User:Tyrenius/Historical artists (WP:HART)

It is a mistake and an anachronism to judge historical artists on the same terms as contemporary ones. Today, anyone can call themselves an artist, regardless of any talent, skill or status in the art world. Thus the need for WP:NOTABILITY to determine who does and does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Up to the latter part of the 19th century, this was generally not the case. An existing master would accept a pupil on merit, who would then be trained to the requisite standard of the day, following which he would be an accomplished artist in his (or rarely her) own right. Works created by such an artist have an automatic  significance to a greater or lesser extent—in a way that cannot be guaranteed for an artist today—either as an imitation or development of their teacher, or an example of a historic school.  Such works are now found either in situ, e.g. with murals in notable buildings, or held in various collections, including, almost invariably, those of museums—again an endorsement given to the minority of today's practitioners. It is normally the case that even minor historic artists have a place in Wikipedia and information about them should not be simply deleted. At the very least, that information should be included in a section of their master's article, concerning pupils. Such relationships are valuable material for art historians.  It should be noted also that the internet may not readily provide sources. See WP:HISTORYBIAS. One very authoritative online source that should be tried (search engines cannot reach it) is the Union List of Artist Names accessible here at the Getty Research Institute.  This also has the advantage of recording a large number of spelling variants, which are very common in historic artists - a WP article may sometimes exist under another name.  Some historic artists not on the Getty Union list have survived AFD, so if an artist is on the List this should be taken as prima facie evidence of notability.