# Talk:Model (art)

I have degraded this article from B status to C status. The author of this article (WriterArtistDC) has responded by upgrading her article to B again and saying that "Class change needs more than an edit summary."  My original justification was "Focus.needed on subject instead of on apologia." As requested, I am content to expand on my summary: At present, the article does not provide a definition what a model is and what a model is not. Indeed the article contradicts itself on this basic point. That alone disqualifies it from a B grading. Next, the article uses a lot of space to defend the field of art modelling (or specifically nude modelling) against perceived public criticism. It is a very one-sided conversation because the reader obtains little information on the other points of view. There are other weak points (a surplus of pictures and a lack of references for the claims made). Clearly the author is an enthusiastic art-lover, but that can be a hindrance when writing a dry and neutral encyclopedia article. I suggest more detached editors are needed to elevate this article to B grade. 46.6.158.161 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The article begins with a definition of an art model, a person who poses for artists, often nude. Nothing that follows contradicts that basic definition, but expands upon it, reflecting the underlying complexity of the topic. The article is encyclopedic in being comprehensive by including all the points of view that my research could find. The fact that I have the prior experience with the topic and the academic expertise needed to do such research is the opposite of being a hindrance. This is not a "dry" topic, and it would be biased to attempt to make it so. I did not give the article a B classification, but agree with it, and have been working to bring the article to GA. If anyone has any specific suggestions that would be useful in that effort, I would welcome them. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
You write "The article begins with a definition of an art model, a person who poses for artists, often nude." Picasso walks along the streets of Paris and is stopped by a tourist. "Please sir, here is my camera, take a picture of me in front of the Eiffel Tower". Picasso takes a photograph and hands back the camera and walks on. Is the tourist an art model? In that absurd definition the tourist is an art model, like millions of other tourists. The article fails at the first sentence.46.6.214.6 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The lead sentence in its entirety: "An art model is a person who poses, often nude, for visual artists as part of the creative process, providing a reference for the human body in a work of art." That plainly excludes the scenario you describe, doesn't it.  Ewulp (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
No. The tourist (possibly semi-nude in a bikini) wants what she thinks is an artistic picture of herself, and for that reason hands her camera to the first available passer-by who happens to be Picasso. This example fulfils all the requirements of the introduction. A Wikipedia article should at least have a usable definition in the first sentence. The downgrade is justified as a temporary measure, as long as the author WriterArtist is refusing to engage with the fundamental problems. 46.6.160.120 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
If the resulting photograph is a work of art then yes, the tourist is a model for a work of art. If not, then no.  In your previous post you spoke of a tourist who is "like millions of other tourists", but most tourists are neither creating nor posing for a portfolio of works destined for gallery display and art-critical evaluation.  The lead sentence makes it clear that some seriousness of creative intent is involved. Ewulp (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Just as I suspected: you are unable to distinguish between a person posing for a portrait (representing only himself/herself) with a person posing for a work of art (the person representing someone or something else). The former is a "sitter" (or subject), and only the latter is a "model" (a template) of or for an artistic idea/ for something/ for someone else. You now try to argue with some art gallery criterion, which misses the point. Your resulting confusion runs through the article text and art examples. One sentence in the article explicitly points out the distinction, but the lead contradicts it. Got it now? Good luck with fixing the article.46.6.181.46 (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
So now you've changed the premise: before, the tourist was making "an artistic picture of herself" in collaboration with Picasso; now you specify that she's "posing for a portrait". In this new scenario, she's better described as sitter or subject than model. You are the one who suggested that making "an artistic picture of herself" met the requirement of "providing a reference for the human body in a work of art", and I answered that it might or might not, but that the souvenir snaps made by your "millions of other tourists" would not. If the tourist is an artist, Picasso need not be involved. Artists who have served as their own models include Cindy Sherman [1] [2]; James Montgomery Flagg, who used himself as a model for Uncle Sam; and Franz Xaver Messerschmidt. The sentence you believe to be in contradiction is presumably this one: "Usually an individual who is having their own portrait painted or sculpted is called a 'sitter' rather than a model...", but there is no contradiction; a portrait sitter is doing more than "providing a reference for the human body in a work of art". "Portrait" is not a synonym of "human body". Ewulp (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Since you are both involved, neither of you should be assessing the article. Please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts to ask a neutral editor to do it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I confirm a B rating - it clearly meets the criteria, which aren't in fact high. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't know who was being referred to as "both", since this discussion now includes three registered users who agree that the class should remain B, and an unregistered user who has downgraded it. If I am to be discounted on the basis that I "know too much" about the topic, the consensus remains clear. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@WriterArtistDC:, the nearest equivalent is WP:INVOLVED (which is a code of practice for Admins but the principle is relevant): no-one should be both judge and jury in their own case. Not that it matters any more because the question is now moot (US sense), as Johnbod meets the criterion for an uninvolved, informed, editor and has confirmed the B. (fwiw, I considered it a B too but recused myself per the same criterion.)  B it is. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

First pass at "Models in history" gallery: 

captions focused on models, not artists or artworks
added dates and moved images to chronological order
removed two models more famous for other accomplishments, another for lack of clear identification
WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The downgrade of this article from B to C was reverted by @Ewulp:, and I have reverted it again.
It is likely that blocking the offending IP address will be required. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There was a paragraph in the History section that was tagged as needing a citation. The text was more about the Nude in art history than art modeling, so I have deleted it, having been unable to find a reference. WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)