Jump to content

Talk:Alfred Stieglitz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

First sentence of "Early Years" section makes no sense at present -- looks like copy was dropped. I can't tell how to fix. Txensen (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Stieglitz was a great philanthropist and sympathiser with his fellow human beings. He once received a phone call on one of Adams' visits. A man wanted to show Stieglitz some work. He invited him over, looked at the prints, looked at the man in a rather disheveled state of affairs, looked at the work again. He then offered to buy the paintings and gave him a ten dollar bill, told him to get something warm to eat, get cleaned up, and come back so that they could iron out the details. The look in the man's eyes could have been an eternal testament to the kindness that was Alfred Stieglitz."

This passage is awful- not only biased and unverifiable but badly written. Source for this anecdote is also unacknowledged. Any suggestions? Personally, I would delete the whole passage.

I believe the description comes from Ansel Adam's autobiography, however it is not quite as I recall Adams putting it: Stieglitz asked Adams to attend that day, it seemed to me he wanted Adams to bear witness to an act of largesse, which made the whole thing seem phoney to me. Samatarou (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Stieglitz's stopped taking photographs in 1937 due to heart disease. Over the last ten years of his life, he summered at Lake George, New York and worked in a shed he had converted into a darkroom and wintered with O'Keeffe in Manhattan. He died in 1946 at 82, still a staunch supporter of O'Keeffe and she of him."

The last sentence in this paragraph is particularly bad too- a huge over-simplification of a complex relationship, unacknowledged source and certainly not impartial.

Pest247 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He announced that every published image would be a picture, not a photograph—a statement that allowed Stieglitz to determine which was which by his scientific method."

This sentence doesn't make any sense at all, to the extent that I don't even know how to fix it. I might delete it.

It means that not all photographs have artistic merit and are worthy of being published in a journal.

Jwucd (talk)11/25/2007 I agree. This article has serious tone and bias problems. E.g., the paragraph ending with "The look in the man's eyes could have been an eternal testament to the kindness that was Alfred Stieglitz." This is embarrassing. It adds nothing to an encyclopedia biography to include some unknown person's unproven judgments about the subject's inner character and worth as a human being. This is the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name.

Wikipedia is not an obituary or eulogy. Stieglitz may have been second to none as a person, but if it can't be presented in a neutral way, it shouldn't be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwucd (talk • contribs) 06:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think the article needs a total rewrite, the whole thing reads very oddly. For instance, the remark that Stieglitz had an infatuation with younger women - yet there is no corroborating information, not even the age of the wife mentioned in the same sentence. Samatarou (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 1910 it was the Albright Art Gallery. Didn't become Albright-Knox Art Gallery until about 50 years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.194.0 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

As I believe the portion of his work published in the United States before 1923 is PD-US copyright status, perhaps an exaple or two of his better early work might be good to add to the article? -- Infrogmation 20:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain

[edit]

The photo of Duchamp's Fountain doesn't seem at all representative of Stieglitz's art. >>sparkit|TALK<< 21:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this photo is not representative. Since I discovered that a copy of The Steerage and an O'Keefe portrait were available to us, I made the change. The Fountain could also be added back if anyone feels strongly about it. I removed it because I think the page would look too crowded. SteveHopson 21:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a good choice to me. See also my note above. -- Infrogmation 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strand

[edit]

Article says "He was influenced in part by painter Charles Sheeler and photographic newcomer Paul Strand, both of whom he met in 1915." But in fact Strand had been showing Stieglitz his work for several years by then: 1915 is when Stieglitz was sufficiently impressed to give him an exhibition. I don't know when they first met though, but it could have been as early as 1906 which is when Strand first visited a photo seccessionist exhibition there. Samatarou (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this inaccuracy. I've changed the entry to correct this point. Lexaxis7 (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too long!

[edit]

In my opinion, this entire article is about 500% too long... yet it's also lacking in relevant detail. I hope someone with expertise in Stieglitz and editorial skill can rewrite it. Thanks in advance! Tina Kimmel (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

500% too long, huh? So it would have to become negative space in order to be better? I would be interested in learning about what you think is relevant detail - please provide some examples. Like all Wikipedia articles, it's now been edited by many people, so the editorial skills will always vary. But actually, I consulted with two Stieglitz scholars when I wrote the core of the current article. Lexaxis7 (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alfred Stieglitz. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred Stieglitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

As mentioned above, the article has been too long and had tone issues. I have made copy edits to reduce the size of the article - from 71k to 55k - but it is still detailed in places. The article is tagged for needing more sources. I am not sure if some of this is original research or not.—CaroleHenson (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some information about what leads you to believe this article is too long. Stieglitz is one of the most important photographers and art promoters of the early 20th century, and all of the information in the article is relevant to his career. This article is shorter than those of other artists such as Degas, Monet, Pollock, Rothko and many others, so length seems to be a highly subjective measurement. As the author of much of this version of this article, I can assure you that none of it was original research. Lexaxis7 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to know that there's no original research. Since you've worked on the article, perhaps you can help fill in the places where citations are missing with the sources that you used.
I'm just concerned that it will be found to be too long; didn't read by readers because there is so much detail and it's not organized in a way that readers can go directly to a topic of interest (how he promoted photography and modern art, relationship with O'Keeffe, journalist/publisher, Stieglitz's circle, etc.) - instead you really have to read through the entire article. The Degas article is structured like several mini articles - so that the reader can go to the topic of interest - artistic style, sculpture, etc. - and you don't have to read the entire article to get that information. Similarly, the Monet article pinpoints topics, like Impressionism, his style, etc.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred Stieglitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited content

[edit]

There was a LOT of uncited content - much of what looked to be original research. Per {{More citations needed}}, uncited content may be challenged and removed. (Side note: in my opinion, it seems the cleanest way to deal with this much uncited content. A maintenance tag may sit on an article for years... and in the meantime information that may not be correct or may be opinion remains in the article.)

If someone wants to work on finding sources for the uncited content here, that would be lovely. I would do it, but there's way too much.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_Stieglitz&oldid=1194493796"