Talk:City Landscape

Feedback

Images

@TonyTheTiger: Thanks for working on this great topic. It looks like you forgot to adjust the white balance on both images before you uploaded as they have a yellow tinge common to museum or flash lighting. It may be helpful to the reader to upload new images adjusted for color. I can help if you don't want to do this. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I uploaded two new versions. Something went wrong in your workflow. I downloaded a HQ Art Institute image from The New York Times and the HQ image from Christie's. I then scaled it down using the Wikipedia:Non-free content/Image size calculator guidelines and saved it without optimization. As you can see, both images are much sharper and higher quality. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I still have the raw files from my version if it would help with the AIC version. For the Rockefeller version, you should have saved an updated version over the old version since it is a cleanup of the same original file. That would preserve the history and make it so that old diffs still have an image.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You’re right, I messed up. I can do that later if you like. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I restored your file and uploaded the new one. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you think you could produce something better from my Raw file or are you standing pat with the current AIC version?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Just duplicate the workflow I described, but do a color correction approximating the neutral appearance first (compare the warmish, yellow lighting in your image to the AIC version which is white balanced). Then scale it down in your image program to the same pixels as those shown in the image size calc (just enter the original size and it calculates it for you automatically). Save it without optimization for higher quality. There's even apps that will do all of this for you. XnConvert is one of the more popular, but most people use it for batch images. I find it is easier and faster to do it in GIMP although GIMP can also be buggy. However, with all of that said, you're not going to get the same or better quality. The trick was that the NYT used a licensed HQ image from AIC, which I was able to scale down, hence the higher quality. If you really want to get adventurous, you can run dezoomify-rs (on your local machine) to grab the super HQ version from AIC, but that would require a bit of work given that the online dezoomify version can't detect the relevant image file because AIC hid it so people wouldn't grab it. It's been a while since I messed with it, but IIRC, you can use your browser's web developer tools to find the image file, but I think you have to make a few modifications in this particular example for dezoomify-rs to see it. It's bit tricky, but you can have chatgpt or other tutorials walk you through it hit and miss, trial and error style. It's a bit fun, if you ask me, but slightly time consuming. But if you do that, you get the best file possible. Also, the original super HQ AIC image doesn't look like it was color balanced so you will need to do that if you dezoomify it. Best bet is to just leave it for now. You may be forgetting that these images are not captured by someone like yourself holding a camera. They remove the canvas and set it down on a table where it sits flat, horizontally. They then use a special camera setup that costs around $50-100,000 (last time I checked, if my numbers are right) to shoot it vertically from the top down in a controlled environment with neutral lighting. You're not going to be able to replicate that kind of quality. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I have done vertical shoots (for work being submitted to a jury) with a Manfrotto (131DDB) on my best tripod Manfrotto (MVTTWINFA) with my own lighting. I shoot with one body and counterbalance with another for stability. My setup probably costs about 20 or 25% of what you are describing. I am a bit lazy in terms of photo editing. I just use the free Canon Digital Photo Professional if I do anything. My workflow is something like press a button in that software and save.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: In your nice article you refer to "multiple similar paintings". In art, this is referred to as seriality, serial iteration, or serial imagery , but often as a "series" for short. In the case of this work, we know there were at least three with the same title created by the artist. I think it's best to replace "multiple similar paintings" with "three known works in the series", or something along those lines. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

We don't know what the count is or how many are known.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

"At least three". Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Use of quotes

@TonyTheTiger: I think you can safely paraphrase half or more of the quotes. Generally, you want to reserve quoting for things that are super important and can't really be paraphrased and need to be attributed to the author directly. Obviously, styles will vary, but basically only quote when it is necessary for the reader. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand all of the quotes, so I left them as quotes. Feel free to alter.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The work is said to present the "excitement and freedom" of a her jet set life of leisure

I can kind of see how you interpret it that way, but honestly, that's not what the sources intended or meant. I would remove this and go back to the sources and study them closer. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed this as it is a misunderstanding of the sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert. This is a community effort. I stanfd corrected.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Rockefeller

Most of the information in this section about art sales can be reduced to a few sentences. You can preserve the info by moving some of it to footnote, but most of it to her bio or related pages. The point you are trying to make can be easily summarized. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to be delicate. If you have a summary in mind that you think is a better presentation of the subject. Go for it. Make sure the detail is preserved somewhere, like her bio.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I will be moving on to other things. I think if you condense that material to the bare essentials and either move it to a footnote or to other articles, it will help. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 11:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Joan Mitchell in 1942

• ... that a version of City Landscape has exhibited at museums across the United States while another has sat on walls at a university?

• Source: various

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Semiaquilegia adoxoides
  • Comment: 8th and final QPQ for this nomination

Moved to mainspace by TonyTheTiger (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 380 past nominations.

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC).

• ALT1... that a version of City Landscape by Joan Mitchell (pictured) has exhibited at museums across the United States while another has sat on walls at a university?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
• ALT2...that to fund research, Rockefeller University sold a version of Joan Mitchell's (pictured) City Landscape for $17 million last year?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Article is good, written from a neutral pov, easily passes WP:DYKCRIT. Hooks' preference is ALT2 > ALT1. I honestly do not find ALT0 interesting at all for a general audience. Without Joan Mitchell's name, it feels vague. ALT2 is very interesting and verifiable. Thank you, TonyTheTiger. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:City Landscape/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 14:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 15:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'll take a look at reviewing this article. My first impression is that it is bloated, particularly the background section and the long digression in #Rockefeller version into sale prices.

Content and prose

• Art critics have described the abstract works as a kind of cityscape This is ambiguous (considered collectively they make up a cityscape?). If instead each work depicts a cityscape, the extended explanation is redundant to the reasonable understanding of the title City Landscape described in the previous sentence.
  • When I look at the AIC version, I need some handholding to understand why that is a cityscape. Even with the explanation, I need to look very closely to catch up. Are you telling me I am the only one?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, when you do something abstract and then give it a name and tell everyone to square their perception with that name, you should explain it to them. IMO, naming abstract is like telling someone to take a Rorschach test, but telling them to tell you why you see what you see rather than tell you what they see. I might look at city landscape and see Milkshake on a Windshield, and if you name it City Landscape, I might not see it. Then the next person might see Crayons at the Nursery School, and so on.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    • I appreciate this explanation. Still, I think you can clarify that the individual works represent a city landscape, rather than the works collectively. - RIHG
      • That I can do. Thanks for the encouragement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
• Mitchell produced many artworks of a similar style during the mid-1950s. Similar works to the Chicago version (that may or may not be part of the City Landscape series? Or similar works to the works in the series?
  • This refers to works that were not named similarly. I don't understand abstract expressionism, but I think similar styles of dabs, splotches and splats with other names.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    • I think you can clarify, as the antecedent is a specific work in the series rather than the series itself. - RIHG
      • The WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the whole article. This point is summarizing the fact that Greenberg inspired her to do abstract art with central focal elements, the similarity of all City Landscape-titled works and the similarity of the Chicago version to a specific work not in the series. It is not just pointing out the latter.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
• Overall I find the lead underbaked. No discussion of critical reception, elements of the works, when she was painting them...
  • Regarding when she was painting them, the two known ones were 1955 and we already say she was painting in this style in the mid-1950s. We can't say all City Landscapes were from 1955, because we don't have a complete list of them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    • I'll wait for the above to be addressed. - RIHG

• Can you give the quote from Albers as to Mitchell being an heiress?
  • I'll have to track down that book from the Chicago Public Library.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

    @TonyTheTiger: You may not be aware, but when a book is on IA and is marked "unavailable", text search still works. The quotes are therefore visible: "SHE WAS A STEEL HEIRESS FROM THE MIDWEST—Chicago and Lake Forest (her grandfather built Chicago's bridges and worked for Andrew Carnegie)"; "Around 1918, thirty-seven-year-old Dr. James Herbert Mitchell met twenty-three-year-old poet, editor, and heiress Marion Strobel...(21); "In April 1936, Charles Louis Strobel died, leaving her heiress to two-thirds of his $500,000 fortune. Days later, she won the coveted Chicago Foundation for Literature Award for Poetry..." (64); "...she would purchase Vétheuil [La Tour, Joan Mitchell's "two-acre property overlooking the Seine" --V.]...She was able to do so because their mother's death had left her and Sally the wealthy income beneficiaries of testamentary trusts from both parents."(312) Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

    • That page 64 source is now in use although I do not present the quote. In her bio a more extensive presentation exists.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• I don't really see either the a) the utility of describing the perception of Mitchell's greatness in every article on her works (put it in her article), or b) how the Burlington text supports this claim. Same goes with describing her general style, unless sources are making a point of this work as exemplary or a break. The Sandler interview in particular seems problematic; the implication you draw is that these works are typical of the period when the texts simply do not support this. This kind of stuff belongs in the page for the artist and not in the pages for every work.
  • I am having a hard time balancing this against all of the painting WP:FAs I have had. Current FAs Whaam!, Drowning Girl, Look Mickey, which resulted from broad editorial contributions and WP:FFA Campbell's Soup Cans all seem to have well-balanced background statements.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Comparing the background of Whaam! with City Landscape, I find this article less focused. An entire biography of Mitchell is given, while in Whaam! only biographical details of Lichtenstein directly relevant to the work are given. I will revisit when other, more pressing comments are addressed, but a tighter background section can and should be produced by writing from backgrounds given to the series specifically. - RIHG
• "When the Rockefeller version was auctioned in 2024..." I have a few issues with this. Why is it in background? What is "the Rockefeller version"? Why are you giving so much detail to when these descriptions were made?
  • The background section describes relevant facts that are not specific to any specific version of the series. Facts about the number of elements in the set are not facts about a specific element. The two sources describing multiple elements of the set are from fairly recent times. I am not able to state how long it has been widely-known that the Chicago version was not the only one by this name. Keep in mind that in the 1950s the public domain did not have an internet. Broadly speaking the two known works were both in the public domain, but flyers in Pittsburgh, Minneapolis and North Carolina may have never seen a common audience. I don't know when these began to be viewed as a part of a series. Thus, I fully contextualized the facts that we have by associating them with a timed event.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    • This is an article about the series, not about individual works in the series. Or so says the lead. On an editorial level, I would strongly advise moving discussion of the works as a series to the body outside of background. - RIHG
      • There is no source written about the series. The sources generally discuss one version or the other.
        1. Recall one source said "Mitchell created at least three paintings with the title City Landscape in 1955."
        2. The other said Mitchell titled several paintings from the 1950s City Landscape, pointing to the lack of distinction she saw between urban and natural environments. “For Mitchell, natural landscapes and cityscapes were deeply intertwined in her experiences of the world,” says Sarvé-Tarr. “She saw them both as ripe territory for painting.”
        3. Recall this edit by User:Viriditas invoking the word series-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

      Of course it's about the series, and of course there are sources referencing the series. I don't understand what the problem is here. You can always work around the unknowns by structuring the content around what you know instead. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

      • User:Viriditas, When I wrote Haystacks (Monet series), there were lots of sources that had encyclopedic content on multiple elements of the series. To my recollection, I have yet to see a source that mentions both the AIC and the Rockefeller U version in a significant way. It may be the case that the artbooks for either of the exhibitions that described multiple elements of a series has such content. Most sources with encyclopedic content on one of the two we know doesn't have encyclopedic content on the other.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        Well, I saw both mentioned in the sources, and apparently there is a third. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        I’m honestly confused by this discussion. You already discuss two of the works in the series. What is the problem that needs to be addressed? Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        Is this question directed at me? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        No. I’m having trouble understanding what Tony is talking about in terms of not having a source about the series. Best I can figure is that Tony thinks it is not a series? Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        The issue is that this WP article is the first PD information source that I see that gives semiequal footing multiple elements of this series. Because of it in the future skilled art journalists, critics, historians, and fans will discuss the series more than the works. I don't know if any two City Landscape works have ever been shown in the same exhibition, print publication or digital publication yet. We at WP seem to be the first to use the word series for this set of multiple similarly named works. When I did Haystacks (Monet series), Four Freedoms (Rockwell) and Brushstrokes series, sources were already addressing the subject as a series. In our article on Serial imagery, Haystacks (Monet series) is an exemplar of that subject. Sources described the variation in season, time of day, and weather. No one has written about City Landscape as a series to my knowledge. In the future, because we have presented the content on WP in an encyclopedic manner people will know to discuss the group. So far it is not possible to my knowledge to find a book that shows pictures of multiple elements of the series, that list the museum locations of multiple elements of the series and most importantly presents a cogent discourse describing the variations in the series. When I wrote Campbells Soup Cans, I discovered that there are about a half dozen distinct subseries. There are the main 32, there are torn label versions, there are is a subseries of colored versions that has toured on exhibition, to name a few. It could be the case that she might have a week, a month or several months where she was painting bluish City Landscape versions and another period where she was creating pinkish City Landscape versions. Maybe these two are parts of different subseries. Until there are sources describing the way in which these identically named works are associated, we should tread very gently on how we use the term series.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        You have convinced me. I was unaware that later in her life, Mitchell spoke out against the word "series", preferring the term "subjects" instead. Are these two paintings part of a series or are they subjects? I think they are part of a series, and I recall seeing a source that said just that during the DYK. However, we do see that the word series is used differently when it comes to various movements and artists, and this could indeed be the case here. Viriditas (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        User:Viriditas, Do you have a source for subjects vs. series? Feel free to drop in some content either here or in the bio in this regard or leave me some breadcrumbs on the issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        Footnote 10, p. 17. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        • Well, I am not sure that quote is applicable to every set of specific works she has produced. That presentation seems to be specific to a certain "series".-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

          Of course. Meanwhile, it looks like I finally found the missing third painting. It was featured in the 1998 exhibition Joan Mitchell: Paintings from the Fifties and appears as "Untitled, 1954-55". The painting also appears in the catalog. The exhibition appeared again in 2011, this time with a bit more info from the art gallery: "Untitled, 1954-55, is a companion, perhaps predecessor, to City Landscape in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago and shares with that work an accumulation of small, swift, overlapping marks dawning in a segmented atmosphere of warm and cool neutral tones." Now, obviously that's not enough to be certain of anything, but until the official CR is released (which is many years away at this point) we won't know, but there it is. For me, this is case closed, but I realize it's not enough for Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

          User:Viriditas that is really stellar research as have many other points today. Please take the credit for this find by presenting it on the article talk page in a section titled something like Additional elements of the series.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

          Credit is for closers. Like you said below, we don't know anything yet. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

          User:Viriditas, is the following quote from the publication or a gallery website? "Untitled, 1954-55, is a companion, perhaps predecessor, to City Landscape in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago and shares with that work an accumulation of small, swift, overlapping marks dawning in a segmented atmosphere of warm and cool neutral tones."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

          It's from the Lennon Weinberg Gallery document linked above. This will likely be my last comment on this talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

          User:Viriditas I don't know if you heard about today's WP hero, but he happens to also be the page creator of Artwork title, which I find to be a fascinating article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

        @TonyTheTiger: If you play around with GBooks, you can get limited access to Roberts & Siegel Joan Mitchell (2021). It says Mitchell exhibited three paintings in 1955 with the name City Landscape (p. 37). The authors describe all three works as sharing similar stylistic qualities, and they describe the three works in the last paragraph, although it's tricky to read because they also describe The Lake in the same paragraph. On p. 120 they refer to the subjects in the plural (City Landscapes), hearkening back to p. 37. Although I don't have full access to the book, it only contains the image of the AIC version. More interesting are the footnotes, which may have all the answers you are looking for here. I'll post the quote to save you some time:

        In the Stable Gallery solo show, as well as subsequent group exhibitions that year, paintings with this centering horizon/mass—three of which would be titled City Landscape (all 1955, including plate 14), and one The Lake (fig. 2.7)—received instant critical approval. They had the light tops and bottom corners of earlier works, now clearly evoking the mutual reflection of sky and water, bracketing a monumental center of strokes that mass and tangle. In some, red or blue dominate, and in a few, the brilliant colors span an outrageous spectrum that embraces not only red, blue, and orange, but yellow, pink, and maroon, and hints of green...These paintings are representational and also abstract. As landscapes, they sit at a distance from us—cities seen from afar—and they are also, of course, accumulations of paint, applied at no more than arm's length. More central than this dualism to Mitchell's thinking was the exchange between self and world: Chicago, seen across Lake Michigan; Manhattan, rising up behind the Brooklyn Bridge; the vast blue ocean stretching out from the beaches of Long Island; and perhaps the skyline across the East River, visible from a rooftop. All these views came with Mitchell to her St. Mark's studio (fig 2.8), where the distance to the horizon was the twenty-three feet between the studio's far wall and her painting, hanging opposite. (37)

        How do we regard art gallery shows versus art museum exhibitions. Art gallery shows are shows designed to market art for sale while art museum exhibitions are probably more educational/unbiased/informative.Art musuems don't list art gallery shows in exhibition histories (as I understand it).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        I'm fairly certain that art museums do list gallery shows in exhibition histories. O'Keeffe's art gallery shows at An American Place are in most exhibition histories (if not all), for example. And given the notability of the Stable Gallery, I don't think this is a problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        With regard to this work's the exhibition history here and here do not include gallery shows. How are art gallery resources different from Car dealers as a source on automobile articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        @TonyTheTiger: Stable Gallery collaborated with institutional museums for exhibition tours. See 1959-1961 in Joan Mitchell: Paintings 1950 to 1955 (1998), p. 72. Also, see collaboration list for 1955. Stable Gallery is listed on the AIC page, but they put it in the provenance section, as that's who they bought the painting from: "Stable Gallery, New York, by 1958; sold to the Art Institute, 1958." Can't tell you why they would ignore the 1955 exhibition, but that's their style; it doesn't make it ours. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        I believe collaborated in this sense means contributed works to an exhibition. At that time, they probably had the most Joan Mitchells of anyone in the world.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

        Good point. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

        Note: "Mitchell...joined the Stable Gallery, an important commercial venue on Central Park South where she had seven one-person exhibitions between 1953 and 1965". According to the MMAA, Mitchell [achieved her 'signature style'] in 1955, the year City Landscape was first shown. Christie's refers to it in the plural ("works") here: "Some of Mitchell's most powerful and emblematic paintings debuted at seminal solo shows at Stable Gallery in 1955 (when the City Landscape works were exhibited)..." Also, SFMOMA: "Mitchell titled several paintings from the 1950s City Landscape, pointing to the lack of distinction she saw between urban and natural environments." As for the commercial art galleries as car dealers argument, I can't really speak to it, but we do know that notable art galleries do produce notable catalogs and documentation and may use the services of art historians and archivists. My recent work on Tono Zancanaro found a close collaboration between private art galleries in Italy and archivists, who have generated a huge amount of material on Zancanaro with the assistance of Manlio Gaddi, a former Italian scientist and politician who has seemingly dedicated the later part of his life to publishing enormous amounts of historical documents about Zancanaro's life and work as an artist, with the participation of private art galleries throughout Italy. In many ways, this reminds me of the efforts of Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, and it must be said that private art galleries in Germany and France were involved with the rise of Van Gogh's fame and promoting his work, as the established art world preferred to ignore him at the time, as most establishment institutions are wont to do. The art world isn't top down, it's always been bottom up. Referring to and denigrating art galleries as mere car dealers could misconstrue the history of art. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

        Art galleries are selling babies with unformed minds in a sense. Everyone thinks their babies are beautiful and it is a bit hard to separate the beauty queens from the rest at this stage. In this case the audiences have not developed an understanding of the work, so it is their minds that need to be developed. This understanding grows as the work is exposed in the public domain.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

        One more point art gallery shows often just have paintings and pricings. They don't want to limit the imaginations of potential buyers by interpreting the art. Museum exhibitions often have significant instructive prose along with most specific works describing the collective consensus (or a single experts opinion) on the significance and meaning of them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

        So I guess the question we all have is, what happened to the third painting? Based on what we know, is it safe to assume it disappeared into a private collection in Asia or Europe? We've seen this kind of thing happen before. The final answer should be found here, but it hasn't yet been published, and a CR could take a year or 20, nobody knows. One thing immediately occurs to me: based on your comments, we have to acknowledge that the problem here is that because only the AIC painting is well known, most sources (but not all) usually refer to that work when they discuss the painting. You could help remedy this by finding out which sources Roberts & Siegel are using to refer to the original exhibition(s) that featured all three works and go from there. Based on Roberts & Siegel and Christie's, I think it is important to state in the lead and body that there are three works by that title. Normally I would refer to this as a series, but given that Mitchell went on the record later in her life to say that she preferred the word "subjects", I think it is best to leave the word "series" out for now. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

        She may have titled exactly 3 works as City Landscape and the one you are pointing to from the 2011 source is an untitled work not thusly named above. She may have titled more than 3 and this one is still not one of those. We don't know much yet. I would put your guestimate of the third one on the article talk page. You also seem to understand our leads to the additional element(s) in the series better than me. Could you also document that on the talk page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

        Agreed. I will leave this in your hands at this point. Use your best judgment as always and remember to have fun and not take things too seriously. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

        • At some level they are a series. So, we will leave the word in there. Once the works left the nest of Stable Gallery, joint critical review seems sparse from what I have uncovered to date.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• The layout from here is really strange. Nothing is said on the creation of City Landscapes as specific works, everything is to be inferred from her general production from the era. You should start with a description of the works before a long and exhausting list of the places and dates each work has been displayed. The Rockefeller work in particular doesn't have really any critical commentary, despite the Christie's article giving references to reviews. I'll leave this here for now for you to respond/address, with two short additional comments:
  • I have reworked the text a little.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I'll look into the reviews you mention.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

    I saw you added a review from Christie's ; if it wasn't clear, I was referencing the literature that article references that I see scant engagement with. This other article in Christie's has good directions for research, referencing critical commentary by Jane Livingston and Judith E. Bernstock, and I see more analysis in Elsen 1981, p 408 and in Livingston 2002, p 22 (not the Christie's reference). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

    • For the record. A lot of those sources are actually commenting on the AIC version.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

      • E.G., Elsen has a picture of the AIC version.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

        regarding the 4 sources in the Christie's article, today I stopped in at the Sulzer branch of the Chicago Public Library, which is the 2nd largest of the 80+ branches. They tell me that CPL does not possess or have direct access to any of the four sources although they could probably track down the 4th one by interlibrary loan outside of the CPL system.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

        Let me see. 19h00s, I know you're busy with FAC, but could you see if have access to this volume of ARTnews (vol 54, no 7 (Nov 1955))?

        I'll have a check for the second and third shortly, but it may be worth putting something up at WP:RX.

        As to the fourth: I would hope you already had access given it is already cited in the article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 21:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

        • When I used the fourth source (quoting "mass and tangle" and such), I had access to the work. Now, only a summary of the work is linked.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

          I may have never actually had access. I think I had been sourcing from User:Viriditas' posting above. Based on the Worldcat link resulting from the suggested WP:RX request, I made the sub-3-mile round trip drive to the University of Chicago's Regenstein Library to actually see the book. I had been given access to the page 37 content. However, the Christies article also references page 120 content. I was able to get good pictures of both sections on my phone. I am not sure what is being contested in this review about the "mass and tangle" content. Please advise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

        Sadly I don't have access to that volume of ARTnews right now (I will have access through a library once the federal government reopens though, not to give away my location). RX is totally worth a shot and will almost certainly work; I would also note there are quite a few other Chicago-area libraries that certainly have these older volumes, if you're willing to make the trek, Tony. Particularly UChicago, Northwestern, and UIC libraries (which all likely allow guest access), as well as the libraries at the Art Institute and MCA Chicago (probably appointment-only, if they allow public access). --19h00s (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

        Thankyou for checking. I've found a copy of The World of Abstract Art at my library which I can borrow and send a scan of, although it may be worth checking WorldCat as it seems to be in a ton of libraries (I have had librarians complain about WorldCat's recent accuracy though, so maybe double check with library websites directly before you make a trek). The Rockefeller Institute Quarterly piece can be found here. I can also access a physical copy of the ARTnews piece at a library somewhat near me if you can't access it. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 23:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

        Did you forward that already. If not, it would save me some trouble. WP:RX pointed me to a World Cat listing that shows it is available in plenty of Chicagoland locations, but no place as convenient as my neighborhood University of Chicago Library that is less than a 3-mile round trip drive. I suppose I could track it down, but that is bordering on demanding for a GA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

        I sent it through last week, you may need to check your spam folder. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 07:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• "these two pieces" What two pieces?
  • The two specific artworks in the previous two sentences in that paragraph. I'll reword.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• Carnegie Institute is linking to a disambiguation page, can you disambiguate?
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions

• A link to the Internet Archive's copy of Master paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago would be beneficial
  • Linked in the main body. Contemplated putting the link in the external links section. Feedback welcome.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    • I would add this to the URL parameter in the book source rather than in the body itself. - RIHG
• Citing both the dust jacket and the work are silly for Albers 2011. It's not the author writing or highlighting content on the dustcover, making it analogous to WP:RSHEADLINE.
  • given that we have a source that her mother is an heiress, isn't this less of a concern than in the abstract?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
    • I don't know what this means. - RIHG

Other

• Images Y all good, appropriate fair use rationales/captions
• Neutral clock
• Stable Y
• Broad / summary style N concerns to be addressed
• No COPYVIO / OR clock (looking fine so far)

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 15:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi TonyTheTiger, pinging you in case you missed the above. Tell me where you're at and what you think. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• I think the 2nd edit made me miss the first. So I was waiting. I would have done this before the main page appearance if I had seen it. I will get this done soon.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Hi Tony, I've added some comments while I wait on the outstanding issues to be addressed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Hi Tony, we're at a month with this review. How are you positioned to wrap this up over the next week? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
      • I was travelling this week and have several appointments next week. I will do my best to make some improvements by the end of next weekend. However, we are dealing with sources that seem to be hard to track down from 70 years ago in some cases. I will try to work with WP:RX and admit that I should have approached them already.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

        Sounds like a good timeline. I think you should track down the ARTnews piece, but for the purposes of the GACR I won't hold it out as required, so don't worry about that in a time-sensitive manner. I've taken pictures of The World of Abstract Art which I can send you if you send me an email first. The bigger thing outstanding is the tangential material in the Rockefeller section. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 09:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

        I sent an email contact to you by email. Will attempt to revisit what you describe as tangential material. Do you mean the auctionhouse content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

        Sent. Yes, auctionhouse material. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 07:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• User:Rollinginhisgrave, I think the article has settled in regards to discussions between User:Viriditas and myself.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Can you clarify where we stand now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  Viriditas are you satisfied with the article's treatment of "series", and the placement of discussion of similarities in background? As to the where we stand with the rest, Tony, there's still plenty to address that I've listed above, most significantly reviews of the Rockefeller piece. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 22:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, I think my discussion with Tony (which began with the DYK and bled over here) is mostly inside baseball and not that important in the scheme of things. With the ongoing research of the Mitchell CR, we just can't nail down the oeuvre until it is published (which is years away), so pretty much anything goes, which is why Tony's call for a conservative approach is warranted. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• (Moving this down here so I don't gum up the other conversations already being had above)
• Separately, there is a red flag I feel have to raise. Christie's is not an independent or reliable source for anything beyond auction figures, stated provenance, or dates of sales. Auction house catalogue essays and articles are written by sales professionals whose job is to make a work seem as valuable as possible to a potential buyer; no matter how many scholarly references they include or how much research they appear to have done, their sole purpose for writing the essay is to sell the work of art in question. Auction catalogue essays often make poorly sourced claims, inflated claims, or completely inaccurate claims. I've never seen it written in any guidelines or rules on Wikipedia, but it's my personal assessment (and I think would be widely supported by other modern/contemporary visual arts editors) that material written by auction houses is never to be cited beyond its use in confirming sales figures and dates. Art historians and other academics do not use auction house catalogue essays as sources for research beyond the primary source value of the essays (i.e., to study how auction houses market works of art to buyers), specifically because this material is not independent or often even thoroughly vetted. These essays are useful as a place to find other sources, as you appear to have done here, Tony, in the same way that an artist's gallery CV is a great place to find sources. But I would really caution against ever sourcing analysis or non-market-related facts from auction house articles or essays. --19h00s (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks 19h00s as always. I agree re; Christie's assessment of the significance not being worth much, and was planning on raising it in a second sweep when the outstanding points were actioned. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 23:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding Christies as a source it is currently used as follows:

  1. The Rockefeller Mitchells: Science for the Benefit of Humanity 9 inline citations

     The first use is to quote other reliable sources (Arts Digest and ArtNews) - kept-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

     Second use is provenance dates.-kept-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

     Third use is fairly objecting listing of colors used.-kept-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

     Fourth use is provenance-related.-kept-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

     5th and 6th use are for sale information.-kept-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

     7th and 8th use were subjective review and review-adjacent content.-removed-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

     The version I am reviewing started with 8 uses.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  2. How Joan Mitchell became the ultimate conductor of colour 3 citations

     first use documents early presentation at art gallery exhibition. Seems to be a simple historical date fact.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

     second use documents the date of exhibition of a known set of City Landmark-title works.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

     further provision of WP:IC for exhibition date verification.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

     The only question is whether art gallery exhibitions are encyclopedic. I.e., is it part of the history that is considered to be facts worth knowing. They are exhibitions for the purpose of propagating sales as opposed to art museum exhibitions which are exhibitions for entertainment/education/pleasure. For some works the art gallery exhibition is actually considered to be a part of the exhibition history. E.g., Campbell's Soup Cans uses an art gallery exhibition for sale as the widely agreed debut. In this case, the AIC does not include the art gallery exhibitions in the exhibition history. I am not sure why sometimes art gallery exhibitions are not included. My guess is that they are sometimes much less formally presented than art museum exhibitions.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  3. Where art meets science: two paintings by Joan Mitchell exemplify The Rockefeller University's pioneering vision 4 citations

     The first use was a secondary/unnecessary citation for a former location of the painting that is better served by the other IC for that fact. I have removed this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

     The second use was for a later location of the painting at Rockefeller U. This is an unspectacular claim and reasonable use of Chrisites content as a source.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

     The third use contributes to the understanding of the motivation for sale.-11:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

     The fact that this source is not independent means I do not trust their descriptions of motive. They have strong incentives to frame the sale in the most flattering light. At best, a brief and attributed summary could be warranted, but I honestly think even that is too much if no secondary sources are discussing this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 17:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

     There is another source discussing similar content in the same paragraph. See the Inside Higher Ed source.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

     The fourth use was inappropriate subjective assessment of the work. It has been removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  4. 20th century evening sale totals $640,846,000 marquee week running total $748,297,800 1 citation

     Used only because it gives us an extra decimal place of precision for an auction sale price. Considered an RS for sale prices.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  5. Christie's Presents The Rockefeller Mitchells Science for the Benefit of Humanity 2 citations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

     Both uses now removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

     Of the things I don't want cut as tangential, I'm generally okay with what is being cited to Christie's. As one part that is tangential or an inappropriate use of a Christie's source, everything between "Rockefeller also sold a second Joan Mitchell... this formative stage of her career". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 08:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Your email has everything except The World of Abstract Art, which I do not have.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean. What are you able to see? The only attachments were pages from The World of Abstract Art. Putting these reviews aside, we are six weeks into the review and I have not seen any movement on the lists of display locations or the long digression into sale prices in the Rockefeller section that I raised at the start of the review and again on the 2nd. When these are actioned, the article will still need another run through as I can still see issues persisting.

  Sorry Tony, I don't think we have good synergy, and the time I am willing to give this review has passed. GA can be a hard process because it relies on only one reviewer's opinion, and mine may not be that of another reviewer. I hope you will consider my comments here as good faith efforts towards improving the article, and I hope you will reflect on and act on them if you see it appropriate before you renominate. I can briefly answer some questions if they arise, but I do not really want to spend more time with this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 11:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• User:Rollinginhisgrave, I had lost track of the display locations and sale prices issues, but I just shortened the content by over 700 characters in that regard. I have obviously continued the pursuit of responding to your issues (reviewed 3 of the four sources that seemed to be at issue and eliminated auctionhouse reliant content) in the time frame that we had agreed on. It seems a bit random and unfair for you to just waive your hands at the review otherwise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, looking back, I should not have read "next weekend" as "the next weekend from today"; I was reading it in light of wrapping it up "over the next week". If you work on this outside of GA and ping me when you believe all the points I have been getting at have been fully addressed, I'll pick it back up to jump the queue. Be aware of MOS:NOTED and try to trim the Rockefeller version in half, as it is still not tightly focused on its subject. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 20:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am never going to get to half on the Rockefeller version. I just managed to get another 26 characters, but I am not feeling much more. I am not trying to shop reviewers, but at some point, I'll take another review from a third party.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  I understand. My perspective is that the sale price material could be put in one or two sentences, and that "half" is a compromise. Still, this is where would go to a third opinion. I will try to expedite the process of this article being reviewed when you are ready to renominate.

  While I am here: "would be expected to produce great benefits to society" is a POV statement. Attribute all opinions with normative components; wikivoice is not appropriate for describing something as good or bad. The discussion on Rockefeller University generally does not treat its subject with a neutral hand, and I now see it is sourced to Christie's... hopefully this can be resolved. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 21:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  That phrase is POV and goes a bit farther than the other Rockefeller intention source in that paragraph, which is reliable, could support. Removed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  I just want to put in a good word for Rollinginhisgrave if you decide to do a second review. They have reviewed articles I have authored and I found their review exceptionally fair and reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)