Talk:Pop art

message: don´t know where else to put this so I´m gonna leave this here: nr. 23 of the ref links is a 404.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirilliz (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  REF LINKS NOT WORKING 

message: *pop art not is from USA!!!.
*pop art is 100% British.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.239 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This would tend to have bearing on this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: we can just  specifically mention that a particular pop artist is American or British, or have a separate section for both North American and British Pop Art in order to reduce bias MacStudent1 (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRITISH CULTURE 

message: Were there any Japanese Pop artists in the 1950s or 60s? There were five or six German artists strongly influenced by Pop-Art (Gerhard Richter, Polke, Alverman, Gaul and others), even if most of them were too critical of evil "capitalism" (or simply anti-american chauvinists) to call themself pop-artists.--Radh (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Japanese and German Pop Art 

message: What does this mean (in the lead section), and can I remove this sentence:
"The concept of pop art refers not as much to the art itself as to the attitudes that led to it."
It is referenced to an off-line source but I don't have access to that source. Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence I can't understand 

message: I found too many examples in the lede with reference to Warhol. This makes it seem biased. Bod (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply don't agree...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to disagree. I would hope you would say why. I read the lede to this article and it contains mention of one (1) artist (Warhol) and names three (3) of his artworks as examples. He was not the only player in the pop art movement. Bod (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see 2 mentions of Warhol in the lede - the box and the soup can - enormously influential; sorry if you don't agree but he blew the lid wide open in the NY artworld with the boxes and the soupcans...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: His work in '62 more than Rauschenberg, more than Johns, more than Lichtenstein, put the notion of Pop Art front and center especially by his essentially being so derivative of those commercial products. More than anyone else he embodied Dada and Duchamp's anti-art innovations...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea to remove that one reference to his "brillo" piece. Because I see a picture of Hamilton's work, if someone could work him in, it might make the whole thing seem more international and unbiased. I don't know enough about "pop art" to say whether Warhol deserves to be the only artist in the lede, but it just came off that way when I read it. Bod (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a Warhol individual Campbell's Soup Can should be illustrated at the top of the article. This one might be good. Richard Hamilton's collage is of an earlier date but it is a composite of many images deriving from popular culture. The individual soup can is more important because it does not rely on the relationship between component parts. It is an affront to good taste because it substitutes the least likely imagery for artistic purposes in much the same way as Duchamp offensively substitutes a urinal for what is generally thought of as a sculpture. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are going in the wrong direction; that would further Warhol-ize the article. I would like to see a Campbell Soup Can up top. I think the Paolozzi Bunk! piece should be first, as the beginning of the movement and then the soup can. I would also like to see Paolozzi or Hamilton mentioned in the lede. Bod (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many Warhols 

message: This section needs improvement. It reads like a list of names and dates currently. While the article benefits from having a list of pop art artists, it needs to focus more on the pop art movement of the United States. Bod (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Section "Early Exhibitions" (of the United States) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pop art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101110936/http://art.sy/artist/yayoi-kusama to http://art.sy/artist/yayoi-kusama
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130607022802/http://canofart.com:80/? to http://www.canofart.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Öyvind Fahlström, Armand Fernandez,   Raymond Hains, R.B Kitaj, Edward Ruscha, Wolf Vostell are missing on this page. Sorry I only wish to help. I didn't no that was a problem. Just let Hariton Pushwagner be on this page, maybe some day he be famous and some one in Sweden here about him. ISueco (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fame is not relevant. Many artists on the list are known only locally. What is important is that an artist meet the requirements of notability. If there is an article, and the person meets notability requirements, there is nothing wrong with including him on this page. If the artist is not notable, the article can be nominated for deletion but if notability is already established, that would be a waste of your time. Focus your energies on adding names for artists that have articles, such as some of those you mentioned. freshacconci talk to me 15:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi again  

message: I've gone ahead and neutralized the origin of Pop Art within the article. Some sources (usually of British origin) claim the movement began in Great Britain. Other sources (usually of American origin) claim it began in the U.S. Other sources still, claim the movement began in parallel, in both locations. Indeed, early works from both countries (early 1950s) fall into the category of Pop Art. The origin, according to much of the literature on the topic, appears to be consistent with the position that the movement began in parallel, both in the U.S. and in the UK. Coldcreation (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: American vs. British Pop art

message: Charles G. Shaw's `Wrigley's' of 1937, although intended as an advertising poster, has features of Pop Art - do any RS support this view? Barney Bruchstein (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting. I'd never heard of Shaw, but this blog (which may not a reliable source, mind you) states that it was in fact a painting first and Shaw attempted to sell it to Wrigley's for advertising posters. Not sure if that's accurate however. If it was a painting first (as in something falling under "fine art"), and we found some sources that state that it's a precursor, I see no problem with including it in the Proto-pop section. It wouldn't be pop art in the proper sense of the later art movement, but to my eyes it's got the right characteristics to be at least a precursor and it is part of the The Art Institute of Chicago collection, plus there is an article on Shaw, so notability is not a concern. freshacconci (✉) 18:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Green Shaw 

message: * https://www.pinterest.com/pin/690387817859286435/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4113:5700:4926:99AD:83DD:C66D (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Popaganda'''; Pop(ular) propaganda, not necessarily esthetically old-pop 

message: Essay about pop art now 2001:4452:32C:A000:F0A1:8CBA:6B01:2A8C (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay about pop art now