Talk:Lee Krasner

message: Most of the information in Lee Krasner's article are relevant. The editors have indicated her early youth, education, work, and legacy. The only thing I found distracting was the constant mention of how she was married to Pollock. While it is important to highlight their marriage, continually bringing the focus back to Pollock makes the article biased towards him. It needs to focus more on her as an artist rather than her married to an artist.
The majority of the facts have citations included with them. There are a few statements which I believe need citations to show that the article is based on fact rather than on opinion. For example, the first paragraph and last paragraph in the works section do not have citations. It would be better to have citations with some of these statements so they could be based on fact rather than on opinion or popular belief. The references with citations do come from reliable sources. Some of the information comes from biographies about Pollock rather than Krasner which again highlights the fact that she was married to an artist rather than being an artist herself.
The article is neutral in tone throughout. 
I believe that the fact she was married to Pollock is overrepresented while the significance of her work is underrepresented. For example, under the works section, the first paragraph briefly mentions how she created her work and how the catalog of her work is small. The next paragraph discusses how she struggled mostly being known as Pollocks wife rather than a painter. The third paragraph illustrates how Pollock's and Krasner's relationship affected each other's work. This section does not discuss any of her well known works which is often highlighted in other famous artist's Wikipedia pages. Only one of her paintings is discussed in the art market section and merely states that it sold for a lot of money. In my opinion, the fact that Lee Krasner was an artist is underrepresented throughout the article, especially when this page is compared to other artist's pages.
Ags36 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent observations. While it's important to note the biased reception of Krasner's work, we want to avoid reinscribing that bias by constantly talking about it. I agree that the best approach is the one you describe: sufficiently thorough and detailed discussion of her work, to highlight her achievements as an artist, rather than her relationships to other (more famous, male) artists. Aolivex (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Diction can be simplified for those not well versed in modern art. The reasoning to eliminate the trace of Pollock in the other sections of this article is clear, and I agree with that. The language could be improved when you speak of how she felt and their personal struggle for example, "Although many people believe that Krasner stopped working in the 1940s in order to nurture Pollock's home life and career, she never stopped painting." It makes the situation seem like a fantastical circumstance, and therefore slightly loses credibility. KuNsT716 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your feedback! Can you point out specifically where the diction is too art historical? I've tried to reword a few things to make it slightly easier. Also, do you have any recommendations for how to reword that sentence? I'm struggling to think of how to make it sound less fantastical. Thanks! Ags36 (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes that's what I meant. I'll change the phrasing on that now.Ags36 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reframing Krasner's achievements as an independent artist 

message: Ambiguous: "they both approached their work in different ways". This is unclear. I'm assuming you mean, "each artist took different approaches to their own work." Is this correct? Aolivex (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's what I meant. I'll change the phrasing on that now.Ags36 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship to Pollock section

message: This section contains the line, "she began creating abstract still lifes, which became the prevalent style she used throughout her career." There are at least three problems with this:
*The structure of this sentence suggests that still life is a style. That is false. Still life is a genre. 
*Moreover, it is unclear that Krasner's non-objective work qualifies as any genre whatsoever.
*The adjective "prevalent" is probably misplaced; as it is currently, it suggests that still life was somehow the predominant genre used during this period. That is an overgeneralization in the extreme, and not particularly helpful. Suggest the author means that still life was prevalent in Krasner's work during the period. If so, this needs a reference.
Aolivex (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to delete my contribution because I plan on writing more about how her style changes over the years more thoroughly. Ags36 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Works section

message: The "religion" section includes: "Her identity as a Jewish woman has affected how scholars interpret the meaning of her art." This is not cited, but should be. Has anyone discovered any evidence that this is true? Is there a literature/historiography on this issue? Aolivex (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a citation. Thanks!Ags36 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion section 

message: I would like to reshape the outline of Krasner's page too look like this:
* Introduction
* Early life and education
* Works
* Relationship to Jackson Pollock
* Legacy
* Art market
* See also
By adding a whole section dedicated to looking at her relationship with Jackson Pollock, the mention of their relationship will not be as necessary in other sections, specifically the "Works" section. It will also provide an in depth look at how their relationship affected each other personally and through their work. I will mainly be focusing on this section and her works section. If I find more important information about her life, I will add information accordingly or add new sections to the page.
Ags36 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good approach to start with. I'd be interested to learn about how scholars treat the problem of the "more famous partner". Sometimes there is resistance to separating out biographical details from professional accomplishments, but I think in this context, it makes sense, because it provides space to focus on the works exclusively, which will solve the problem you identified in the article (the way Pollock runs like a thread throughout). Aolivex (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed outline

message: * Cheim, John. "Lee Krasner: Paintings from 1965 to 1970". New York: Robert Miller, 1991.
Provides an in-depth look at specific works Krasner made from 1965 to 1970. 
* Hobbs, Robert. "Lee Krasner". New York: Abbeville Press, 1993.
An in-depth investigation into Krasner's entire life and career. Provides information about her work and personal life.
* Kleeblatt, Norman L., and Stephen Brown. From the Margins: Lee Krasner|Norman Lewis, 1945 - 1952 . New York: Jewish Museum, 2014.
While this book examines the work of Krasner and Lewis, it is important because it investigates why these two artists are generally overlooked by the public when discussing abstract expressionism. It provides an in-depth analysis of Krasner's 'little images' that she created from around 1946 to 1949.
* Rose, Barbara. "Krasner|Pollock: A Working Relationship". New York: Grey Art Gallery and Study Center, 1981.
This book will be essential in understanding how Krasner's relationship to Pollock shaped her life and her work. Provides information about their relationship and how it affected their work.
* Rose, Barbara. "Lee Krasner: A Retrospective". New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1983.
Information about the retrospective of Krasner's work at the MoMA. Provides in-depth analysis of works created throughout her life.  
* Strassfield, Christina Mossaides. "Lee Krasner: The Nature of the Body-- Works from 1933 to 1984". East Hampton: Guild Hall Museum, 1995.
Outlines important information about Krasner's career. 
* Tucker, Marcia. "Lee Krasner: Large Paintings". New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1973.
Provides information and analysis about Krasner's larger scaled paintings. 
* Wagner, Anne Middleton. "Three Artists (Three Women): Modernism an the Art of Hesse, Krasner, and O'Keeffe". Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996.
While this book looks at two other modernist artists, it provides an important analysis of Krasner's work. It discusses her status as a woman, a wife, and an artist and how these labels affected her career. 
Ags36 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused by what you are asking here. I never referred to anything as a reference or a further reading. Please explain what you mean and I will do my best to fix it. Ags36 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Sure: When you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page, you see four sections, listed as References, See also, Bibliography, Further reading. It's not clear that these are distinct categories of materials (although they might be). Does that make sense? (This is mostly a technical point.) Aolivex (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes now I see what you're saying-- thank you! I've combined the two together to make it look better.Ags36 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed bibliography

message: The distinction between "references" and "further reading" is unclear to me. Could we join these and clean them up? Aolivex (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused by what you are asking here. I never referred to anything as a reference or a further reading. Please explain what you mean and I will do my best to fix it. Ags36 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Sure: When you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page, you see four sections, listed as References, See also, Bibliography, Further reading. It's not clear that these are distinct categories of materials (although they might be). Does that make sense? (This is mostly a technical point.) Aolivex (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes now I see what you're saying-- thank you! I've combined the two together to make it look better.Ags36 (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography, References, Further Reading

message: I think it's going to be great to combine all parts that mention Krasner's relationship to Pollock to make her work more independent from his. Some rearranging needs to be made as well to make sure her relationship with Pollock is introduced before discussing his influence because as the article stands now, Pollock's influence is described then their personal relationship is discussed. I'm really excited to see her Works section expanded to match, if not surpass, the amount of information used to describe her marriage.  I'm hoping you'll be able to find enough information to fully unravel her formal style and maybe even other influences found in her work. I'm thinking it might be worth while to see if the Legacy section can also be moved to be directly after the description of her style so as to highlight her influence in the art world, rather than leaving it as one of the later sections.Sarahmooiweer (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback! I moved her personal life section so it's before the works section and so the legacy section is right after her works section. I am definitely planning on expanding her works section a lot so there will be more information about her art and not just a discussion about Pollock's influence. Since there is so much work that needs to be done in that section, I have a feeling it will take a long time for me to be ready to put it on the actual page instead of just my sandbox, but that is a definite goal of mine. Thanks again! Ags36 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Loving this discussion, everyone! I'm wondering about the choice to have "Personal life" preceed "Works" - is this for the sake of continuity with "Early life"? Is this consistent with better-ranked pages on other artists? Do you have any concern that this sequence of material might induce people to frame her work within the narrative of her personal life? Or am I reading too much into this? Good work so far! Aolivex (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems like other artists' pages have their personal life information after the discussion of their work. I do believe that it makes sense to introduce their relationship before the works section though because much of her work is interpreted as biography, so Pollock is mentioned relatively frequently when discussing her works. By giving the background information of their relationship, it allows the reader to understand why he is mentioned in relation to her works.Ags36 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: I think that your suggested changes will make this article very good. I agree that Krasner needs a separate identity from being Pollock's wife. The fact that the only subject under "personal life" is about her relationship with Pollack reinforces your point that the article focus too much on him. I like your plan to make a section that focuses on their relationship so that the rest of the article can focus solely on her. There are also some minor sentence structure issues that make the article seem less professional like saying, "Krasner supported herself entirely mostly." There are also some terms that may be a bit too technical like, "neo-cubist abstraction." That term should probably be expanded or linked to another page if you can. Over all I like your suggested changes!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspepple (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback! I'll definitely change some of the sentence structures to make them sound better so thank you for pointing that out. Unfortunately there is not a page for neo-cubism so I'd only be able to link it to the cubism page. I also am planning on working on discussing Krasner's religion in her personal life section, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Again, thanks for the feeback! Ags36 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Peer Review

message: In Early Life we have this: Lee was the fourth of five children, including her sister, Ruth, and the first who was born in America.[5] She was the only one of her siblings to be born in the United States [3].
The first sentence implies that her younger sibling was also born in the US/America, since Lee was the "first". The second sentence says otherwise, implying that the youngest was born elsewhere somehow. On the other hand, the second sentence is based on reference [3], biography.com, which says that she was the "youngest of six children", contradicting the first sentence. Reference [5] is the MOMA retrospective, which I don't have access to. Does anyone know the true sibling count? It may be hard to know what the definitive reference is here. Molinari (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siblings? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lee Krasner. 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/20090131000000/http://arsny.com/requested.html to http://arsny.com/requested.html
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) 07:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lee Krasner. 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/20150611094930/http://www.pkf.org/press.html to http://www.pkf.org/press.html
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) 04:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lee Krasner. 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/20150402100940/http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/collection/fisher_collection/fisher_collection_highlights to http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/collection/fisher_collection/fisher_collection_highlights
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) 18:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion