# Talk:Chaim Koppelman

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chaim Koppelman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, I will copyedit as I go and post queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

An early student of Aesthetic Realism, the philosophy founded by Eli Siegel in 1941, Koppelman's art, teaching, and his work as an Aesthetic Realism consultant speaking to people about their lives were grounded in the principle stated by Siegel: -hmmm, tricky sentence - the subject goes from Koppelman to K's art after the comma. Aligning the subjects would be better...but maybe not possible..no alternatives are jumping out at me...also, try and avoid using a word (in this case 'Siegel' twice in the one sentence)
Conversely you could align the subjects of lead para 3 as the second sentence is more about his art than him.....
I rewrote the beginning of the second lead paragraph per your comment. Waiting for the page creator to also weigh in. Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to leave Museo Napoleonico as a redlink...maybe I'll do it myself.
The prose is pretty engaging...I found myself reading it and forgetting to find things to correct...I suppose because there aren't any prose-clangers I can see...
On comprehensiveness...one possible deficit that might be good to expand on is that when I read it I still don't get much of a sense of Aesthetic Realism and how it connects with its work, other than the article saying it does. Any way the Aesthetic Realism and artistic development section could be expanded with rationale etc I think would help the article
Trouver: please address this point. Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise looking good.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. Re comprehensiveness, I can expand & give rationale etc tomorrow. Checking sources to avoid "original research" and will post my suggestion on this page tomorrow.Trouver (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Great - looking forward to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
So, it was a little more difficult than I expected. The ideas are big, and it is hard to make them clear swifly. I have citations to support this. I suggest adding the following after the first three sentences of the first paragraph, in place of the rest of the paragraph, in  Aesthetic Realism and artistic development:

About his study of Aesthetic Realism, Koppelman wrote: “I learned that what I wanted to do as an artist was what I had to do as a person, as a husband: put opposites together”<Rome, p.28>.  His works are allegories about the problems of life: how to integrate pride and humility, generosity and selfishness, the old and new, rigidity and flexibility, idealism and cynicism.  According to Aesthetic Realism, all art arises from the hope to respect and honestly like the world, which is the deepest desire of every person. There is, however, an opposing desire for contempt, based on the feeling that opposites have to fight, and that oneself is added to by lessening the value of other things. Koppelman’s art is permeated with his understanding of this conflict.[16] He often quoted a poem by Siegel which, he said, describes the “organic relation of technique and ethics” in art:
“The Print”
Can dark and light
Show wrong and right?
—And round and straight 
Show love and hate? 
—And dim and clear 
Show hope and fear?
Hopefully, everything said in the rest of the article about opposites will have more meaning because of these sentences and the poem. I look forward to your comments.Trouver (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thinks this goes towards what I was envisioning. I recommend adding it. However, I still don't get how this comes out in practice..is it merely juxtaposing unusual or opposite items then? A practical example might be good here...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, putting opposites together is not simply juxtaposing them & it's not hot + cold = lukewarm. It's more subtle--like the way hot & cold work together in the human body to maintain a healthy 98°. Another everyday example is criticism that is kind or exact, which I think is going on here. You want a good clear example as to his art, and he has lots of these. Just give me a little time because of commitments in real life. Thanks for your comments.Trouver (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I am happy to wait and keep this here as the article is good and this last link is a key point, so take your time to do it justice ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  - great, well done. The last little bit is good as it is about why he does what he does etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This, I think, is a practical example of how & why his work came to have a more beautiful relation of truth & imagination, freedom & order, wildness & precision. The last quote I suggest moving from the "Critical Reception" section because it is useful & clarifying here. I'm concerned about the length of this article, but also think it is important for this section to be clear & have a practical example. If we add the poem above it should be later in the section, after he began printmaking. Looking forward to your comments.Trouver (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In Aesthetic Realism classes and lessons, Koppelman learned that ethical problems are also artistic problems.  He felt his work suffered from a fight between rigidity and flexibility. He could go after precision in the studio as penance for being careless at other times, wanting to get away from things.  As freedom and order, truth and imagination became more integrated in his life, his art became more imaginative. “I had always had a classical bent in my work,” he wrote. “But there was also a wildness in me that had not come into my work sufficiently or gracefully.” As a result of his study, Koppelman noted, “Tightness and abandon, the classical and the wild, even the conservative and the rebel seemed to be working better together” resulting in art that was “more imaginative, freer in concept”   Boldness of imagination and an unerring sense of detail were two qualities Koppelman’s work became noted for.
He also learned that art does not arise from suffering or depression, but rather from the hope to respect and honestly like the world by seeing opposites as one. This, according to Aesthetic Realism, is the deepest desire of every person, but it is opposed by the desire for contempt—the false notion that one adds to self by lessening the value of other things.  Koppelman’s art is permeated with his understanding of this conflict. His works are often allegories which point to the discrepancy between, and the need to integrate, opposites such as pride and humility, generosity and selfishness, idealism and cynicism.  “That art could be a vehicle for understanding individual behavior seems always to have inspired Koppeman’s creative process” wrote John B. Ravenal of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, noting that his works “offer intimate rendering of closely observed detail, by which, paradoxically, they evoke universal truths” 
Don't worry about the length...there is plenty longer....and much longer...... This looks good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Do I make these changes? What is the correct procedure?Trouver (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you can make the changes - the page is on my watchlist so I will see them when it happens. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Your last comment conflicted with my adding the following, from an Aesthetic Realism lesson Koppelman had on June 2, 1949. I thought it might further clarify the learning process. Koppelman said his work seemed to be "isolated and rigid and nothing moving from one thing to the next."
Siegel.  There is a tendency on your part to separate the deep perception of reality.  And one of the things you have to go after is to feel that when you are feeling good you are just as deep as when you are feeling bad. And this I don't think you have felt yet. Take the fight between Delacroix and Ingres. Ingres went after outline and shape and something comparatively restrained, and Delacroix went after much motion and color. Now is that warfare in you?
Koppelman. Yes.
Siegel.  It takes many forms. You won't be free about art until your motion, your ripple, your flow is seen as the same as your exactness, your rigidity, your grimness. I think you think you are deepest when you are suffering. Do you see what I mean?

Please let me know if I should add this as well.Trouver (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting - try it in a quotation box and attributed (otherwise it'd be a copyvio...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chaim Koppelman. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130213135108/http://www.aestheticrealism.org/Ck-award.htm to http://www.aestheticrealism.org/Ck-award.htm
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) 12:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)