Jump to content

Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe

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

To see the status of all the discussion about the article improvement through July 13, 2023 on this page, see #Article improvement progress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For requests starting July 20, 2023, see #Native Scholar’s Questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible New Outline

[edit]

Hi fellow Wikipedians!

I am a fellow intern at the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum. I have been task with creating pages of those in her circle that do not have one. However, I have noticed, like some on this talk page that this page could use some improvement. There is a lot of great info on here, but it can be more organized and concise so it does not overwhelm the reader. I myself am asking how to frame such information and created a solid outline. Any suggestions and help will be much appreciated!

Outline

Intro - Possibly only 2 paragraphs long, the intro dives into her bio which gets repeated later on, I think this can be edited to more of a summary.

Early Life

Education and Early Career

Career (These titles can be/should be workshopped) 

    -Move to New York, Flowers & Sky Scrapers 1918-1929 
    -Brief Hiatus, Visits to New Mexico, Landscapes 1930-1949 
    -Permanent Move to New Mexico, Above Clouds I  1950-1969 
    -Pottery work, Career End  1970-1986

Awards & Honors

Legacy

Personal Life 

    -Marriage  (Details of marriage how it relates to her work and how it affected her,                               maybe also how she handled Steiglitz's estate and work)
    -Abiquiu & Ghost Ranch ?
    -Travel 
    -Decline in Health

Paintings

Notes: In the early thirties she did struggle with mental health due to certain factors in her life, I do think this should be included I am not sure if it needs its own paragraph, but instead intertwined with other sections since it did affect her work and future decisions.

Also, the Affairs paragraph seems unnecessary especially since there is only confirmed proof that Stieglitz was the one that had extramarital affairs. The first paragraph states her and Frida had an affair, but the rest of the paragraphs are speculation. However, I would like to include O'Keeffe's relationships(not necessarily romantic) with other artist, like interactions with Frida, Warhol, etc. Maybe in legacy?

I also am not sure if "flowers as vulvas needs its own paragraph, since she rejected that theory, however it should definitely be mentioned. I am wondering if Flowers, Sky Scrapers, Landscapes, should have its own paragraph. I know a couple of of the works have their own page, but not sure if it is necessary, we can include that info in her main page instead.

This outline is not perfect but it can be a start to improve the page. Interested to here feedback. Thanks!! Orangesky6791 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that there's good / helpful content here, so I'll respond to that and see what you and others think:
  • Maybe "Mental health" and part of "Hospitalization" could be combined?  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break out the recuperation, visits, etc. into another subsection  Done Put visits info into "Relationship"–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed "Affairs" to "Relationships"... and the content can be summarized and expanded where helpful, perhaps picking up some of the friendship themes under Hospitalization
  • I changed the Vulvas\criticism to just Criticism, a common and really essential section for an artist of note whose work was trend-setting. For a criticism section, the key point is to summarzie the key theories
  • Regarding I am wondering if Flowers, Sky Scrapers, Landscapes, should have its own paragraph. I know a couple of of the works have their own page, but not sure if it is necessary, we can include that info in her main page instead. I am not sure what you mean. I know you say "paragraph", but my mind keeps going to images. If it's about the Paintings section, images can be grouped like they are in Ukiyo-e. For instance, see Ukiyo-e#Late flowering: flora, fauna, and landscapes (19th century). There a several ways to go about grouping images, with the biggest variation being between the use of {{Multiple images}} templates or Gallery formats that float a bit depending upon how much the user zooms in and out of the page. I hope that makes sense. If it's about just breaking large paragraphs into separate paragraphs, that's easy.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comments and changes to try out

[edit]
Orangesky6791, Thanks for your interest in the Georgia O'Keeffe article! There are a number of things here, so I'll take them one at a time:
  • The intro is similar to what is written for WP:Good articles - giving the reader a really good overview. If a given reader would rather dive right into the content, they can go to the relevant section. IMO, it is good to have a thorough intro for a long article. It would be good to hear, though, from other users about whether it should be trimmed down as well.
  • My initial take is that some of the suggested headings are kind of long... and some are not in the standard sequence. For instance, Legacy is usually at the end of the section about her life and career.
  • I made the change to the "Education and early career" heading, pulling it out of Career - as you suggested
  • I pulled the "Criticism" and "Awards and honors" - so no longer subsections of Career - as you suggested
  • The remaining subsections under Career need a bit more work, because it's not going to be as easy as just adding the years to the headings - and the headings will a bit wordy to add the suggested changes
  • I moved "Career end" content to a new Career subsection "Later years" (could be last, end, etc.)
  • Combined "Death" and "Estate settlement" into "Death and estate settlement" (without the Career end info) under "Personal life"
If you are good with those changes, the only headings to work out are, placement of:
  • Paintings
  • Legacy
  • Publications
  • The subsections under "Personal life"
As a kind of disclaimer, I am making really easy changes for suggestions that I agree with and my suggested handling of end career, death, estate settlement, which involved movement of text. The headings can be changed easily - hopefully with discussion on this talk page.
Right now the Table of contents (aka outline) is:
Contents
–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated some heading changes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed outline for proper line feeds and broke out "Comments and changes to try out" - get a start on the low-hanging fruit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson This is a great start! First on the COI, since there is a conflict, I want to state that I will not be directly editing on this page. Any edits will be on the talk page, and I will leave it up to you and other editors to add it, or at the very least discuss and make changes.
For the intro I understand that an overview is important, but I do think it needs work since it mainly talks about her early career, and then the last sentence is how much a painting sold for, it just seems a bit random. But maybe this is one of the places we can start!
The career subsections do need work, but maybe we can start improving the content and then find a better title for them?
Like I said I will only be working on the talk page and I will include citations as well. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
(I indented this previous post to make it easier to read. See WP:TALKGAP.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orangesky6791 Thanks for your feedback about how you anticipate working on Wikipedia, which is inline with Wikipedia's guidelines.
Regarding the intro, you comments make more sense to me. I see your point. If you'd like to take a stab at a draft for the intro, feel free. You can then submit it in it's own section / topic, using {{Request edit}}.
Regarding the career subsections, yes, it seems like that may need some conversation, and {{Request edit}} may be a good way to go. Another option is to start a draft or sandbox page for the Career section and work on that in an off-line manner.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orangesky6791, A thought... Since it seems like you are most concerned about the verbiage in the Intro and Career sections. What do you think about working on that, and I'll work on the Personal life section, specifically about her health, hospitalization, career stuff in the Hospital section.
Then, tackle the new named Relationship section.
One thing to bear in mind... which I think you are likely already sensitive to... This is an encyclopedia artice that intends to pick up salient points about the subject's life and career in an objective manner, and not necessarily as she would talk about it if she were alive. That means avoiding peacock type of language and leaving in content that might be sensitive. Does that make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and looked at the Hospitalization and Relationship sections and there were common sense fixes that need to occur. So, I pulled her post-recuperation work info out of "Hospitalization" and put it in "New Mexico" just after the mention of her having a nervous breakdown and taking a break from painting here. And, I put relationship/friendship information into the "Relationships" section here. So, that's done and flows better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson This all sounds great! Stay tune in the near future for the Intro and career edits.
Yes! This makes perfect sense and something I plan on actively keeping that in mind. My goal is not to hype up O'Keeffe or keep sensitive topics at bay. As I have been looking at O'Keeffe's page and other artists page (specifically those who are women,) I have just noticed the structure to be a bit disorienting, or information that is cited, but the citation does not include what was written, etc. I understand that this is difficult because there is so much information out there, especially about O'Keeffe, and its difficult to keep it organized.
There is also a lot of complex content, relationship with Steiglitz, criticisms on her work, etc. For example O'Keeffe rejected that the flower paintings depicted vulvas, so she personally might not want it on her page, however, that theory ties into a lot of criticisms she faced by male critics which was tied into this idea of "feminine art." On the other hand there are artists that were inspired by the idea that it had vulva symbolism. Because of that theory's impact, it probably should be on the page.
The point of that ramble is I just want to help make an accurate, clear page that can also highlight the complexities of her work and her life. I also am looking forward to hear everyone's input. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
(I indented this previous post to make it easier to read. See WP:TALKGAP. Please add one more colon than the previous post.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orangesky6791, All great points! I like your intention and perspective!
If you need help starting a sandbox (see Wikipedia:Sandbox) for drafts (like bring across the code for citations, etc.), let me know. You can make changes you want in a sandbox, and then when it's finalized a user, perhaps me, can copy it into article space (with conversation about what is happening on the article talk page).–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input: Intro and Career subsections

[edit]

@Modernist, Mandarax, TheMindsEye, PDH, Coldcreation, Skyerise, Ppt91, DocWatson42, Paleolith, and Mageeking:, you are on this list if you are among the top ten editors of the article, made recent salient changes, or posted on this talk page about improvements to the article. Anyone not on this list are, of course, welcome to comment, too.

A new, self-described close contributor Orangesky6791 - an intern from the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum - started the #Possible New Outline conversation yesterday about the order and naming of sections, summarization of the introduction, and reworking the subsections under "Career". Currently, with my input, it most resembles a wall of text, so I will break it down here a bit.

I took care of some common sense edits + ones I agreed with regarding some of the section headings names and placement (pulling out some sections that had been under "Career", shortening one heading to "Criticism", changing "Affairs" to "Relationships", now including personal and professional relationships, and redistributing content that was under "Hospitalization" to "Career" and "Relationships") here.

In my opinion, there are three key open issues, that would be great to get your input on:

  • Summarization of (or changes to) the introduction section, particularly O'Keeffe's early career.
  • An optimal way to group the content and sections under Career (e.g., phases, group of years, types of works, other), perhaps moving groups of images — {{Multiple images}}, in a gallery — from "Paintings" to the (new) sections–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approach for the Criticism section - are any changes needed?

If you have time, your input is very much appreciated about any of these three items or thoughts you might have about improving the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Orangesky6791 does not intend making any direct changes to the article, is interested in feedback, and could submit {{request edit}} or use a sandbox to draft up revised language for review before being posted (e.g., in my opinion, an optimal close contributor approach). And, we have discussed use of objective, encyclopedic content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit about moving / grouping paintings.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 and Reception grouping (Orangesky6791's initial post is Option 1)

[edit]
@CaroleHenson thank you for the ping! I actually was hoping we could discuss the current structure a bit more as I think the article would benefit from some reorganizing. I think the current structure is not only hard to follow, but also suffers from repetitions and there simply is too much happening. My suggestion (of course all of it open to feedback).
  • Early life and career
    • Education
    • Early work
  • New York (1916—1929)
    • Stieglitz circle
    • Flower paintings
  • New Mexico (1929—1986)
    • Taos
    • Abiquiú
  • Personal life
    • Marriage and relationships
    • Mental health
    • Death and estate settlement
  • Reception
    • Criticism
    • Legacy
This is obviously very much a draft and I realize there are issues here (like periodizing New York till 1929 when she still returned almost annually), but hopefully it's a start. Also, I'd either get rid of "Criticism" as a separate section (it seems to take away from her accomplishments and places undue weight on the opinions of her critics) and instead include it in a section titled "Reception" along with other relevant scholarship. Looking forward to hearing what others think. Ppt91talk 19:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91, I really like the Reception section for Criticism and Legacy. I moved Criticism down and grouped it with Legacy, under the new "Reception" to try it on for size from the talk page - seems like a very good, common sense approach. Changes made here, and open for discussion.
It will good to hear from others, too, about the Career section and your other suggestions. Thanks for the work you put into that!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91, Would it make sense to add "Awards and honors" to the "Reception" grouping?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson Thank you! And yes, that sounds great to me. Looking forward to hearing what others think about the rest and always open to help/discuss any of the above in more detail. Ppt91talk 19:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91, Okay, that's done. Hopefully another nice low-hanging fruit item that doesn't require a lot of debate. This is the diff for the current "Reception" section and subsections.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppt91 The "Reception" section is great and putting "Criticism" under that section makes a ton of sense. I know the "Career," section is very tricky, partly because she went back and forth and traveled quite a bit in her lifetime. For the New York part we could have the last few sentences of that section state that since 1929 she would travel back and forth from NY to NM, and did not permanently move away until after Stieglitz's death. That definitely should not be verbatim and should be workshopped, but just an idea. Also, could we include Skyscrapers underneath New York part as well? I see a possibility of adding more underneath New Mexico, for example a later years subsection that talks about her transition to pottery? But I definitely would like to hear more feedback from everyone. Thank you both for all the suggestions and time you have been putting into this page! To me the page is already so much better! Can't wait to hear more feedback and suggestions. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
@Ppt91:: Just to note two typos: You've used em dashes in place of en dashes in the year ranges. ^_^; —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is also true in the #Discussion subsection below. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Option 3 - High level career sections

[edit]
@Orangesky6791 Really good comments, thank you! I agree that Career is tricky and you're absolutely right about NY/NM, in addition to other travel. I would be happy to adjust it accordingly, and think more about dating, though I thought that perhaps in the meantime we could come up with an update to the current structure that would improve readability without compromising the content (a lot of which is obviously very good). How does the following division sound?
  • Early life and education
  • Career
    • Early work
    • New York
    • New Mexico
    • Late career
(I am only focusing on career now, with Personal life to follow once we have a consensus here.)
We could revisit dates at a later time, so that we don't have to worry about pinpointing specific years during times of frequent travels, but rough chronology could be Early life and education ending in 1916 (first important exhibition), which would be followed by Early work and and we can then keep the beginning of New York as it is. As for Skyscrapers, it could be a subsection of New York with Taos or Abiquiú becoming subsections of New Mexico. (@Orangesky6791 I fully agree that her skyscraper work should be discussed separately due to its unusual character, closer to the iconography of Precisionism in its focus on technology and the bustling modern city than it is to the rest of her nature-driven work.) Also, I am usually not in favor of doing too many subsections, but considering how much she has traveled and how important many of these specific geographic locations were for her, it seems perfectly fine to have more subdivisions in the article.
I think that once we arrive at a mutually agreeable structure and then divide the work up amongst ourselves, bringing this up to at least GA-level is very much within our reach. :-)
@CaroleHenson and @DocWatson42 curious to hear your thoughts (and, of course, other editors who would like to continue collaborating on the project). Ppt91talk 18:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppt91: and others, I absolutely see that as workable, with some overlaps.
I don't mean to throw a curve ball, but I have been thinking about this since the draft that had flowers as a subsection. I wonder if it makes sense to divide the career section by type of work: abstract shapes, flowers, southwestern (animal horns, etc.), and skyscrapers. That would take the need to categorize things by dates, which overlap.
If that doesn't make sense, I am fine with the proposed subsections.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Option 4 - Career subsections by themes

[edit]
@CaroleHenson I definitely like the idea of thematizing the work overall (per my sentiment on skyscrapers) and I wonder if we could include each subject matter you mentioned as a separate subsection? Maybe even remove the section Career altogether and just go by geographical locations with relevant subsections for themes?
Abstractions could be placed under Early work, placing emphasis on the work mailed to Stieglitz in 1916 and subsequent interest in the city, and Skyscrapers and Flowers under New York. While she began the flowers during the 1920s, they obviously became her landmark iconography throughout the career and it might make for a good and logical transition from NY to NM. Then we could move to Animal skulls and Landscape imagery featured prominently in her late 1930s paintings and Portraits of the 1940s. Later 1960s abstractions could be discussed under Late work. Something like this:
  • Early life and education
    • Abstractions
  • New York
    • Skyscrapers
    • Flowers
  • New Mexico
    • Animal skulls
    • Landscape
    • Portraits
    • Late career
If we'd like to keep some date ranges, we can be more generous, for example: New York (1916—1930s); New Mexico (1930s—1984).
I realize this isn't perfect, of course, but finding a workable chronological/iconographic framework is quite challenging for O'Keeffe, as we all know. Let me know what you think and whether you feel comfortable with such structure? I'd like to make sure I am not imposing too much, as my only goal is to just get the ball rolling on improving the article. :-) Ppt91talk 15:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really like that format! I think it would be nice to have a small groupings of works under each section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun and illustrative purposes:

  • Abstractions
  • Blue and Green Music
    Blue and Green Music
  • Blue 2
    Blue 2
  • Sunrise
    Sunrise
  • The Flag
    The Flag

–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added some captions, but it would be good to have fuller captions (e.g., year, musuem).–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you are going to use mixed portrait and landscape images, the heights and widths should be equal; and the "perrow" parameter should be deleted. It's unnecessary here (since there are only four images), and an undesirable limitation for wide browser windows. See also Help:Gallery tag#Usage notes for a further minor note. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Do you have a suggestion for a good way to present the images (multiple image template, image frame, other methods?)–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have used the image map a couple of time and find that a fun way to manage portrait and landscape images. See Ukiyo-e, the first group of images.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

[edit]

@Modernist, Mandarax, TheMindsEye, PDH, Coldcreation, Skyerise, Ppt91, CaroleHenson, Paleolith, and Mageeking: I'm a peripatetic editor without a strong attachment to this article, though I did just find things I missed on my first visit, and made changes to correct those. I hope those changes meet with your collective approval. As for the rest of the article's structure, I'm agnostic about the text, though the images still clump together a bit too much for my liking in the "Career" section on my (very wide) monitor. But that's a fairly minor thing to me. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everyone is okay with me breaking this sections into subsections for navigational purposes. If not, let me know and I'll take them out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson Thanks so much for dividing this up into several posts and doing the heavy lifting on the talk page! It seems to me that only a few editors have responded at all, so perhaps we can send another courtesy ping to @DocWatson42 and @Orangesky6791 in case they'd like to chime in? Of course, if anyone feels strongly about the suggestions above, I'd be open to hear and adjust accordingly. Otherwise, I think we have demonstrated enough WP:DGF to move on with constructive work. :-) Ppt91talk 19:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppt91, DocWatson42, and Orangesky6791:, that makes sense. I checked around yesterday and found about half of the people that were pinged for input haven't been on Wikipedia lately or just sporadically. A few are entrenched with other types of work. I think we have the core group.
How does that sound to the two of you? What do you think of Option 4, or do you favor another approach?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Option 4 with a chronological/thematic division is probably the best way to start. I also am feeling a bit more enthusiastic about doing general year ranges primarily to benefit an unfamiliar reader, but happy to hold off based on how others are feeling. Finally, I made edits to my previous list of subject matter names for better clarity and to reflect a more appropriate art historical tone. A slightly amended version of Option 4 included below, pending approval and open to any adjustments. :-)
  • Early life and education (1887—1916)
    • First abstractions
  • New York (1916—1930s)
    • Skyscraper paintings
    • Flower paintings
  • New Mexico (1930s—1986)
    • Skull iconography
    • Desert landscapes
    • Portraits
    • Late career
ps. Not strictly related to the structure, but in terms of content, it'd be lovely to get access to the catalogue for the most recent show at MoMA... I'll inquire at my library and can try ILL if needed.
Ppt91talk 20:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppt91 and @CaroleHenson I think this is great! Of course there might be little changes as we keep working on it, but I think this is going in the right direction, and also quite the improvement compared to the the original outline. Maybe we can work in a paragraph before and after the subsections, for example a paragraph before "skyscraper paintings," that could summarize her transition to NY, paragraph after "Flower paintings," that introduces her travel to NM, etc. Thoughts? I am hoping to work on the intro this weekend and maybe have it slightly reflect the structure of the page, if that makes sense. Stay tuned for that, sorry its taking awhile! This is very exciting, thank you both! (Orangesky6791 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Glad that we're coming to a really good workable approach. I don't think that we need content to bridge into the next section, but it would be good to see an example. It could be that I'm just having a hard time seeing what you are thinking.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangesky6791 and Ppt91: I really like it!
Regarding the catalogue, there are pictures of each wall in the exhibition at MOMA, and then under that the works that are being shown. I'd be happy to go through that and make a list of works.
For something like List of works by Georgia O'Keeffe–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked on SIRIS and there are a lot of "works" pages, about 1,200 - that's another option. Just trying to think about how / if that list could be a bit focused (not so long, is what I really mean to say. I am not up for taking that on at the moment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found out than the list of works can be filtered by place (New Mexico, New York, Peru...). So that makes it a lot more workable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangesky6791 and Ppt91:, Should we move forward with the sections - just creating the sections and moving applicable text - for the moment? I am happy to work on it, but if someone prefers to do it, go for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to get to it until later tonight, so if you'd like to go ahead, I am in full support! Ppt91talk 22:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91, that would be pretty soon. You've done so much work on these drafts, it seems right to leave it to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson@Ppt91 With my resources I might be able to get that list without you having to do all that work. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Excellent, thanks, Orangesky6791!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson @DocWatson42 @Orangesky6791 Just made the changes (here is the diff) and corrected the dashes for date ranges. I also did some minor copy editing when moving content around, slightly amended subsection titles to fit well with the current text (Skull and desert motifs, for instance), and also made minor changes to Reception and Legacy. There was some content that belonged to Reception and Legacy, so once I moved it, I ended up doing some cleaning in terms of organization. I realize the last part was more of a WP:BOLD move on my end, but I am obviously open to adjust based on your feedback and receptive to any criticism if you think it should be discussed in more detail.
Once we feel comfortable with the above, I was wondering if it might be a good idea to chat more about the Personal life section before moving into further content editing? I certainly agree that the section is very important, but I think it would be useful to do some brainstorming on how to reduce the number of subsections to avoid redundancies, especially when one considers the very detailed biographical information in career sections. It seems that Marriage, Mental health, and Relationships are probably the ones which deserve their own subsections, while Transition, Travels, and Death and estate settlement can be merged into existing content in career and Reception. Thoughts?
Thanks all for amazing teamwork. I am really excited for this project and looking forward to working together on the article. :-)
Ppt91talk 15:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, Ppt91! Great flow for the New York and New Mexico subsections! Thanks so much for that. Your points about edits to the Personal life section make sense to me.
I would like to work on creating a grouping of images for each subsection - and eliminating the "Paintings" section if you all are good with that.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson Thanks! And sorry that I forgot to address your comment about images--absolutely agree with you. It will be much easier to have a grouping/gallery for each relevant section. Would you be opposed to leaving a few images in the text throughout the article if they are immediately relevant (one or two per subsection)? Ppt91talk 15:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91, Yes, of course. If a current image doesn't go into one of the groupings, I intend to leave it in its place.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppt91 I feel like a broken record, but this is looking great. Yes, the Personal information needing work is an understatement. I absolutely agree that transition, travels, etc. can be a part of career and reception. I do just want to make note that some of the information in Marriage and Relationship, I believe is not 100% accurate. Whenever we get to edit this section I just encourage everyone to follow the citations and read the source, I do not think it necessarily matches with what is being stated. There has been speculation on certain topics but from what I know there is no confirmation on what is being stated on this page. I need to do more research and would like to know what you all think. Also this is not the biggest priority right now, just wanted to put it out there. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
@Orangesky6791 This is a very good point, especially in regard to the Relationships content. Given we seem to be in agreement with some of these editorial changes, I went ahead with another WP:BOLD move and merged some of the content from other subsections into relevant career sections (here is the diff if you would like to make any additional changes).
As for Relationships, I placed two tags on top of the section, as it sounds too speculative and, as @Orangesky6791 noticed, requires a lot of work. @CaroleHenson@DocWatson42 I hope you are okay with this, because the subject of O'Keeffe's personal relationships has been a contentious one and we need to provide more context with specific biographers and the evidence they provided.
For example, Eisler's conclusions about O'Keeffe's being bisexual were seen as "startling revelations" when her biography was first published etc. So we need to tread carefully and it will likely take some more research. It's best to keep the readers aware that the current content is not entirely reliable. Ppt91talk 14:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I am fine with it. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the tags at the top of the section, Ppt91. I put the ones at the end of the first paragraph into inline citations. I meant to have an inline tag for "bisexual" and made a mistake. Since you placed the tag at the very end of the paragraph, I thought you might have meant the same.
I would be interested in drafting new language for bisexuality, if that's okay with you. I know that you and OrangeSky have opinions about that paragraph, too, and your feedback is important. Would that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See #Accuracy and Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/bisexuality draft–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up a reference, plus punctuation (per MOS:CURLY and MOS:RANGE). Also, despite their quasi-standardization in Good Articles I'm afraid I find the use of "References" and (especially) "Bibliography" as section titles to be problematic. "References" on its own is fine, but "Bibliography" is used for both lists of creators' publications, and of general references and of cited works. I prefer unambiguously self-explanatory titles, such as "Citations" and "General and cited references", so that casual users know what the sections are for. (Please pardon me—this is a pet peeve.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that my strengths include copy editing and bibliographies/formatting references, and less drafting first drafts. (Thus the WikiDee and WikiFairy templates on my user page.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I should take a step back from the editing of this section because of my ties with GOK Museum. From my research it seemed like this was more speculation than fact. I believe most of the speculation about O'Keeffe's affairs and bisexuality came from the contents of her personal letters which have been disputed for quite sometime. I am seeing several Wikipedia pages where speculation is seen as a factual evidence, like Pollitzer, Kahlo, etc. I personally find it frustrating because it seems very sensationalized and takes away the complexities and realities of this time. But because of my feelings towards this I do not think I should be a primary editor to this section. I also want to say that the book Foursome by Carolyn Burke, might also be a good resource to use on this section. I have yet to finish it, but it is one of the more recent publications on this topic. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Orangesky6791 My gut reaction is that the reasons you state for feeling you should step back are the reasons that I think you should be here.
I appreciate that you provided a book to review. I will take a look at it. It would be good to know what else you would be looking at for sources for this section.
If there's something in the work page Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/bisexuality draft that you don't think has solid footing, that would be helpful to know. If you know of someone who tells a different side of her sexuality, that would be good to know.
I started this without any bias at all. I didn't even go back and read the Relationship section so I could come in clear-headed. I hope you stay, but understand whatever you decide. –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I wasn't going to say the words that "she's a bisexual", but I did/do intend to say what has been printed that characterizes her interest in men and women. Saying one is bisexual is a very personal statement - and I don't think we should be saying it if she didn't say it about herself.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangesky6791 I agree fully with @CaroleHenson. Wikipedia welcomes experts and there are various initiatives that encourage direct participation from non-profit institutions, especially WP:GLAM when it comes to museums.
I think that because you have declared your COI and are being forthcoming about any potential issues, your participation will be a valuable addition to the page. That said, I understand how direct editing could be construed as COI given your affiliation, so as long as you provide the material here or in sandbox/drafts, we're fine. Our job is always to summarize information from WP:RS and your connection to GOK Museum offers access to a number of resources, including older book publications, which would otherwise be hard to get.
As for the bisexuality debate, I think we need to include both sides, i.e. how these letters have been used by researchers and scholars and what conclusions were drawn as well as how others reacted to it. Anything beyond that will be WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS.
All of this is my long way of saying: I hope you can stay onboard and help us tremendously by providing and summarizing any relevant information you think needs to be included along with sources. :-)
Ps. I have my own views on COI and think that the current guidelines are confusing and restricting, but that's a separate conversation... Ppt91talk 20:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91, Makes sense to me. I am going to do a little more research and then will start writing up a draft. It would be really helpful to get your feedback as well, including about the usefulness, or not, of using letters for evidence... and now based on the info that I've been finding in research to see if you have other sources that I should be looking at. Also, feel free to go ahead and made edits to the document.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson great, thank you! I'll monitor the page and will be happy to give any suggestions/brainstorm ideas. As for letters, I think that we might inadvertently risk getting too close to WP:OR in this particular context because of how contentious the debate surrounding these letters has been. I will double check the sources, though, to make sure we're not missing anything more recent...
Re lead, given that @Orangesky6791 expressed some concerns with the introductory paragraphs, I went ahead and edited the first paragraph by using some of the content from my recent GA Summer Days (Georgia O'Keeffe) which is in turn taken from a good and reliable article on the artist from the Met Heilbrunn Timeline.
I think that the page in general relies too heavily on "Georgia O'Keeffe". Biography Channel. A&E Television Networks. August 26, 2016. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2017., which has 20 footnotes as of now; it is technically a reliable source but there are so many alternatives that I think we can probably drop it altogether, especially thinking about GA-criteria.
Curious to hear your thoughts on the updated first lead paragraph. Feel free to edit accordingly! Ppt91talk 20:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91, Sounds great! Let me know when to look at the intro. I am still plowing ahead on relationships / sexuality.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson @Ppt91I definitely plan on staying onboard, I just was not sure of my role on this particular topic of relationships. Thank you both for your comments! I will be more than happy to give suggestion/brainstorm as well. I do want to make another note. This has kind of been a personal side project on my, so right now there are a couple of other projects I have been working on. Apologies for not contributing a whole lot or taking while to reply. I am hoping to have some more free time soon! (Orangesky6791 (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Orangesky6791, Sounds good!
If we could stop this conversation here, that would be great! I get so lost in these long sections. If it doesn't related to any of the specific topics that already have sections (images, accuracy, checkered dress, dashes, etc.), if you could start a new section at the end, that would be sublime.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson: I agree—Wikipedia isn't ideal for long, threaded conversations. In catching up, I've started using (as I sometimes have in the past) the History function to view the changes to this page, edit by edit. That might be helpful to you as well. —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second Ppt91talk's edit of 20:16 ET, 3 July 2023 in reply to Orangesky6791 ("I agree fully with @CaroleHenson."...). —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent for readability, it will distinguish this discussion from the next, earlier post.

@Ppt91, @Orangesky6791, and DocWatson42:Of course, we should check anything in the article that is questionable. In the short run, you can add a tag for anything that you question, like {{Accuracy dispute}} with the date, {{Accuracy dispute|date=July 2023}}.

In fact, I would prefer that since you already know that there are some issues. It would call out what we need to work on - and notify readers in the meantime that a statement is being challenged. I will add one to the content about bisexuality.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppt91, CaroleHenson, and Orangesky6791: It doesn't look bad, but I do prefer reasonably easily read/editable code (I use source editing, thus some separation is useful), so if you would be so kind would you please add two carriage returns before each image so that they are easily found, or one before the second image in a group, as the case may be? (Based on this edit; specifically before File:Rotunda at the University of Virginia and File:Georgia O'Keeffe UVa.jpg.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DocWatson42, I put rows in the image groupings / galleries and before and after free-standing files. Good to know that it can be done. I am challenged myself - and also work in source editing - and that would have helped me a LOT when I was setting up the groupings.
I don't know if it will help you or not, but I use the "find" function a lot to get right to where I want to be, by finding on a unique word or couple of words. For instance, to find groupings to add the rows, I searched on "packed" that is only in the galleries. I hope that tip helps for you. It helps me a lot when looking for something in the middle of a big paragraph.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do use the Find command, but still—figuring out where a file name, template, or other piece of wiki markup starts or ends can be challenging if the code is all run together. (If you want my full opinion on the subject and other points on editing, click the link in the second line on my user page.) DocWatson42 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re formatting preferences, @DocWatson42 I am happy to concur. No strong opinion as long as we can keep it with three images per subsection in the same size (ideally no larger than 200 height) across the article. :-) Ppt91talk 15:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91, Yes, the article was updated yesterday - max three images per grouping, all having the 200 height.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2 - Implementing changes

[edit]

To start with, I put images into groupings using the "Gallery" format.

Changes could be made to the "Gallery" format, size, or number of images. They could be put into {{multiple images}}, multiple image with multiple rows, or ImageMap. Or, something I don't know about yet.

I am going to play around with the formats a bit and see if there's anything in commons that would be good to add.

Any thoughts? Changes to the groupings and format are relatively easy to tweak to whatever would make it better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a version with "packed" which removed that white box around each grouping - and gets more in a row
Gallery version without "packed" and version with "packed, and some tweaks to captions and breaking Abstractions into two rows–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, @CaroleHenson! I would say the non-packed version looks easier to navigate, and I also am now thinking that maybe we could limit each subsection gallery to three images and move anything remaining to the gallery at the end of the article? I am also thinking ahead to possible GA nomination where we are likely to be encouraged to only keep enough images to provide necessary visual reference. Ppt91talk 18:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91 Thanks for your input. Yes, it sounds fine to have a max of 3 images to a grouping.
Ppt91, I made the change to the article to have more more than 3 images per grouping. I am totally stuck, though, on the Abstractions in the Georgia O'Keeffe#New York (1916–1930s) section. There are six now and cannot figure out which three to remove. Can you help out with that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have also started a sandbox page with examples. Right now, there are three ways examples. Next, I want to try {{image frame}}, making it example 4, to play around more with portrait / landscape placement like initial Ukiyo-e box - perhaps within the hour.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant image frame, but image map may be an option. I will check it out, I have only done an image map one time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the sandbox examples, unless someone has another template / image placement option.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson Sorry, just saw! My vote would be to keep compositions from 1917, 1918, and 1921 for the three abstractions. As for formatting, and having now looked more carefully at the sandbox, I think I actually like packed gallery option best with image height at 200 (as you already did for Early work gallery) for all to maintain visual consistency. :-) Ppt91talk 00:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great! I have updated the Abstract grouping and set all the gallery groupings to the same height and width.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer the Gallery tags, as {{Multiple images}} (and tables?) cause the images to not flow around around the other objects on the page. Also, a little more punctuation: As of now there are fifteen spaced en dashes (including for ranges) and six em dashes, including one spaced one. The last needs to go whatever the decision, but per MOS:DASH an article needs to stick to em dashes or spaced en dashes ("In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article"). (I prefer the former, but will abide by the majority opinion.)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DocWatson42 (talk • contribs) 22:45, July 1, 2023 (UTC)
DocWatson42 Okay, cool, regarding the images.

The earlier sections became very cumbersome, so I collapsed them, but if you feel I collapsed anything too soon, feel free to remove the templates.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes

[edit]
The guidelines are much more complicated than I imagines, particularly around ranges, for dashes. IMO, it would be good to just use a consistent approach, and it sounds like you are so much more aware of the complexities. Do you mind going ahead and making the changes that you feel are the right way to go?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DocWatson42, I just noticed that there was a comment about em vs. en dashed. So, we wouldn't want to revert a correction.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please be so kind as to point to it? Or is it just the comment about dashes in ranges? —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DocWatson42. The first two items were at the very bottom of the Option 2 section. (But it's better to discuss it here as it won't get confused being in the middle of older discussions.) I am not sure if you were also talking about your message about dashes. I copied them all here so they are together:
@Ppt91:: Just to note two typos: You've used em dashes in place of en dashes in the year ranges. ^_^; —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
This is also true in the #Discussion subsection below. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, a little more punctuation: As of now there are fifteen spaced en dashes (including for ranges) and six em dashes, including one spaced one. The last needs to go whatever the decision, but per MOS:DASH an article needs to stick to em dashes or spaced en dashes ("In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article"). (I prefer the former, but will abide by the majority opinion.)
—DocWatson42 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, Doc, I mixed up who said what.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DocWatson42, I am pulling other copyediting issues here so that their not in the middle of the long "Discussion" section and are together.

  • From your post here that your niche is copyediting and reference formatting, that's wonderful!
  • Regarding fixing quotation marks from here, great! I miss them sometimes, but prefer to use the non-curly versions as is in the guidelines. (I am going to make a separate section re: references from your post)
Please go ahead and make fixes to dashes and quotation marks in the Georgia O'Keeffe article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson, Modernist, Mandarax, TheMindsEye, PDH, Coldcreation, Skyerise, Ppt91, Paleolith, and Mageeking: I also am familiar with MOS:ORDER and layout more generally (the big picture). As for dashes, as I mentioned above, before I make too many changes we should come to a consensus as to em dashes or spaced en dashes. DocWatson42 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Em dashes

Okay, DocWatson42. It will be good to get folks opinion. I took a stab at em dashes, which seemed clear-cut:
Em dashes that were in painting titles. I looked up the titles on SIRIS. They didn't use em dashes, so I made changes to three titles with this edit.
There was one place that an em dash was used instead of a colon for a subtitle in a citation. It is now "Kahlo and O'Keeffe: the formative friendship between two artistic giants" with this edit
The remaining four em dashes are used in the place of commas with no spaces in two sentences, like "In 1946, she began making the architectural forms of her Abiquiú house—patio wall and door—subjects in her work." This follows MOS:EMDASH. No change.
It would be helpful to know if there is agreement or disagreement here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

en dashes

  • From MOS:DASH, "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space, hyphen, or en dash; in such cases, {{snd}} between them will provide the proper formatting." I made a change for the dob-dod in the first line of the intro.
  • en dash without spaces for range of pages - that's a "no brainer", I think. No change.
  • en dash in an article title for title and subtitle in a citation, changed to a colon
  • range of years in section heading, without a space. No change.
  • en dashes in title from the source like "2013–14 Wisconsin Statutes 2013–14 S.84.1021" - left "as is" (i.e., didn't make it 2013–2014). No change.
  • range of years in captions for works, no spaces, like "1903–1905". No change.
  • painting title
    • a number of uses in SIRIS for "Special" works, but often like "Special No. 35", which looks the cleanest, so I made that change
    • "Radiator Building - Night, New York" in SIRIS
    • Changed one to "Waterfall, End of Road, Iao Valley" as in SIRIS
Here are the changes for en dashes.
How is that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curly apostrophes or quotes

  • did a find and replace on both kinds of curly apostophes - replacing five
  • no curly quote marks found
Here is the edit for the change.
Does that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the en dash list to identified where no change was needed to be clear.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From a discussion on User talk:DocWatson42#Georgia O'Keeffe, DocWatson42 and I each removed spaces around en dashes in article titles, one of which was the Radiator building (choosing to deviate from the article's title a smidge).–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Checkered Dress

[edit]
"The Checkered Dress" by Hilda Belcher

I don't remember seeing this image before, but I find it very interesting. Vassar says it's a portrait of GO, Smithsonian says it's identifed as GO, and Georgia O'Keeffe Museum doesn't say, but its in a category for GO photographs / clippings.

It was made in 1908. I think it would be really nice to have this in the "Early life and education (1887–1916)", perhaps top-left, or in "Relationship" section.

Do you know anything about this? Do you think it's okay to use it?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson This is really interesting! I'll take a closer look tomorrow, but in the meantime pinging @Netherzone who might know more and who might also be interested in helping with the O'Keeffe project in general (a wonderful possible addition to the team, but of course no pressure). :-) Ppt91talk 00:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, I'll have a look at the comments here to get a better understanding of this project. Also I should disclose that over the years I've done several paid workshops at the GO museum thru their education department, so I'll refrain from directly editing the article. Netherzone (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Netherzone.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson It does not quite look like her, however, like you said there are two sources that say it is. I am going to see if I can get some type of confirmation from from staff at GOKM, if that is okay with you. I do not want to say its not because I trust the two sources, but I would like to get more information/background on it if I can. If it is her I think it would also be a nice addition, I do not see why it would be a problem using it. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
@Orangesky6791 and Ppt91:, I know, my first inclination was that it didn't look like her. The one thing that gets me are the woman's fingers and hands.
It would be lovely if you would check at the museum, and it's great that Ppt91 pulled in someone who might know. I will do a little newspaper and book searching, too, I have become really curious.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This book, A woman on paper : Georgia O'Keeffe by Anita Pollitzer states that it is Georgia O'Keeffe. It will be great to hear back about this and anything you may have learned.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, I actually have that book on my desk at work. I will look more into it. Thank you. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Cool, in the version I shared, it's on page 94.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the image to the article here saying that it's "likely" of O'Keeffe and then a note with four sources about their take. We can always modify or remove it if anyone finds out differing info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No further/recent feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson I know you already checked this off, but I checked with some colleagues and it is O'Keeffe. (Orangesky6791 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Orangesky6791, Thanks so much! I am glad to hear that and have it confirmed!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement progress

[edit]

Hi team! I realize the previous thread has now grown to 56 comments (a testament to our commitment!), so I thought a summary of progress could be useful.

Completed:
  • Initial reorganization with a new outline of sections and subsections in addition to date ranges Green tickY
  • Merged content throughout the article to improve flow and readability Green tickY
  • Most of the images grouped to better illustrate respective periods of O'Keeffe's work Green tickY
  • Article content

To do:

  • Divide section content up between editors to improve prose and tone, ensure WP:RS, update with recent research, fact-check
  • Rewrite the #Intro section, particularly thinning out or summarizing the early career information - paragraphs 1 is done, 2 is ready for feedback
  • Any changes to the Career subsections (e.g., dates in heading, content, comparison with other themes)? (Ppt91 taking on New York for now Ppt91talk 16:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • Changes to Reception section (should be revised and updated in regard to art historical scholarship)

This is what I have so far and we can use this as a separate post just for tracking. Feel free to add to the list if I am forgetting anything and mark as Green tickY for items that we have already completed. The next step of dividing up the sections will likely take us a while due to the amount of work involved, but the article already looks and reads much better, so I think we should be proud of the work accomplished over such a short period of time. :) 

p.s. any new editors who come across these threads and are interested in joining the effort should feel free to do so at any point

Ppt91talk 15:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really great idea, Ppt91! A couple of things, and I'm not sure where you are intending that they go, 1) here and below or 2) under the Completed / To do sections. Maybe don't update the lists until it's completed or added:

–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added "to do" items from #To do list items to add? based upon discussions in the above sections.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finalize image groupings and format

[edit]

Made its own section from #Article improvement progress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding "Finalize any remaining image groupings and formatting" - Yesterday I looked for other images [commons] to add to the groupings, and added a couple that were pared down to no more than 3 images per grouping approach (i.e., I don't think we need to add any more)
Oh, except File:Radiator Building – Night, New York (1927), Georgia O'Keefe.jpg. There's a version on Wikipedia here that is about to be deleted... and this one on commons. I have a question out about whether the reason for deletion applies to the commons image here. I don't think so, but I wanted to be sure before using it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the image on Wikipedia is that it doesn't meet the requirements for a non-free fair use rationale. I am adding the commons version to the Georgia O'Keeffe#Skyscraper paintings section. It can be removed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, added file to article–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a comments at File:Radiator Building - Night, New York, 1927.jpg#Orphaned non-free image File:Radiator Building - Night, New York, 1927.jpg and the talk page for the image.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Regarding the Radiator Building painting, this tag was placed on the paintings Wikipedia page:
{{Di-orphaned non-free use|date=1 July 2023|replacement=Radiator Building – Night, New York (1927), Georgia O'Keefe.jpg}}{{Now Commons|Radiator Building – Night, New York (1927), Georgia O'Keefe.jpg}} today. It says the proper file to use is the one on commons, and not the orphaned file in Wikipedia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through each image to ensure that the captioning was consistent. There were a few places where I couldn't find the method or collection. I used SIRIS for research.
Meaning: Unless there are questions about the gallery/image format (User:CaroleHenson/sandboxGO), or images selected, I think we're done. Any desired changes?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up where I think we are at: Ppt91 helped guide me through improvement of the galleries. DocWatson42 prefers galleries, which is used in the article at the moment. And, it would be helpful to have Orangesky6791's or anyone else who would like to weigh-in.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't mind three images per gallery (though I'm also fine with more) and I actually prefer the 200 pixel size, as it's close to the standard image default of 220, and is significantly larger than the gallery default. —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, DocWatson42, thanks for your input.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No further/recent feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

[edit]

Made its own section from #Article improvement progress.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: To dos, I think we should add to check questionable statements. As I mentioned, I posted {{Accuracy dispute|date=July 2023}} for bisexuality claim, per discussion on this page. If there's any other questionable statements, I suggest that we identify them now within the article. How does that sound?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong template, I meant {{Disputed inline|date=July 2023}}, an inline template. But the two at the top for tone and context are good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality draft

[edit]
UPDATE: I am going to start working on this. Feel free to comment here / or review when done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/bisexuality draft–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm newly jumping into this discussion not sure if this is of use (or already discussed) in resolving the disputed accuracy, See pages 113-114 in Marjorie Garber's 2012 book, Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (Taylor & Francis) [1] which goes into some depth. Netherzone (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful, Netherzone, thanks!. I will work on that next. –CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppt91, Orangesky6791, DocWatson42, and Netherzone:, I finished drafting the content for the Relationships section at Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/bisexuality draft#Draft. I took a stab at the order of the info, so it would be helpful to hear your comments in general - and about the flow of the information.
Regarding earlier comments, I just mention the letters once - that Foursome states that conclusions from letters (that she was bisexual) are not in keeping with the way O'Keeffe lived her life.
As a side note, I will take a look at the Intro from Ppt91's post.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson Thanks! The intro is just the first paragraph to improve flow. I did some more work on New York yesterday and will plan to gradually move into late 1920s and then early 1930s. My schedule will get a bit more busy later this week, but I'll keep everyone posted here on progress. :-) Ppt91talk 17:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ppt91, I created the #Intro section for comments since your post.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added (that she was bisexual) regarding letters above. Underlined it to differentiate from earlier content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was picking away at the draft yesterday and feel pretty good about it. I merged Marriage and Relationship to Georgia O'Keeffe#Marriage and relationships section because the Marriage part discusses her relationship with her husband until the mid 1920s and the Relationship section started with 1930. The changes were made here.
In my opinion, it reads a bit better that way. Feel free to edit it in the article, though, or discuss the draft here.
I know that several of you are really busy, so I am just seeing what I can get done to close out items. I know this is a sensitive bit of information, so your input will be very helpful! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I further merged "Mental Illness" into the Personal life section and since there are no other subsection, the "Marriage and relationships" section heading is no longer needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you integrated and contextualized that content CaroleHenson. To place these facts in context makes a lot more sense.
I have a question, would it not make more sense to have the Reception section before Personal life? The article seems to skip from a focus on her work/career accomplishments, to Personal life, then back to how her work/career accomplishments were received by critics and art historians. I haven't checked the MOS (but I'm sure you or others working on this have) however as a reader, it seems disjointed to have the sections in that order.
The article is shaping up beautifully thanks to you, Ppt91 and others. Netherzone (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, Sure that would be fine. I made the change. That does flow better. Thanks for providing feedback, much apprecitated!–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No further/recent feedback, assuming this is  Done, but of course, it can still be revised if desired.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To do list items to add?

[edit]

I went through all of our discussions and have found these potential to do items. Should we move them into the "to do" checklist?

Content

  • Rewrite the intro section, particularly thinning out or summarizing the early career information - OrangeSky6791
  • Any changes to the Career subsections (e.g., dates in heading, content, comparison with other themes)?
  • Changes to “Criticism”?
  • Revise Personal life section - Merge Transitions, Travels, Death into Career and Reception sections - Discussions between Ppt91 and OrangeSky
  • Edit the “Relationships” section for accuracy, bisexuality
  • Consistent em / en dash / space per guidelines - Discussions: DocWatson42, Ppt91, CaroleHenson
  • Identify and address inaccuracies in the article

Images

Moved thise up to the #Article improvement progress section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of works?

[edit]

Do we want to create a List of works by Georgia O'Keeffe - OrangeSky6791 might have access to a list, otherwise MOMA installation pages, SIRIS.

I updated the Georgia O'Keeffe#External links, grouping works and adding SIRUS information by type of work (painting, sculpture, etc.) MOMA already had a link, and I added a link to the 2023 installation,
Perhaps these additions to External links are good enough.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organization?

[edit]

Have I missed anything?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of organization, I think it would be helpful to have sections for the to do items, that can be referred to like this #The Checkered Dress in the to do checklist. That way, there will be targeted discussion - that are not toooo long - and easier to follow-up. Does that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started that by creating #Finalize image groupings and format and #Accuracy.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Crossed out the items moved to the #Article improvement progress section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am moving ahead with subsections re: items on the "to do" list under #Article improvement progress. Is that okay with everyone to have separate subsections for to do items?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson Thanks for all the updates. Just getting back to these now, as I was away for most of the day yesterday. I'm happy to take New York section for now and start working on it soon. I'll add my name to to-do for that section! Ppt91talk 16:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No further/recent feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference and Bibliography sections

[edit]

DocWatson42, Regarding your post here, Also, despite their quasi-standardization in Good Articles I'm afraid I find the use of "References" and (especially) "Bibliography" as section titles to be problematic. "References" on its own is fine, but "Bibliography" is used for both lists of creators' publications, and of general references and of cited works. I prefer unambiguously self-explanatory titles, such as "Citations" and "General and cited references", so that casual users know what the sections are for. (Please pardon me—this is a pet peeve.)

I like using what is standard and in the guidelines. In this case, the guidelines seem to show a couple of options including the use of Citations, References, Bibliography.

  • I prefer References for short and long citations, but "Citations" is fine.
  • I prefer Bibliography for the sources for short citations, but "Sources" could be used. (For the body of the article, I prefer "Publications" to "Bibliography" which I think is better and to avoid the Bibliography confusion.)

Any thoughts about that? Does anyone else have an opinion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:REFERENCES.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson: I agree about "Publications" versus "Bibliography", though I also use "Books" if there aren't any other types of publications. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DocWatson42 Yes, "Books" is a good section heading, too.
How do you envision us coming to a conclusion on this for the O'Keeffe article? I would be fine with "Citations" and "Sources".–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Citations" is fine, but again I prefer more specific and informative section titles, that are also "future-proofed", such as "General and cited sources". Thus even if all of the references are either general or cited a later editor does not have to worry about changing the title. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "References" to "Citations". That seems to make a lot of sense per MOS and Wikipedia:Citing sources, as it is used to describe short and long citations. So, that is Green tickY done, unless anyone has a differing opinion.
Regarding the sources (relevant when I move over the relationship draft), it will be the section for the sources that relate to the sources for the short citations. References or Sources make the most sense to me. Also, References is what is used in Wikipedia:Citing sources. I vote for References.
"General and cited sources", by the nature of qualifiers, seems to be a subset of References or Sources. It is confusing to me.
I know that Ppt91 and OrangeSky have both mentioned that they are busy right now, so I am not sure if we'll get further input on this, but if we do, that would be wonderful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been WP:BOLD completing "to do" items... including moving the relationship draft over. I renamed the "Bibliography" section title in the draft to "References" in the article. The "References" section title is not written in stone, so input is appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No further/recent feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biography source

[edit]

Ppt91, I hear your concern about reliance on Biography.com - particularly for a GA review from here where you say I think that the page in general relies too heavily on "Georgia O'Keeffe". Biography Channel. A&E Television Networks. August 26, 2016. Archived from the original on January 16, 2017. Retrieved January 14, 2017., which has 20 footnotes as of now; it is technically a reliable source but there are so many alternatives that I think we can probably drop it altogether, especially thinking about GA-criteria.

I posted it here so that we don't lose track of it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intro section

[edit]

Background:

  • For the intro I understand that an overview is important, but I do think it needs work since it mainly talks about her early career, and then the last sentence is how much a painting sold for, it just seems a bit random. But maybe this is one of the places we can start! - Orangesky6791 27 June 2023
  • Orangesky6791 expressed some concerns with the introductory paragraphs, I went ahead and edited the first paragraph by using some of the content from my recent GA Summer Days (Georgia O'Keeffe) which is in turn taken from a good and reliable article on the artist from the Met Heilbrunn Timeline. - Ppt91 3 Jul 2023
  • The intro is just the first paragraph to improve flow. I did some more work on New York yesterday and will plan to gradually move into late 1920s and then early 1930s. My schedule will get a bit more busy later this week, but I'll keep everyone posted here on progress. Ppt91 4 July 2023

Discussion:

Duplicated personal life info

[edit]

There is some duplicate personal life info that is outside the "Personal life" section that I will remove or summarize. I have gone back-and-forth about doing this, and settled on best to remove redundant info. Please feel free to edit or revert my edits if you disagree.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the edits here. There still is some info about her houses, etc. that could be moved to the Personal life section, but it set the context for her work, so for now, I didn't make all the changes that could be made.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved more to Personal life, the sum of which is here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No feedback, assuming this is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

There is still some more that could be done to improve the article (See #Article improvement progress), but I think it's in relatively good shape at this point. I will pop back to address comments, suggestions, and requests for changes, but otherwise I will move on to other articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of Wikipedia is that nothing is cast in stone. I took my stab at a number of the issues that came up, but have no pride of authorship... and love it when something I have added is improved upon.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppt91, Netherzone, DocWatson42, and Orangesky6791:, I have closed out many of our open items. There's a bit left in the "to do" part of #Article improvement progress, but I think the article has come a long way as the result of your input. I hope you are happy with it, too.
The only thing that concerns me is the Georgia O'Keeffe#Personal life section. If there's something that you think needs to be done, go for it. Or, Orangesky6791, feel free to comment here with requests for edit.
Thanks so much for your input! It was all very helpful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! I just realized I said "no feedback" when I should have said "no further/recent feedback". Having a foggy day, I didn't mean to minimize feedback you provided to get to a final state. My apologies.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native Scholar’s Questions

[edit]

(Shortened the heading "Native Scholar’s Questions at MOMA Exhibition about O’Keeffe’s Use of New Mexico in Her Art: Should Wikipedia Include?"–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Should we be adding new or different perspectives to the “criticism” or “New Mexico” section of this page to reflect more current Native/Indigenous scholarship? I ask this because the current blockbuster exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art, “Georgia O’Keeffe: To See Takes Time,” includes remarks on specific works by curator Patricia Marroquin Norby, who was appointed in 2020 as the first Indigenous curator and first curator of Native American Art at the nearby Metropolitan Museum of Art. Norby’s comments can be hear in the audio clips featured on the exhibition web page.

Regarding a sketch of the famous patio door at Abiquiu, Norby states: Curator, Patricia Marroquin Norby: As an Indigenous woman, it’s complex to respond to how she understands the patio door. Abiquiú, or Abiquiú, was a Tewa or Hopi Pueblo for many years. O’Keeffe buys this home that was a center for the indigenous slave trade. She embraces it for its aesthetic quality, rather than making any attempt to understand the local history.

But I could really see why she was drawn to the home and especially the patio door. In her images of the door, you get this balance of rectangular shapes, of light and shadows that are repeated over and over to create this visual depth.

There’s moments where I feel really angry at her because of the privileged way that she entered into those spaces. I think eventually during her time in Abiquiú, she understood, that she was a visitor. She was a guest.

But I have a sense of compassion for the challenges that she faced as an artist, as a woman, and someone who was just really working to create her own place in this world.”

Regarding a sketch of a Native art necklace, “Eagle Claw and Bean Necklace,” Norby also states: Curator, Patricia Marroquin Norby: Hello, I’m Patricia Marroquin Norby, Associate Curator of Native American Art at The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

In 1934, Georgia O’Keeffe and her friend drive through Colorado, where O’Keeffe purchases a necklace made of large, black sea beads and eagle claws.

She doesn’t depict them as one long necklace. Instead, she bunches them together into this round form. She uses a very fuzzy application of her charcoal for the beads, but then for the eagle claws, she uses the paper surface as a highlight to create a shiny surface, and so you get this really nice textural conversation between the beads and the claws.

I find that interesting that she refers to them as “Indian beads,” rather than learning the appropriate name for the community or person from whom she purchased them. It reminds me of the fact that, although she lived in Abiquiú, New Mexico for half a century, she never bothered to learn Spanish. She never bothered to learn Tewa. She, on the one hand, loved the community who surrounded her but also she really didn’t extend herself.

That sense of isolation—it’s communicated visually in her work because she often only depicts one item, one subject, something that’s isolated within her image.”

Most of us are now familiar with questions about the appropriation of Indigenous or marginalized cultures by white artists and authors. Should the Wikipedia page reflect this by using material such as these remarks by Norby (she holds a PhD in American Studies and has a new book coming out, so represents a solid academic resource.

But Norby’s passing comment about Abiquiu as a “center for the Indigenous slave trade” would itself require some resourcing (I’ve been looking into that, and it’s complex.”

So I would love so input on this material and how, if at all, you think we should be including perspectives such as that of Norby. Do you know of other resources or references or publications or articles that would be relevant.

This topic could eventually be extended to encompassing the series of work O’Keeffe did in the early 1930s on Indigenous Kachina dolls. There’s a book on this edited by Barbara Buhler Lynes and Carolyn Kastner, “Georgia O’Keeffe in New Mexico: Architecture, Katsinam, and the Land” (2012). Should the page also be revised to include some coverage of the Kachina work? (Profgjay (talk)) Profgjay (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of information here. It seems that there are several possible ways to add info.
Specific aspects of the 2023 installation could be added under External links under the "MoMA 2023 installation: "Georgia O'Keeffe: To See Takes Time" link Green tickY
Update the Patricia Marroquin Norby Green tickY and the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum articles. Perhaps also the relative Pueblo articles.
Perhaps extra content or a note after "In 1946, she began making the architectural forms of her Abiquiú house—the patio wall and door—subjects in her work.[78]" could be interesting if not heavy-handed. There shouldn't be a lot in the article about someone close to the subject of the article. See WP:Conflict of interest.
About the indigenous slave trade, I would think that would be best in the Puebloans article or in the specific Pueblos (Puebloans#New Mexico)... and then perhaps a sentence or See also to link to, if appropriate.
I can see having a section for notable exhibits.
Does anyone else have thoughts about this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
update the Georgia O'Keeffe article with Norby's key/salient opinions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the New Mexico section enriched with comments or perspectives from Norby and other Indigenous scholars.I will try to draft something or suggest specific sentences. Profgjay (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added two Green tickY for completed items and struck out a misunderstanding.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]
  • I was confused. Somehow I thought that Norby became the curator at the Georgia O'Keeffe museum, so I struck out a sentence about Norby's comments in the GO article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found articles from searching << "patricia marroquin norby" "georgia o'keeffe" >> to update the Georgia O'Keeffe article with Norby's key/salient opinions. The updates to her article help to establish why she's a good expert to comment on O'Keeffe's work from an indigenous person's perspective.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, am new to this process. Did you already add a comment in the article itself establishing Norby's credentials as a good expert, or are you just suggesting we do so? I didn't see any more mentions of her except in the external links. Profgjay (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still interested?

[edit]

Profgjay, I am just checking in to see if you are still interested in adding content. If so, what do you think about what I have suggested?

Just to be clear on one part that I didn't address in the suggestions, I don't think it's appropriate to mention that O'Keeffe did not learn Spanish or Tewa. I am not quite sure, either, about stating what O'Keeffe should or shouldn't put into her art. Perhaps there can be statements, though, about the significance of artifacts or heritage to Puebloans or Native Americans as it relates to content in O'Keeffe's work of art. (I hope that makes sense.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had family in town this weekend and just got back to seeing your many good comments and suggestions. I agree with the points made here about making inappropriate demands after the fact about what O'Keeffe would have learned or put into her art. Statements about the significance of objects or places or heritage could be useful. For example, O'Keeffe's depictions of Kachina dolls could be found offensive by Indigenous people. My understanding is that the O'Keeffe Museum owns one or more but does not show them. One of the curators suggested the Wikipedia page might mention her production of such images within the context of describing her New Mexico period, but we shouldn't provide images. Profgjay (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Profgjay, That is really interesting! Okay, I will bear that in mind. I appreciate your input on this!
Please feel free to identify sources that may be similarly sensitive.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement

[edit]

@Orangesky6791, Ppt91, DocWatson42, and Netherzone:,

As an FYI, the work we did on the Georgia O'Keeffe #Article improvement progress was mentioned in the news Artists join volunteers, change how women represented in Wikipedia. It's good to get the press. It's also good to think about how I represent women since so many of my work is new articles for women - or expanding and cleaning up articles about women.

I received the link to this within the past week or two: Primer for creating women's biographies that is pretty good.

Advice, tips, and thoughts are appreciated.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @CaroleHenson - How cool is that! Here's an updated link to the article: [2] for some reason the one above didn't work for me. You all did the heavy lifting on the article revision, here's to a great collaboration! Netherzone (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Netherzone. Your input was very helpful, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O'Keeffe and Feminism: Further Reading

[edit]

Two major works on O'Keeffe and feminism are missing from the list of "Further Reading." They are:

Kathleen Pyle, Modernism and the Feminine Voice: O'Keeffe and the Women of the Stieglitz Circle (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007)

Linda Grasso, Georgia O'Keeffe and Twentieth-Century Feminism (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2017)

Can someone add these books to the list?

These volumes could be helpful in strengthening the discussion of O'Keeffe and feminism in the main article. She was much more involved and supportive than the article seems to suggest; it is misleading to just quote O'Keeffe's late-life statements about feminism and being a woman artist, comments that have been popular among the male art critics establishment. The historical record shows a more distinct and positive involvement. The role of Anita Pollitzer in O'Keeffe's relation to feminism could also be cited. Profgjay (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and when looking up the isbn numbers on amazon, I found out (but had forgotten) that I alreay bought one of these books. I'll have to check that out! Update: I found it, how fun!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding, "it is misleading to just quote O'Keeffe's late-life statements about feminism and being a woman artist, comments that have been popular among the male art critics establishment. The historical record shows a more distinct and positive involvement. The role of Anita Pollitzer in O'Keeffe's relation to feminism could also be cited." - what is the purpose for this information?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is important to ground our understanding of O'Keeffe's relation to feminism in an historical context. Having a section titled "Feminist Movement (1970s)" suggests this was the only period in which feminism was important for O'Keeffe, which is wrong. That section should be retitled "O'Keeffe, Woman's Suffrage, and Feminism" or some such. Here's how I would begin it:
Women’s Movement and Feminism
In Equal Under the Sky: Georgia O’Keeffe and Twentieth Century Feminism, Linda M. Grasso documents O’Keeffe’s life-long involvement in feminism and women’s issues. O’Keeffe came of age as a woman and an artist in the 1910s, at the height of the women’s suffrage movement and the intense artistic ferment of “modernism.” Grasso notes that “Modernists championed rupture, innovation, and daring in art forms, styles, and perspectives,” and that O’Keeffe “first created herself as an artist when feminism and modernism were interlinked” (3). As early as 1915 O’Keeffe is reading books and articles on women’s suffrage and cultural politics with enthusiasm, such as Floyd Dell’s Women as World Builders: Studies in Modern Feminism. (23) There was much talk in this era about “the New Woman,” liberated from Victorian strictures and mores and pursuing her own life and education and self-expression freely. O’Keeffe was in active dialogue with her suffragist friend Anita Pollitzer, with whom she exchanged letters on the subject. Pollitzer, in fact, was the first person to introduce Alfred Stieglitz to O’Keeffe’s art work (52). She was also reading Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Olive Schreiner, among others, alongside the radical magazine The Masses, and lecturing on modernist dancer Isadora Duncan. In a debate with Michael Gold in 1930, O’Keeffe said she was “interested in the oppression of women of all classes” (4). Gross writes: “She sustained an affiliation with the National Woman’s Party and made public statements about gender discrimination and women’s rights in interviews, speeches, letters, and articles into the 1970s.” (104). But O’Keeffe resisted being categorized as a “woman artist” since this could mean the imposition of “preconceived notions about feminine sensibilities and styles.” That was what she saw, apparently, and rejected in the reductive interpretation of her flower paintings as female genitalia. Women’s bodies, however, were for O’Keeffe vital subjects for art from a female perspective, as shown by her nude watercolors of herself done in the early years and in the nude photographs she produced of herself with Stieglitz. Profgjay (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the content that was cited - i.e., I didn't add "But O'Keeffe resisted..."
Profgjay Sorry to ping you so many times. Do you have the page number(s) for this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that the numbers that you used were from the Georgia O'Keeffe article. There was a blog page used for one of the sources, so I just changed it to {{citation needed}} and put {{better source}} on the blog citation.
The heading is renamed without "O'Keeffe" - since the entire article is about O'Keeffe. See MOS:SECTIONSTYLE.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you could give me a source for the uncited info, I will add that to the article. Please also clarify whether or not the numbers refer to the sources in the GO article. Thanks. Great addition!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the citations here are page numbers from the Linda Grasso book cited at the start. I'm used to academic citation practice where we put page numbers in parentheses. I wasn't sure the best way to handle this according to Wikipedia standards. Can you correct for me? Then I'll study how you did it. Profgjay (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Profgjay Okay, cool.  Done I used the combination Bibliography / sfn format, with the long citation for Grasso in the References section and {{sfn}} for the short citations with individual page numbers as in WP:CITESHORT of WP:Citing sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a "citation needed" here after the mention of the Floyd Dell book. O'Keeffe's reading of it is discussed in the Grasso book. Profgjay (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've added a note #3 at the end of the quotation from Grasso that ends "interlinked." This was simply a reference to page 3 in the Grasso book. Now it has become a note referencing an encyclopedia article. Not sure what happened here. I don't know what you mean by a reference to a "blog page." I didn't use one.
Profgjay Yes, that's fixed now, since you said that the numbers were page numbers from Grasso's book - and not the citation numbers from this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SO MUCH for your help and expertise! Profgjay (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norby on O'Keeffe

[edit]

I have started a draft here Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/Norby on O'Keeffe about Norby's perception of O'Keeffe's work. Feel free to add to the Draft or add items in the Discuss section.

I am starting to wonder if this could be a separate article with a small section in the Georgia O'Keeffe article. We'd likely need to get other opinions. We can see how this draft goes and then take it from there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think the draft you've done could sensibly go into the "Art Criticism and Scholarship" section under "Reception." The addition could be conceived or justified as covering the contemporary reception of O'Keeffe's work by Native scholars/Indigenous critics. Norby is not the only one, so there may be other citations or quotations to be added here. I'm doing more research. Norby's critique was developed during her writing of her dissertation, which is scheduled to appear as a book. That book could provide more material. But I think what you've done for now is a good start. I may try a sentence or two addition for context. Profgjay (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! I replied to your comment at Talk:Georgia O'Keeffe/Norby on O'Keeffe#Discuss.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ellsworth Kelly

[edit]

@CaroleHenson: Georgia O'Keeffe was a big fan of Ellsworth Kelly. She described her fondness for his work as if it were her own. I think they were both searching for the same thing in their art. We should probably work that into the article. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Viriditas, that sounds good. I see that Kelly is mentioned in a number of books about O'Keeffe. I trust you have an idea of what to use and where the information should go (e.g., abstraction, personal life, etc.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're the lead on this article, I'll leave it up to you. Looks like it should be added to the personal life section based on the current structure, but whatever you think is fine. I'll add the material here when I get a chance. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure. I will keep an eye out for the content.
By the way, I am just a temporary contributor / shephard who weighs in from time-to-time. There have been many others who step-in occasionally. You don't need to treat me like someone who has ownership of content.
In other words, if you're making a change to the article, like adding info about Kelly, you can post a comment on this talk page and allow anyone to weigh-in who has comments or suggestions.
To anyone that may be reading this, if you someone has a conflict of interest or are a close contributor, they can type up the information and request the edit on the talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, I watch 4,534 Wikipedia pages.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your modesty, but you've either created or are the primary contributor of 90% of the articles and content related to this subject. Doesn't sound very temporary to me! Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps it's clearer to say that I am a fluid contributor whose efforts wax and wane, Viriditas. I made just 8 edits between 2017 and 2023, and they were just minor fixes to someone's changes or reverting improper edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that you are misreading me. I'm lauding your efforts and dedication to the topic, not criticizing them. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very nice of you Viriditas. I can get pretty involved in subjects that interest me and I try to do that without seeming to own the content. It's a line I try not to cross.
I will be focusing on some other articles for a bit, but if you need something, let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment by the NM academic art community

[edit]

There's an interesting story about how the academic art community in NM ignored O'Keefe for around 35 years or so, finally recognizing her contributions in 1966 with a solo exhibition. The backstory is that she tried approaching them several times to do work and they snubbed her. When they finally did acknowledge her, she was gracious, humble, and modest, and showed no signs of ill will in public. I don't think this appears in the current article (apologies if I missed it). Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She had relationships with authors and artists within the Santa Fe and Taos art colonies. Just to help me understand better, who more specifically didn't let her in (e.g., male leaders of the Taos Society of Artists, museums, universities)?
And, sure, that's something that could be added to the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson (1999)[1989], p. 547:

Another facet of her professional life involved the complicated and infelicitous relationship that existed between O'Keeffe and the Museum of New Mexico in Santa Fe. In 1936 there had been a proposal that O’Keeffe paint a mural for the museum. A letter to the museum’s president by a curator described O’Keeffe as "a strange sort of freak with big hands," and the president had responded with distaste to the notion. Hostility had figured thereafter in museum responses to O'Keeffe, and as one museum official said wryly, "It seemed as though every time O’Keeffe and the museum got together, something went wrong. One time we even spelled her name wrong in a publication: something that happens all over the country, but which shouldn’t happen in Santa Fe."

In 1980, a more positive relationship was established. O’Keeffe sent the museum a check for $100,000, and discussions got under way regarding a loan exhibition of O’Keeffe’s work. Still, the negotiations were seen by some as suspect. A verbal arrangement stipulated that the money be used to purchase sculpture by Hamilton and to contribute toward the purchase price of a painting by O'Keeffe, Summer Days. In the resulting debate the negotiations ground to a halt, and later O’Keeffe removed the museum from her will.

Drohojowska-Philp (2005)[2004], pp. 490-491:

O'Keeffe, seventy-eight, still fought the mounting years. She was always busy. The outset of 1964 saw her travel to New York to discuss business with Bry. On her return, she stopped in Houston and Fort Worth to discuss plans for a forthcoming retrospective at the Houston Museum of Art, then visited the Amon Carter Museum of Western Art. She had to be back in Albuquerque by February to receive an honorary degree presented by the University of New Mexico.

Although she had been honored by major museum shows around the country, the museums of New Mexico were slow to catch on. When O’Keeffe began coming to the region in the thirties, her offer to paint a mural for the Museum of Fine Arts in Santa Fe was spurned by the director, Dr. Edgar Hewitt. Hewitt, an archaeologist, had been befriended by Robert Henri, the influential member of The Eight in New York and a teacher at the Art Students League when O’Keeffe had been a student. Henri had come to Santa Fe in 1916, 1917, and 1922 and advised Hewett to establish a liberal exhibition policy at the museum. Hewitt later said that the museum practiced an open door policy. "Its alcoves have been open to the most eminent painter or sculptor, to the unknown beginner." Rebecca Strand was given a show there in 1934. But that "open door" was closed to O'Keeffe, and she had long resented the exclusion.

Hewitt’s oversight had become an embarrassment by 1962, when O’Keeffe was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. In March 1964, the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque took the first step in healing the relationship with the state’s most famous artist by awarding O’Keeffe an honorary doctorate. Wearing her mortarboard and gown, O'Keeffe was truly pleased by the honor, if only as vindication. Instead of talking about her adopted state, however, she euphorically recalled New York, describing the place as "so vast and so sparkling...you go up in the world, you go high." She later told a local reporter that her life had been divided into three separate stages: before, during, and after Stieglitz.

There's more of this kind of thing, of course, but those are the two incidents unique to NM. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to sort out how much of this is encyclopedic content. One thing that hits home is "Although she had been honored by major museum shows around the country, the museums of New Mexico were slow to catch on."
And... that negotations fell-through for a mural for the Museum of Fine Arts in Santa Fe and other projects in New Mexico. In 1964, O'Keeffe was awarded an honorary degree from the the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, which signaled (new-found?) respect for her works.
It would be great to hear from other watchers of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I leave it in your hands to do with as you wish. I will be working on other things. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Chabot

[edit]

it seems odd that she is not mentioned on the Georgia O'Keefe page, as she was responsible the restoration of the house and garden at Abiquiu (see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Maria_Chabot).As it stands the page seems to further the myth that O'Keefe herself did it. It would be worth including in the references the book Maria Chabot-- Georgia O'Keefe: Correspondence, 1941-49 [2003] by Ann Paden and Barbara Buhler Lynes, and perhaps the novel Someone Always Nearby [2023] by Susan Wittig Albert which is based on the correspondence. I'm in owe of all the fine consideration people in this Talk are giving improvements to the O'Keefe page. I have no experience making edits, and wouldn't want to mess up your fine work. I'm just suggesting an addition. Thanks BWG1 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this hasn’t already been fixed, I could try to help. Viriditas (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Painting the pineapple

[edit]
However, she did not paint the requested pineapple until the Hawaiian Pineapple Company sent a plant to her New York studio.

The story behind this is fascinating, and I realize that space is limited in terms of focus, but a touch more needs to be said on this point; she did not paint the pineapple in situ for various reasons, primarily because the company was racist and sexist, and refused to allow her, as a woman, to mingle with the workers, to paint the pineapple growing in the fields, or to reside and live among the workers as she originally requested. At the time, women, particularly white women were not allowed to even entertain the idea, and O'Keeffe unintentionally caused a minor scandal when she made this request. Due to the rejection of her wishes, and the failure of the company to provide an adequate plant or cutting, she delayed the commission and put it on the back-burner, and for good reason. For people who don't know the history, there's a lot behind this story, as the sugar companies were responsible for taking over the Hawaiian Kingdom, overthrowing the monarchy, and installing Sanford B. Dole as president, and later governor. It was his cousin, James Dole, who would later establish the Hawaiian Pineapple Company. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new article on this subject in my draft space. I probably won't move it to mainspace for a few weeks because it needs work, but we will see how it goes. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Art criticism and scholarship

[edit]

This section is slightly problematic as it gives undue weight to interpretations O'Keeffe spent an entire lifetime debunking, beginning with her major statement on the issue in 1939. While there's no question that O'Keeffe was a lifetime feminist and took a stand on equality (there's even a funny anecdote where as a child she insisted the Christian god was a woman, not a man), she fundamentally opposed "gender-based" interpretations of her art. Looking at her work as a man, I sometimes wonder if I'm seeing things in the paintings or if this is just a function of my mammalian brain, some kind of gender-based pareidolia? Could the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s have fallen for this kind of psychological bias as well? I think there's some truth to this, but there's also the fact that O'Keeffe's subjects contain symbols and archetypes of femininity. The question is whether this is simply inherent in her subjects related to nature itself or if she was trying to express this ideas as the goddess movement claimed. Over many years, it's become clear that the former is likely the case. In other words, there is some kind of cognitive bias at work as well as some kind of feminine symbolism inherent in nature itself (which after all is personified as a "mother" for good reason), the combination of which has led to different interpretations of O'Keeffe's work. If true, one would expect to see this kind of thing arise in art from men as well, and I think one could safely argue that it does, but perhaps isn't as widely known or celebrated, so there's an additional bias of selection at work. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, "...the fact that O'Keeffe's subjects contain symbols and archetypes of femininity. The question is whether this is simply inherent in her subjects related to nature itself...". This question, considered as applying to all of humankind universally in the symbols they use in their arts, rather than just to O'Keeffe or women, was addressed at length by Carl Jung in his writings on archetypes and the oceanic "Collective Unconscious"; the sea was described by Matthew A. Fike as Jung's "key image for the deep unconscious". Marianna Torgovnick, in her book Primitive Passions: Men, Women, and the Quest for Ecstasy, writes about "broad divergences in male and female ways of of experiencing the primitive and the oceanic" with studies of Carl Jung, D.H. and Frieda Lawrence, and Georgie O'Keeffe, all of whom were visitors to the salon at the Mabel Dodge Luhan House in Taos, where Jung once lectured on the outdoor patio. Carlstak (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are a master of the forces of synchronicity. The connection between Luhan and just about everyone else is almost inescapable. I first encountered the "force" when I was writing about Ella Young. I soon discovered that no matter what one writes about, the "cosmic forces of Taos" will eventually intrude in some way. I live on Maui, which in many respects is the unofficial sister city of Taos, although if you asked me to explain it to you it would be impossible. Personally, my time in Taos was short, and although I haven't been back in many years, both Taos and Maui have the same, identical je ne sais quoi that is beyond language itself. I can't explain it, of course, but the common denominator is nature herself. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, somehow I can see that connection between Taos and Maui. I haven't been to Taos since I was a kid, but I remember certain scenes with crystal clarity, and even then, I was conscious of a spiritual (for lack of a better word) vibe in the air. I didn't think of it that way at the time but I did associate that feeling with the mountains. Carlstak (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Regarding the "Art criticism and scholarship" section, I think the section should definitely be expanded (and what a rich topic it is). There's plenty to say about critical reception and scholarly discussions of her work that don't focus on sex. I certainly have my own thoughts about sexual imagery and symbolism, personal or universal, in her paintings, but I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to say what women feel or intend in their art on this talk page or anywhere—let them say it. So I would consult their scholarship in my inquiries. I'd love to read up and write something about it, but I'm writing business proposals (at least I'm supposed to be. WP is a drug.;-) Carlstak (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of drugs, while working on Sky Above Clouds, I was quite surprised to learn that Dennis Hopper and O'Keeffe were good friends, and I suspect that Mabel Dodge Luhan was the source of their friendship, although I don't really know. We do know that O'Keeffe had a fascination with hallucinogenic plants and painted and grew quite a few of them (she was quite a gardener), although there is no evidence that I know of that she ever ingested any. However, having hung around New Mexico a bit, it would be surprising to discover that she had never had the experience ("Not necessarily stoned, but beautiful"). As strange as it sounds to us today, her generation (the Lost Generation) experimented and grew up with incredible cultural changes known as the Progressive Era and the Roaring Twenties, and I think we forget how revolutionary that time really was. I only found out just yesterday that O'Keeffe was a nudist at that time, which is not written about in any of her major biographies that I know about (but much is made about her nude art photos, which is an entirely separate topic), although the idea that she was a nudist might be somewhat of an exaggeration, as I've come to understand that nudism is far more common in society that we might think, but is kept somewhat quiet in America; in Europe it may not be considered special or important given its greater acceptance. But I do suspect there's a lot we don't know about O'Keeffe that has still to come to light. Her platonic relationship with Jean Toomer isn't even discussed in this bio. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would think that an artist might be interested in ingesting a plant that induces such intense visual stimulation as peyote. She must have heard about it in her circle of friends, some of whom were at Luhan's apartment in New York when Raymond Harrington brought some for everyone to try. I find that it has some of the most intense visuals of the psychedelics (large doses). Louis Wain got close to depicting the sort of visual patterns that I see in everything with some of his more abstract, paisley-like cat paintings.
  • Louis Wain cats
    Louis Wain cats
Carlstak (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after reading that link to Mabel Dodge Luhan's peyote experience that you provided, I can safely say with some confidence that she did not turn O'Keeffe on (or anyone else again for that matter), not just because O'Keeffe was living in Texas at the time teaching art as a professor, but mostly because Luhan screwed the proverbial pooch when it came to psychedelics, per her own memoir. She did everything you are not supposed to do, and she deliberately ignored the advice, given repeatedly by the so-called acting shaman (Harrington) all because it was "her house" and she couldn't stand the ceremony as she refused to take the second button. What a clusterfuck all around, and her actions had real-world consequences for people in the ceremony she disrupted. Luhan does not sound like a good person, I'm sorry to say. No wonder Harrington and everyone else in the ceremony never had anything to do with her again. On the other hand, Luhan seems to have single-handedly invented the "bad trip" cliche, so there's that. What a shitty person. This is par for the course. I've been writing extensively about Renoir, Gauguin, and Lautrec, and they were all extremely shitty people, prisoners all of them, contained by huge egos. Never meet your heroes, kids. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Luhan may have been the hostess of a scintillating salon, but she was deeply uncool in the worst way. I knew I had read about this somewhere, and I dug it up in my browser history. Apparently freaked out by the sacred plant's effects in the gathering at her Manhattan apartment, she went after the Native American Church and lobbied for a federal law prohibiting the use of peyote. Marcus Boon writes:

Luhan was apparently appalled by the effects of peyote. In the 1930s, by which time she was living in Taos, New Mexico, presiding over a salon that included figures like D. H. Lawrence and Georgia O'Keeffe, Luhan was a vocal campaigner against the use of peyote by the Native American Church and lobbied for a federal law preventing peyote use... But thanks to a coalition of anthropologists that included Harrington, Weston La Barre, and Franz Boas, and representatives of native tribes, attempts to introduce the bill in the Senate were defeated in 1937—the same year that the passing of the Marijuana Tax Act effectively made marijuana use illegal.

Pretty awful. Carlstak (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlstak: Check out At the Rodeo (1929).[3] O'Keeffe painted this after drinking whiskey at a Pueblo ceremonial dance in Las Vegas, New Mexico.[4] What's so odd to me, is that the color palette is not only reminiscent of the peyote-inspired colors used in Huichol art, but if one takes a step back, the painting itself looks like an abstract representation of a peyote cactus flower and button. The colors of the alleged "flower" are inverted (a photography trick learned from Stieglitz?). The painting shows 9 ribs of the plant; the average peyote contains 5-14 ribs, but archetypal peyote images often contain 8 for some reason. Looking more closely at Huichol art, some contain 6 ribs, while others contain 8. Looking back at At the Rodeo again, one could argue that it does contain 8 ribs, but the southernmost facing rib is split into two to create an illusion of depth. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, At the Rodeo does remind me of the spiral motifs, sometimes representing snakes with heads and tails, seen in Huichol yarn art. It certainly suggests an eye with its iris, as well as a peyote head with a tuft of hairs in the center (although in the plant the hairs are white). I like what Sascha T. Scott says about it:
"The whirling colors suggest a dizzying euphoric feeling, perhaps heightened by the whiskey that O'Keeffe told Luhan she had indulged in during the trip... the painting is better understood as being about more than just one entity or experience." Carlstak (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another odd thing is that art critics previously said O'Keeffe didn't use the spiral or circular motif until 1939 (starting with Fishhook from Hawaii, which then became more prevalent in her work in the 1940s), and yet here it is as early as 1929. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: I've recently confirmed that critics missed the boat on this, probably because the work was so damn obscure and mostly unknown. I will be adding information in the coming days about this point to Hawaii series by Georgia O'Keeffe. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fascinating subject. Will be interested to see what you write. Carlstak (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced re Queerness

[edit]

There is only one mention of the possibility that O’Keefe had sexual attractions/relationships with women and it is based on a reference arguing that she did not. There is also evidence that she did and this should be included. Tmlben (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share it? I’ve been voraciously reading about her for the last six months, and the only thing I found is that she used to engage in nudist walks with a female friend in a forest. On the other hand, there’s a lot of sources about the suggestion she had an extramarital affair after her husband cheated on her, but the consensus is that it was platonic, although who knows. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to also mention, there are sources that discuss her time in Texas as an young adult teaching art. Because the writing is somewhat old and out of date, the style of this kind of narrative was never to say what the author really meant, but to say just enough to let the reader figure it out. Thankfully, that isn't true anymore in modern literature, but because of the constraints of many writers from the 20th century, it is difficult to truly know what was going on. My reading of the Texas era material is that O'Keeffe was very early on, even from childhood, considered odd, different, a freethinker, untamed, and by all accounts, a libertine of the intellectual kind. The Texas era biographical material alludes to all kinds of hijinks but doesn't really go into details. I think she was actively dating men and this was upsetting the married folk and potential suitresses, I don't know, it's hard to say, but what stands out the most is how O'Keeffe absolutely refused to fit in and wore unusual clothing that made people whisper and gossip about her, and also refused to style her hair like all the other women. She was a truly independent woman, and in Texas back then in the early 20th century, that could be very dangerous. Another data point, much later, is the intimate photograph of her and another man that Ansel Adams took, fully clothed of course, but she had that look of interest on her face that others have talked about in a somewhat backhanded way. Apparently there was some gossip about her and that man as well. My overarching point, is that aside from the nudist walks with her friend, I haven't run into anything matching your description, but I'm willing to find out more. I should also mention that she got into quite the disagreement with feminists of the 1960s and 1970s, who began interpreting and re-interpreting her work in ways that she disagreed with, particularly because she wanted to be seen as an artist not as a woman who makes art. I have to say, the most confusing thing of all, and the one topic that is bothering me the most, is the omnipresent debate about "flowers or vaginas". I've really tried to understand the truth of the matter, and the more you look into this, the more elusive the answer becomes. Did Stieglitz invent, market, and capitalize upon this idea, and encourage it? Perhaps. Did O'Keeffe really intend for these images and symbols to emerge in her work or was this something the critics promoted? Nobody knows. It's bugging me, and I wish I knew the answer. This reminds me of an early Monty Python sketch, where a television announcer tries to interest a couple in watching a documentary about molluscs. The couple finds it too boring to watch until the announcer begins to inject sex into every aspect of the documentary (The sketch also ends on a very disturbing note reflecting the homophobia of society in the 1970s, so please be warned before watching). My point is, one wonders if Stieglitz (and even O'Keeffe) allowed the gossip of sexual symbolism to flourish to sell more of her work and imbue it with sexual suggestion after the fact. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see now that you are implying that Maria Chabot was O'Keeffe's lover. I think that's on the verge of a fringe theory. You say there's evidence, so can you share? I'm assuming you are going to point me to one of her letters? If not, the only other thing that exists is a work of dramatic fiction published last year that implies they were a couple. I don't think we can use that. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Maria Chabot—Georgia O'Keeffe: Correspondence, 1941-1949 (2003) now. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looking at the book now, not seeing anything. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found what you were talking about. It's in Restoring Women's History Through Historic Preservation (2003), which presents an alternative biography of O'Keeffe that isn't widely known or accepted. I will summarize the main points that I read here:
  • O'Keeffe was not a heterosexual as depicted by mainstream sources, but rather a bisexual who had many relationships with women. This is according to fiction writer Paula Martinac, whose claims are supported by writer Jefrrey Hografe in his book O'Keeffe: The Life of an American Legend, a biography I have never seen cited anywhere.
  • Her marriage with Stieglitz was a marriage of convenience
  • According to Hografe, Sante Fe locals knew O'Keeffe was bisexual
  • This alternative story maintains that O'Keeffe remained in the closet by choice
  • In this version, Maria Chabot is her live-in girlfriend
I believe that is the narrative you wish to add to the article. Given that I've never seen Martinac nor Hografe cited anywhere in the O'Keeffe literature, I have no idea how accurate or reliable this version of alternate history could possibly be, but I will admit it would make for an interesting addition. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note, this narrative appears to be challenged elsewhere. Daniel Bullen, in The Love Lives of the Artists, depicts Chabot as an overworked employee, not as her lover. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One is forced to wonder if people are seeing what they want to see in O'Keeffe, much like her paintings. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, given the history of gay subculture in New Mexico, I think it's reasonable to briefly explore this idea in the article, provided we can show at least one art historian who argues along the same lines as Martinac and Hografe. This is because on Wikipedia, we tend to favor experts who write and publish on the relevant topic under discussion. Hografe may describe himself as a biographer, but I've never seen his name before, so I'm skeptical. If we can find one reliable art historian who mentions the connection between O'Keeffe and this alternate perspective, then I think we should include it. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at my sources, art critic Hunter Drohojowska-Philp explores the topic in Full Bloom: The Art and Life of Georgia O'Keeffe. She dismisses it as baseless, and notes the rumors had been circulating since the 1930s. She also cites Chabot herself who emphatically denies that O'Keeffe was a lesbian. However, Drohojowska-Philp does admit that Chabot was "infatuated" with O'Keeffe. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Chabot herself was consistently denying that O'Keeffe was a lesbian (or a bisexual), why are these rumors persisting? I'm assuming Chabot was out when she spoke about this? Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Prairie Historical Library & Museum

[edit]

Museum exhibit about the importance of Wisconsin and O'Keeffe.[5] Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_O%27Keeffe&oldid=1252167844"