Talk:Robert Genn

message: Throughout his life, he never had to support himself as a teacher or commercial artist (as all the other Group of Seven members had to do), but could support himself as a full-time painter.  However Robert Genn is listed as a student? Can this be substantiated by any source material; if so - the text is contradictory within the Lawren Harris article. Ernstblumberg (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Genn's study under Harris is referenced. It's not necessarily as contradiction, as it doesn't say there was any financial transaction involved, and, even if there was, it doesn't mean Harris needed this to support himself. Ty 16:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is quoted within a commercial gallery...the source? Ernstblumberg (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. I have looked at your 'more detailed account' and once again question the origin for the source material. Yes, in some instances the subject themself is the source, however as Wikipedia states clearly within its guidelines care must be taken regarding unverifiable claims. The worry in this case is whether an artist is manipulating Wikipedia as a tool to influence a secondary art market through an attempt at associations with recognized historical figures. Surely, if Genn's claim is justified then it would be a well publicized and incontrovertible fact published in almost all documentation on him. You hardly need reminding of the instances of famous teachers and students throughout time...in particular within the field of art and apprenticeship. However, there are also many 'pretenders to thrones' and Wiki guidelines above RE: 'the more people engaged in checking facts...' the better. Ernstblumberg (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that there is no discernible historical proof that Genn ever was a student of Lawren Harris - this is of paramount importance regarding WP:BLP other than commercial websites and sources you have found whereby the subject himself seems to be the original source. Whether or not you are disconcerted by my comments would appear to be contradictory to the initial premise of 'truth' regarding Lawren Harris and the validity of his article. Are you not curious as to why a figure such as Harris makes no mention of Genn in any of his writings, correspondence? The burden of proof surely lays upon the author(s) of Genn's article to substantiate such claims. You will note his article has been tagged for some time now, the issues have been raised previously (with no consensus) and your tone hardly begets an NPOV outlook. My primary interest is Lawren Harris, his life and work; not those that 'claim' to have studied with him (especially when his own article emphatically stipulates that he did not have students). Harris was philanthropic and had the money to purchase and help several artists along the way (see contributions and articles I have worked on that cover this) - I can find no mention of Robert Genn among them. Certainly, I can 'desist' from such comments but what do you plan for myself and others who may be writing on Canadian Art History and require accurate information regarding Lawren Harris and the exact nature of his pedagogical pursuits or lack thereof? Ernstblumberg (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your time in this matter. Regarding your cautionary tone I think we will probably concentrate our efforts on original Canadian landscape artists such as Toni Onley rather than wasting our time with time-consuming self-publicists and poor exponents of pastiche. Although, it would be interesting to elicit some genuine information regarding the spirituality of Harris; from what Genn's article implies - I doubt he would be the appropriate source. Thanks again and Happy Editing. Ernstblumberg (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia: Verifiability - Student of Lawren Harris? 

message: This artist, although prevalent within a Google 'hits' set of criteria has members of his family (Sara Genn) with their own pages (some with tags and disputes) and appears to use Wiki as a self-promotional tool (see discussion page and Lawren Harris). Furthermore, he seems to have editors and administrators at his disposal to support a POV and NPOV controversey. He has been shown not to have been a 'student' of Lawren Harris (see discussion pages) but cynically attempted to imply this through the use of quasi-referential material that does not itself support the claim (see commercial galleries; including the Hambleton Gallery that do not report him as having been a student yet constantly bolster his associations with the Group of Seven). He 'identifes' with older Canadian Art from the Twentieth Century but Wiki must not capitulate to the manipulation of commercial forces (be they wealthy or with influence - should the encyclopedia wish to remain credible). Is 'identification' not merely a euphemism for pastiche when the artist himself not only visibly presents a 'pastiche' like quality but has gone to extraordinary lengths to claim affiliation (after having denied studying with - as previously asserted) a historical movement? Of course BLP requires firm sources and a modicum of flexibility when the subject himself is the source but volunteer editors and administrators with equally flexible parameters (although well defined) regarding quality control can be duped by wealthy entrepeneurs and NGO's with fiscally based agendas that bear little or no relation to encyclopedic content. For instance, has the subject himself contributed to his own article and, if so, to what end? (discuss). This is not an isolated incident and illustrates perfectly why Wiki must at some point address these issues upon a suitable platform that relinquishes the precepts and vocabulary of un-professional standards. To pander to the baser elements of a by-gone epoch hardly begets an attempt at an innovative, informational platform and structure. Ernstblumberg (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have concerns about other articles, you should bring them up there. If you have general points about wikipedia to make, then this is not the right place. You might like to try Wikipedia:Village pump. This page is for discussing improvements to this particular article. See WP:TPG.  If you think there is a conflict of interest, then see WP:COIN, though I think that would be fruitless, as it is not a problem with this article. If you do have specific points about content, then please make them. Otherwise, this page is not for airing personal opinions. See WP:TPG. Ty 08:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree with all that you stipulate however; does the quote: "I look for things to inflict my style on" not seem somewhat un-encyclopecic (re: Wikipedia WP:COIN)? Does it strike you as an encyclopedic article re: WP:TPG given that it has been tagged for quite some considerable time? Why do you defend the article without improving it so that the tags can be removed? Ernstblumberg (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better! However - are you missing the opening quotation marks from the Hambleton quotation? Also...I wonder if the overall effect of dwelling upon Genn's website rather than his work is not grounds for questioning notability? That is to say; is he notable as an artist, maintaining a website of note, and/or both? The improvements have certainly taken some time to address and getting the article up to Wikipedia standards cannot be an easy one but as an administrator - do you feel it is still 'out of the sandbox' RE: NPOV and BLP? Ernstblumberg (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hambleton quotation is indented as a quote. Indents do not also carry quotation marks. It is also preceded by text which makes it clear that it is a quote. Genn's web site is part of his work. I would have thought that it added to his notability, rather than lessened it. If you want quicker improvements, you are welcome to find the sources and make them yourself. Admins do not have any special editing prerogative. I don't find any issue with WP:NPOV as the sources have been used objectively. What WP:BLP problems do you find? I can't see any unreferenced material about Genn that is dubious. I have asked User:Freshacconci, who placed the tags in the first instance, to comment. Ty 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: whilst travelling in his grandfather's Hupmobile coupe - WP:BLP - the tone is glib and unencyclopedic. There is nothing dubious about it and I would be interested in the opinion of User:Freshacconci regarding the article in general. There is an overall 'magazine' feel to the article which appears to spring from a promotional rather than an encyclopedic tone. In short...it comes across as lacking unity and integrity within the acceptable norms and format of an encyclopedic biography. Some articles need a complete re-write - this one seems just so and looks to have been edited so many times in a fashion that has resulted in a lack of cohesion. Does it 'flow' and 'read' well for you? Ernstblumberg (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assumption that I am obviously averse to the subject is incorrect. Quite the reverse - I am interested in the facts alone (in particular; those that pertain to the original claim regarding Lawren Harris). These have been resolved but have lead to an overall tone which strikes me as lacking in merit regarding WP:BLP style. Are we collaborating to improve the article or are you making threats and cautionary warnings re: tendentious issues for some other reason? Your tone certainly seems hostile and your tirade regarding Arthur Pan has been adequately addressed on your own talk page. Ernstblumberg (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read WP:BLP and find substance and style to be inextricably linked, hence the attention and import given to verifiability on my part. Lawren Harris and Arthur Pan obviously do not fall within the criteria required for Robert Genn. The only issue regarding standards seems to be a rather belligerent tone on your part to help get some simple issues sorted out. You have made the alterations knowing they improve Genn's article but I have had to all but plead to get you to do so. Furthermore, you initiate an assault on one of my articles...is this the norm for a Wikipedia administrator? Personally, I would like to see a little encouragement and/or constructive advice rather than a continued accusatory tone. We are all volunteers are we not with (hopefully) the same end in sight and, in our case, a shared interest in Art? Ernstblumberg (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still interesting to note the WP:NPOV with Galleries in Kelowna such as Innaminiscus editing for the subject. Not to mention the No Consensus decision...Ernstblumberg (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a self promotional tool...or is it? 

message: So, there has to be an error here. 2002?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.40.122 (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date? 

message: The title of the example painting seems odd. From Commons
Picnic Point to Philip Glass Lake of the Woods' by Robert Glenn [sic]:
Picnic Point and Lake of the Woods are geographic locations, but Philip Glass is a composer. There is a Picnic Point in Lake of the Woods. But there isn't anything called Philip Glass in Canada:
https://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique?id=Picnic+Point&snrc=&q=&category=O
The link to Hambleton gallery doesn't work and the painting isn't in their list of Genn art. Humpster (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of painting 

message: Ref 5 says "His technique includes "a tradition of strong design with patterns of color and form, with a pervasive sense of personal style."
Ref 6 says "Genn has succeeded in creating a style that is solely his own."
So is "the tradition of Canadian landscape painting" defined as "tradition of strong design with patterns of color and form"? In other words "Canadian landscape painting" is "strong design with patterns of color and form"??? Humpster (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tradition of Canadian landscape painting