Talk:Marlene Dumas

message: The whole article, especially the opening paragraph, reads like a publicity brochure rather than a neutral encyclopaedia article.  It is articles such as this which make a mockery of Wikipedia as a serious, properly edited, encyclopaedia.
:Yes,I certainly see the point of the  template that was placed in the article (I've since deleted the rather egregious copyright violation material responsible for all this). When I saw that, I did a Google search (they're easy to undertake - just copy-paste a substantial section of the copy into the search engine and see what comes up). After discounting mirror sites, I found several websites that substantially quoted the lede, but these as far as I could tell were all post March 2013 at which time the lede already existed in its present form.
:There no question at all that Marlene Dumas is one of our most sought after contemporary artists in the sale-room, while the retrospective exhibitions at the Stedelijk and Tate establish her as one of our most notable living artists. The question therefore is how much of the bio comes from her agents and galleries. Frankly this doesn't trouble me too much, but I can understand the potential for abuse. All I can countenance there is vigilance by editors.
:As for the tone, I join with you in being irritated by this kind of thing. It would be pleasant if editors were always careful to maintain a distinction between commentary and criticism in their comments when appraising works of art. Not all do, and there is unfortunately a minority who effectively abuse their editing privileges essentially to deliver their own critical opinions for the benefit of their Talk page circles (edit counts, admin status, academic tenure ... it's not just Talk page jerkfesting necessarily the motivation). Effective administration by the visual arts community would be helpful there. Of course the opinion of properly sourced critics is always welcome (and important to add in this particular case, looking at the edit History I don't see any of the usual suspects I am aware of).
:Unfortunately I don't have the time to improve this article. I agree it needs attention. C1cada (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transparent self-publicity 

message: I am sorry to see that editors here did not think to respond to the remarks I made above.
I have established that much of the text here is a copyright violation of material supplied by the Menil Gallery in support of it's June to March 2009 exhibition. You can see this material here https://www.menil.org/assets/marlenedumas_final.pdf, an example paragraph of which is as follows:
:The personal and the historical collide in Dumas’s portraits. In Dead Marilyn (2008), a female corpse fills the expanse of a small canvas. This work marked the beginning of a group of paintings of mourning and weeping women, made in the year after the artist’s mother died. Dumas’s treatment of this infamous image of Marilyn Monroe reveals layers of meaning beyond its original source, which was an autopsy photograph. Smeared brushstrokes of white, blue-green, and gray highlight the subject’s blotchy face. The small size of the work and the delicate rendering makes it a portrait of intimacy. Notions of celebrity, sensationalism, and the mystery of the actress’s own personal narrative come into question. In The Pilgrim (2006), Dumas shifts her critical interests in the public notoriety to an image of Osama bin Laden, whose relatively peaceful eyes and mild smile greatly contrast with the media’s typical portrayals. Seemingly cropped from its original photo, we have little sense of context, let alone what lies beyond the borders of the canvas. Stripping her subject of his public persona and historical importance, Dumas leaves us with a critique of both politics and identity.  
On 22 October 2009, an editor who appears to have been only briefly active on Wikipedia, made the following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marlene_Dumas&diff=321398144&oldid=318615295. An example section of text is as follows:
:The personal and the historical collide in Dumas’s portraits. In Dead Marilyn (2008), a female corpse fills the expanse of a small canvas. This work marked the beginning of a group of paintings of mourning and weeping women, made in the year after the artist’s mother died. Dumas’s treatment of this infamous image of Marilyn Monroe reveals layers of meaning beyond its original source, which was an autopsy photograph. Smeared brushstrokes of white, blue-green, and gray highlight the subject’s blotchy face. The small size of the work and the delicate rendering makes it a portrait of intimacy. Notions of celebrity, sensationalism, and the mystery of the actress’s own personal narrative come into question. In The Pilgrim (2006), Dumas shifts her critical interests in the public notoriety to an image of Osama bin Laden, whose relatively peaceful eyes and mild smile greatly contrast with the media’s typical portrayals. Seemingly cropped from its original photo, we have little sense of context, let alone what lies beyond the borders of the canvas. Stripping her subject of his public persona and historical importance, Dumas leaves us with a critique of both politics and identity.
The citation for the edit references this web page http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/267131/marlene-dumas. A glance at it suffices to show that, if not outrightly spurious, it simply doesn't address the critical remarks made in the edit.
In short, the edit is a blatant copyright violation which needs to be addressed. Quoting and citing the source (i.e. Menhil Gallery) strikes me as inadequate and I'm not prepared to copy edit a single source to comply with Wikipedia standards. 
I'm therefore deleting the relevant passages. c1cada (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also deleting material in the lede that I notice is also a direct quotation from this source (and removing the template now that everything is fixed). c1cada (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marlene Dumas. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91736301
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140625163334/http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Manifesta-a-hard-act-to-pull-off/33010 to http://theartnewspaper.com/articles/Manifesta-a-hard-act-to-pull-off/33010
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marlene Dumas. 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/20170519225321/http://www.marlenedumas.nl/solo-exhibitions-musea/ to http://www.marlenedumas.nl/solo-exhibitions-musea/
*Added  tag to http://www.vlaanderen.be/int/pretoria/en/news/marlene-dumas-receive-honorary-doctorate-university-antwerp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150131172200/http://archive.newmuseum.org/index.php/Detail/Entity/Show/entity_id/532 to http://archive.newmuseum.org/index.php/Detail/Entity/Show/entity_id/532
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Moved CV material off main space. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved CV material off main space