Talk:Hudson River School/Archive 1

message: Why is there a red border and fake shadow behind the cole painting? That seems innappropriate and even distracting. It should be removed/ photoshopped out.
-the architect
:*I agreee.  It's being used to represent a "frame" of some sort, but it is not in keeping with this great painting.  JJ 13:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *So, I did crop the frame and shawdow out.  I hope no one is upset. JJ 13:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is a much better image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cole_Thomas_The_Oxbow_%28The_Connecticut_River_near_Northampton_1836.jpg under the main Thomas Cole article.  I recommend doing away with the current one completely.  Jonrock 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

message: I deleted the two external links to a rock band called "Hudson River School."  To me, a rock band is completely irrelevant to an article about a school of art.  I hope no one disagrees with me.  JJ 23:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rock band

message: The article is named "Hudson River school."  I have noticed, however, that most artist biographies refer to the "Hudson River School."  I changed one of them to use a lower case "s," but I'm having second thoughts.  Isn't this a case where the article should be moved to change the title to "Hudson River School?"  I would appreciate comments.  JJ 00:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed them all to lower case "s" for the sake of internal consistency (and before reading your comment here). It seems either way is correct depending on which book you're looking at. Dictionaries always seem less inclined to capitalize art terms like cubism and futurism than books on art, but "Hudon River school" isn't in Webster's. I'm not sure what the consensus is, I prefer capital S myself, have to look into this. A title change might be in order. Ewulp 06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: It has been awhile since I looked at this article.  I don't think of either Winslow Homer or Samuel F. B. Morse as Hudson River School artists.  Homer has his own, unique style.  Morse was too early, and, to my knowledge, was not a follower of Cole.  Please chime in here.  Do people agree or disagree?  JJ 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only do I agree, I have removed the names as completely inappropriate.  Homer and Morse have never been catalogued as artists of the Hudson River School, so there is no reason for Wikipedia to be the first to do so.   Furthermore, neither artist is even considered primarily a landscape artist, so adding their names here is wildly off the mark. If the WP contributors who added these names have evidence (published catalogues, textbooks, museum exhibitions, etc.) that supports their addition to this category of artists, then please provide it before relisting these otherwise inappropriate artists here. Jack Bethune 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm very glad you agree, since I did not want to do this unilaterally.  You added a reference to my article on White Mountain art to Gerry and paintings of The Old Man.  Check out the Gerry in this exhibition that I have recently co-courated.  http://nhhistory.org/cv/  JJ 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I'm very aware of your very fine and impressive exhibition of White Mountain art, and of the painting by Gerry chosen for the cover of the catalogue, Consuming Views.  It was interesting to see Gerry's Old Man of the Mountain so prominently featured, since I know of a much smaller but very similar version by him in a private collection. Incidentally, the painting on the cover must be the large version by Gerry that I mistakenly once suggested was at the Smithsonian. Thanks for clearing that up. And, more important, thanks for your superb WP contributions on White Mountain art, artists, and American landscape painting.  Jack Bethune 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Artists 

message: I restored the version to that of Jack Bethune of December 5th.  Unsigned edits were primarily by vandals, with some unsuccessful attempts to restore the article.  Any comments are welcome.  JJ 13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits 

message: I guess I'd like to raise this issue again.  Both Jack Bethune and WorldofDew have contributed on this subject.  It would be good if we had some "definitive" reference.  Howat in his book does list Homer as a Hudson River painter.  We know that Inness did paint early on in the Hudson River style.  WorldofDew is looking for "hard core" Hudson River painters.  If we don't have some reference that we can all agree on, we will find ourselves (primarily) deleting names from the list of artists.  If we can agree, we will have some scholarship to fall back on.  The definitive exhibition on the subject was American Paradise.  I throw out that we could use this as a reference.  The problem, however, is that both Inness and Homer are mentioned in the following way.  " ... American landscape art had vastly matured in its evolution from the Hudson River painters to those perceived as antiacademic heroes of the late nineteenth century -- Inness, Martin, Homer, and Thomas Eakins."  So, if an artist changed his style, is he or is he not a Hudson River artist?  Let's hear from others.  I, in particular, don't like adding and deleting names without some sound basis (which I hope we can find and agree on).  JJ 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I don’t see any particular difficulty in categorizing the artists properly (not marginally) belonging to the Hudson River School.  These are the “hard core” Hudson River School artists advocated by WorldofDew, and they are the very same artists that even Howat acknowledges are its principal members. Their works are always imbued with a breadth of vision, magnificence of scene, reverence for and inspiration by Nature, and attention to detail that were the hallmarks of Hudson River School art.  Taken together, these distinctive qualities are familiar, recognizable, and give this renowned body of work its lasting character by which it is rightly known today. From the references you cite (both of which I have and consulted), it’s clear  that Howat only grudgingly admits Inness, Martin, Homer, and Eakins into his discussion of Hudson River School artists, and he does so only after remarking on their maverick styles and departures from that tradition.  Inness only briefly experimented in that style and today is much more associated with American Barbizon.  Martin’s later impressionistic style never came close to displaying the characteristic qualities of the Hudson River School mentioned above.  Homer’s inclusion in Howat appears to be based entirely on the geographic titles given by Homer to some narrow, untraditional views merely identified as the Hudson River -- obviously a case of overinclusiveness by Howat. And the scant mention of Eakins in either reference is sufficient evidence that this artist was never considered a member of the Hudson River School.  As a consequence, and regarding your suggestion, I’d agree that American Paradise offers the best foundation for forming any list of Hudson River School artists, with the proviso that some artists (e.g., Homer, Inness, et al.) should be separately categorized as only marginally associated with the Hudson River School, and are not considered fully accepted members of that tradition.  Thanks for inviting my two-cents’ worth. Jack Bethune 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding further comment and answering your question whether Martin belongs on this list, the evidence I find in American Paradise clearly places Martin outside the academic canon of the Hudson River School. You mention a claim made in 1912 by Frederick Sherman, that Martin was "the last and greatest expression of that discredited movement." (p. 7) That opinion places Martin outside the mainstream of the HRS and seems to celebrate his separation from it. The same assessment of Martin's outsider status was made earlier, in 1905, by Samuel Isham, who said that the art of the HRS "served as a crude foundation for the achievements of Inness, Wyant, and Martin." (p. 11) These early critical judgments clearly place Martin's work among a later development in American landscape painting, not a continuation of the HRS. And they are unanimous that at best he represented a definite departure, an evolutionary outgrowth of it. In my opinion, these conclusions are not disputed by Howat and the other editors of American Paradise, so Martin can legitimately be categorized along with Inness as a stylistic outsider of the HRS, not a representative of it.  Jack Bethune 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I'm going to delete Martin from the list.  And, I refer others to this discussion if they disagree.  JJ 19:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of artists (again) 

message: I deleted the external link to this museum.  What is the relevance to the Hudson River school?  We can't just put links in to museums, or the list would be very long.  Just becuase a museum has a Hudson River painting, does not mean it should be included in this External links section.  I left the Albany Institute link because of its location in the Hudson River valley and its extensive collection of Hudson River paintings.  I welcome any agreement or disagreement with my position.  JJ 14:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, the last paragraph lists the Westervelt Warner Museum along with Hartford's Atheneum, NY's Met, the Brooklyn Museum, and National Gallery as having a sizable collection of Hudson River School art. If that is true, and I don't know that it is, then the Westervelt deserves a link just as the other museum collections are linked in that paragraph. Since there is no existing Wikipedia page to link to, it seems that the best recourse is to add the Westervelt to "See also," unless you have a better idea. If not, then I'd like to see it added back.  Jack Bethune 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is the proper solution (I must admit, I don't pay much attention to all the Wiki guidelines), but I made the hyperlink within the paragraph that references the other institutions.  Is this acceptable to you?  JJ 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your solution is a good one! Thanks for coming up with an even better idea.   Jack Bethune 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westervelt-Warner Museum