historical significance " (in Introduction, The Matrixial Borderspace, 2006, p. 25.) In the French version of this book from 1999 she writes (translated freely): "The influence of her oeuvre is already considerable...source of considerable inspiration for the young generation of artists...artistic practice with major historical implications that radically opens new perspective... that inscribes her in the most distinguished milieu of contemporary artists that deal with trauma, memory..." (p. 7-8). And: "painting after painting...interrupting the reproduction process of photocopy... using potocopic dust...This movement takes roots of necessity in a moment of rupture. . . in modernity. . . With this work (Ettinger in 1985) started a long meditation on...the atrocities of History". Griselda Pollock, in Face a l'Histoire (Centre G. Pompidou, Paris, 1996, pages 535-540), p. 538. See also University of Puerto Rico at <http://cmcep.uprrp.edu/Bracha_Ettinger/index.html> Quotations by Stefan Germer on Gerhard Richter, in Face a l'Histoire (Centre G. Pompidou, Paris, 1996, pages 544-547, freely translated): "The point of departure of most of Richter's ouevres is the exact transcription of photographic sources on canvas, but its form of painting emerges exclusively from the destruction of the basic material... when it opens a certain distance from the photographic interpretation...Painting affirms itself vis-a-vis photography. . .these paintings...escapes our quick categories...". See also Gerhard Richter on the site of Staatliche Kunstsammlungen: "Gerhard Richter counts among the world's most important and at the same time most popular contemporary artists. His oeuvre has had a not inconsiderable influence on younger generations of artists." (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen) <http://www.skd-dresden.de/en/info/Gerhard_Richter_Archiv/gerhard_richter.html>. I still look for appropriate quotations for Tuymans. Artethical (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations by Benjamin Buchloh on Richter will follow. Artethical (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The individual assertions are not contested. What has not yet been shown is that sources put these together in a coherent movement with specific characteristics involving key artists. Otherwise we are looking at a violation of WP:SYNTH by making that definitive coherence here, where it has not been generally made as such elsewhere. Ty 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I took out the demand for references in 3 places - if you need them please put them back. The major first source I know of is the Face a l'histoire book, that states this major turn in the history of European painting and locates it in the 80-90 with Richter and with Ettinger in a major way starting in the 80s. [but it also mentions Tuymans (from 96)], this in a context where most other artists discussed (for that specific contemporary new period) are not painters. I need to continue the research for more citations, so I left the demand for other citation in its place. Artethical (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Artethical (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Good job so far - keep going...Modernist (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot to say about the connection of this European painting to the American modern painting, a connection that seemed to be ruptured. I will bring more reference as time goes by, but here is from a reference added to the page, with a citation: Art historian Alison Rowly is one of the art historians who has established, after Griselda Pollock, the connection between American art and especially "Color Field" in the 1950-1960 and Ettinger (in her book Helen Frankenthaler: Painting History, Writing painting (I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2007). Rowly works on the connection between Abstract Painting's "end of painting" – with the painting of such painters as Helen Frankenthaler, Robbert Morris and Kenneth Noland – and the painting of Ettinger in the 1980-1990 that allows a new understanding of the American Abstract and mainly Color Field: "Morris Louis and Kenneth Noland led painting to its eventual end ...(connected to)...Warhal's death of the subject of painting... At the site of Helen Frankenthaler's practice however painting and the painting subject never quite died...In contact with Brcha Lichtenberg Ettinger practice today...the connection, impossible to name in the cultural and political environment of New York in the 1955, between painting and its name...emerges in the 1990 in the work of Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger as it re-engages with the structural possibilities of modern painting". (pp. 125-130). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artethical (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC) There are so many references to the connections of the painting of Richter to questions of American art in the 1950-60 that it seems almost impossible to know where to start, but I will bring few citations in the near future. I also believe that the Archival tendency will need to be addressed some time in the future - a very significant European move. Thanks. Artethical (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

None of this addresses the post I made above, which I repeat: "This article appears to be a violation of WP:NOR, namely 'any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position', namely a specific art movement that has certain parameters, which therefore include and exclude particular artists. I'm not disputing that there is valid information which has a place on wiki (somewhere), but I am questioning the current way it is being used and presented. Please present a proposal for a way forward, as the article is ripe for AfD at the moment."

I am not contesting individual points made about Ettinger or about Richter, but about the synthesis of these points along with others to present a coherent theory of a definable movement. Unless this theory has been made explicitly by significant sources, it cannot be the basis for an article.

There could be some other basis for an article to include these points, e.g. "European painting since 1980" (this is just an example, not a suggestion), but that would encompass other tendencies also, not just those which the current article is aiming for.

Ty 01:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New European Painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070313213644/http://www.beyondbooks.com:80/art11/index.asp to http://www.beyondbooks.com/art11/index.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)