Talk:Lowbrow (art movement)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contemporary Art, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Contemporary ArtWikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary ArtTemplate:WikiProject Contemporary ArtContemporary Art articles

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Lowbrow vs. lowbrow art

I propose this page be moved to "lowbrow art" and a stub be written in its place. Links would include this page, as well as "low culture" and "highbrow" (antonym).

My reasoning is that this page used to be a redirect to "highbrow" and is linked to by such. (In fact, highbrow still owns the "low-brow" redirect.) The natural antonym to "highbrow" (intellectual artistry of all kinds) is "lowbrow" (anti-intellectual artistry of all kinds, incl. e.g. humour), not a single populist visual art movement (nifty as it may be). – Wisq 21:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Lowbrow (art movement)"? That's the usual way to clarify different uses of the word. -- Scarequotes 21:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I just suggested "Lowbrow art" because the term was actually used in the opening paragraph (bolded). – Wisq 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Pictures

I have to admit I don't know much about this type of art, but I gfigure any article like this should have some pictures to demonstrate what it is.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but copyright issues are the main problem. William (Bill) Bean 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@William (Bill) Bean How about the Creative Commons, the public domain, or fair use? Are there no lowbrow movement artists willing to give permission to use their work on Wikipedia? I'm still not sure what lowbrow art is because the definition is lacking, as another as noted on this talk space, and there are no images. I might have to resort to a web image search or checking out the "Sources" under "Citations". Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Needed

I have no doubt that the paragraph in the History section starting with "Writers have noted" is accurate, but these writers should be cited. William (Bill) Bean 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation that the "movement" began in L.A. or of the time frame. Proclivities (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must verify your material with reference citations per WP:V

WP:V is very important. You must do this in order for your article to have legitimate status in Wikipedia. Mattisse (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Mattisse has an indefinite away from Wiki message in the talk page. Will someone else please validate the citations and clear the tag? William (Bill) Bean 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Almera

Hey folks. My Marco Almera article was tagged for notability, so I am hoping someone here can help. I started his article because he was listed as a notable artist of lowbrow on this page (and because i'm a big fan of his work). I couldn't find too much about him on the internet, perhaps someone has some of the magazine articles about him, so we can improve his article? Thanks Pepperjack 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Well Known"

Stevegallery, please clarify what criteria need to be met for an artist to be "well known". I tried to add Mitch O'Connell to the list because I've seen his work reviewed in several places. Is there anything remotely objective we can use here? Google hits? O'Connell gets 24,000 to 13,500 for Gary Taxali, 12,900 for Marion Peck, 8,200 for Anthony Ausgang,etc. How about hits limited to wikipedia.org? It's 7 for O'Connell, 6 for Taxali. Peck and Ausgang come in ahead at 13 and 18. These criteria are obviously a bit silly, but some clarification on what determines the threshold for noteworthiness would be helpful. 128.255.85.2 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I had deleted Mitch O'Connell because he does not have an article. I consider any artist who does not have an article, or who has an article that is tagged with Notability, to not be well-known. Steve (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the article so that it nows uses Category:Lowbrow pop surrealism artists instead of having a list of artists. I agree that "well-known" is a judgement-call. There have been continuous problems with this article - people continously add themsleves or various random artists to the article. Hopefully this new way of doing the list will help. Steve (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

128.255.85.2 may want to look at Wikipedia's verification policy and notability guidelines. This pretty much covers who should be included. As a rule of thumb, redlinks (without articles) are usually removed from lists. Try creating an article if this artist meets the notability guidelines. Google hits are really only a snapshot of notability, since they can be unreliable. freshacconcispeaktome 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Blab!11Cover.jpg

The image Image:Blab!11Cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Defined

While the history of the movement is nicely synopsized, as far as I can see there is no definition / description of what Lowbrow art actually is, aside from this: "It is also often known by the name pop surrealism. Lowbrow art often has a sense of humor...". Although I can sort of loosely infer what it is, I am really left scratching my head. Would it be possible for someone to add a description? 24.68.128.218 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lowbrow vs. "fine" art

The fourth paragraph begins with the statement that "Echoes of lowbrow's approach can be found in the art history of the 20th century…". That is an anachronistic and careless use of an already over-used metaphor. Echoes emanate from the past to the present (or future) - not the other way around. Though many writers use the word to embellish any number of things, it's probably best not to use terms which refer to aural experiences when describing visual or intellectual approaches. Presumably, author meant that "echoes" of Dadaism, Regionalism, etc, are resonant (not "found") in lowbrow's approach. Proclivities (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for third-party sources

As it stands, this article is almost completely unsourced. The only references are answer.com, about.com and some gallery websites. Third-party sources are needed to verify a great deal of this information. freshacconci talktalk 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Few more artists for your consideration that I came across when writing a piece on low brow =

Aidan Jarvis, Kayla Mahaffey, Olga Esther, Brad "Tiki Shark" Parker, Cyrus Fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E6B0:CD80:1BF1:84F4:91E4:51B (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lowbrow (art movement). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]