Talk:Model (art)

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleModel (art) has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2013Peer reviewNot reviewed
October 20, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
September 6, 2025Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Degrading article from B to C

[edit]

I have degraded this article from B status to C status. The author of this article (WriterArtistDC) has responded by upgrading her article to B again and saying that "Class change needs more than an edit summary." My original justification was "Focus.needed on subject instead of on apologia." As requested, I am content to expand on my summary: At present, the article does not provide a definition what a model is and what a model is not. Indeed the article contradicts itself on this basic point. That alone disqualifies it from a B grading. Next, the article uses a lot of space to defend the field of art modelling (or specifically nude modelling) against perceived public criticism. It is a very one-sided conversation because the reader obtains little information on the other points of view. There are other weak points (a surplus of pictures and a lack of references for the claims made). Clearly the author is an enthusiastic art-lover, but that can be a hindrance when writing a dry and neutral encyclopedia article. I suggest more detached editors are needed to elevate this article to B grade. 46.6.158.161 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins with a definition of an art model, a person who poses for artists, often nude. Nothing that follows contradicts that basic definition, but expands upon it, reflecting the underlying complexity of the topic. The article is encyclopedic in being comprehensive by including all the points of view that my research could find. The fact that I have the prior experience with the topic and the academic expertise needed to do such research is the opposite of being a hindrance. This is not a "dry" topic, and it would be biased to attempt to make it so. I did not give the article a B classification, but agree with it, and have been working to bring the article to GA. If anyone has any specific suggestions that would be useful in that effort, I would welcome them. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You write "The article begins with a definition of an art model, a person who poses for artists, often nude." Picasso walks along the streets of Paris and is stopped by a tourist. "Please sir, here is my camera, take a picture of me in front of the Eiffel Tower". Picasso takes a photograph and hands back the camera and walks on. Is the tourist an art model? In that absurd definition the tourist is an art model, like millions of other tourists. The article fails at the first sentence.46.6.214.6 (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence in its entirety: "An art model is a person who poses, often nude, for visual artists as part of the creative process, providing a reference for the human body in a work of art." That plainly excludes the scenario you describe, doesn't it. Ewulp (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The tourist (possibly semi-nude in a bikini) wants what she thinks is an artistic picture of herself, and for that reason hands her camera to the first available passer-by who happens to be Picasso. This example fulfils all the requirements of the introduction. A Wikipedia article should at least have a usable definition in the first sentence. The downgrade is justified as a temporary measure, as long as the author WriterArtist is refusing to engage with the fundamental problems. 46.6.160.120 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the resulting photograph is a work of art then yes, the tourist is a model for a work of art. If not, then no. In your previous post you spoke of a tourist who is "like millions of other tourists", but most tourists are neither creating nor posing for a portfolio of works destined for gallery display and art-critical evaluation. The lead sentence makes it clear that some seriousness of creative intent is involved. Ewulp (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I suspected: you are unable to distinguish between a person posing for a portrait (representing only himself/herself) with a person posing for a work of art (the person representing someone or something else). The former is a "sitter" (or subject), and only the latter is a "model" (a template) of or for an artistic idea/ for something/ for someone else. You now try to argue with some art gallery criterion, which misses the point. Your resulting confusion runs through the article text and art examples. One sentence in the article explicitly points out the distinction, but the lead contradicts it. Got it now? Good luck with fixing the article.46.6.181.46 (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So now you've changed the premise: before, the tourist was making "an artistic picture of herself" in collaboration with Picasso; now you specify that she's "posing for a portrait". In this new scenario, she's better described as sitter or subject than model. You are the one who suggested that making "an artistic picture of herself" met the requirement of "providing a reference for the human body in a work of art", and I answered that it might or might not, but that the souvenir snaps made by your "millions of other tourists" would not. If the tourist is an artist, Picasso need not be involved. Artists who have served as their own models include Cindy Sherman [1] [2]; James Montgomery Flagg, who used himself as a model for Uncle Sam; and Franz Xaver Messerschmidt. The sentence you believe to be in contradiction is presumably this one: "Usually an individual who is having their own portrait painted or sculpted is called a 'sitter' rather than a model...", but there is no contradiction; a portrait sitter is doing more than "providing a reference for the human body in a work of art". "Portrait" is not a synonym of "human body". Ewulp (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are both involved, neither of you should be assessing the article. Please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts to ask a neutral editor to do it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who was being referred to as "both", since this discussion now includes three registered users who agree that the class should remain B, and an unregistered user who has downgraded it. If I am to be discounted on the basis that I "know too much" about the topic, the consensus remains clear. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WriterArtistDC:, the nearest equivalent is WP:INVOLVED (which is a code of practice for Admins but the principle is relevant): no-one should be both judge and jury in their own case. Not that it matters any more because the question is now moot (US sense), as Johnbod meets the criterion for an uninvolved, informed, editor and has confirmed the B. (fwiw, I considered it a B too but recused myself per the same criterion.) B it is. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

First pass at "Models in history" gallery:

  • captions focused on models, not artists or artworks
  • added dates and moved images to chronological order
  • removed two models more famous for other accomplishments, another for lack of clear identification

WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

[edit]

The downgrade of this article from B to C was reverted by @Ewulp:, and I have reverted it again. It is likely that blocking the offending IP address will be required. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing text without cited source

[edit]

There was a paragraph in the History section that was tagged as needing a citation. The text was more about the Nude in art history than art modeling, so I have deleted it, having been unable to find a reference. WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Model (art)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WriterArtistDC (talk · contribs) 00:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More than time someone reviewed this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, after many months on the nominations list, this review begins on a holiday in the US which means I will not be doing any significant work until at least September 3rd. WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as long as you can commit to working on it seriously, say with a planned completion target of around September 17th? If it turns out more time is needed, we can cross that bridge when it falls down, as they say in project management. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me, working serious means collaborating to identify and solve issues. I have already accepted and made edits based upon some of your suggestions, but the major issue is the interpretation of the content of the Academic modeling section as mostly SYNTH. I see the specific instances of institutional policy I have cited as examples of implementation of those policies, not as original research to establish that such policies exist. I have moved and edited some content from other sections to clarify my intentions.
See: Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not.
I also see the film list as the correct format to present information that is only peripherally related to the topic, which is the role of art models in real life. I have added another list of literary works. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have fixed some of the issues, thank you. The Academic section may perhaps be rescuabke, but at the least it needs to indicate when using examples that this is what it is doing, not stating general rules. Thus, 'Schools such as A and B do XYZ' may be OK but 'Schools [implicitly always] do XYZ' is not.
Meanwhile, the Family members section is certainly very thin, lacking discussion of critics' views on the matter, and the Literature section says no more than 'Models appeared', which is exactly as uninformative as the Films list. Lists are a poor choice, if not actually forbidden, precisely because they lack critical analysis from reliable secondary sources. All the book refs need to be checked for page numbers, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it works much better to reply item-by-item than to place large texts in a general discussion like this one. Then we can solve problems one by one rather than arguing about theory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since reference numbers change when revisions are made, many items are no longer identifiable. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to refer to this version. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think of the In popular culture items as I do the See also items; a list of links to related subjects, but outside the main topic of the article, which is art modeling in real life, not fiction. If any reader is interested in further information, they can click on the link in the list. This is the means to maintain "summary style" on WP.WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may do, but Wikipedia doesn't... in any case, "popular culture" tends to WP:TRIVIA which is rightly deprecated. The chapter should be a serious one, with critical analysis, of literature and film. Both are areas of scholarship, so pop doesn't cover it. And please, reply item-by-item below, it's much more productive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to state or imply that WP has rules. After almost 20 years of editing, I know that it does not. WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the rules, we're trying to create a decent article here. The culture section needs to discuss models in culture, not just list some instances. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the cultural section? WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it's called 'In popular culture'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the opening of the article defines the topic as models in real life, these lists are distantly related, perhaps off-topic. Expanding them would only increase the latter. Should they instead be deleted? WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Defining things out of existence is a popular pastime. We normally include a cultural view of a topic whether an article is in the arts or the sciences, so the section is necessarily one step removed from the article's defined topic. Thus Apple#culture rightly, in my view, looks at how the fruit has been and is seen in different aspects of culture over the centuries. This article is however already about art's view of the model, so models-in-print and models-in-film are sister topics to this article; the child topics for the culture section would therefore need to be print's view of models-in-art, or film's view of models-in-art: a bit more abstruse. There are indeed some films about models-in-art, so we'd need critical analysis of those portrayals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought of a way past this disagreement that should accomodate both points of view. Since I have already mentioned in the lead the problem faced by models of contending with popular misconceptions of their role, the "In popular culture" items could be moved to a new subsection to suppliment "Emotional work" and used as examples of literature and film promoting misconceptions. (I am thinking of adding "Titanic", and have already found a reference with an interesting factoid: it wad James Cameron's hand doing the drawing in that scene.) Much of the second paragraph in the lead could be moved along with all but one of the citations in the lead, a new summary of the article then written. This would take some time, given the additional research needed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, try that, if you think it will work. We can always rearrange it if it doesn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "In recent years" has no meaning and is a hostage to time and tide. Please supply a date of some kind.
    • Changed to "In the 21st century"
  • I've marked some citations needed, e.g. in 'Films'.
    • Cited.
  • The 'Films' section is currently a list, which feels both a bit random and uncomfortably close to synthesis. The section would work much better as a text cited to sources that directly discussed the use of models in films, rather than in quasi-primary style commenting in passing that a model was portrayed in such-and-such a film. In short, I'm not sure any of the sourcing in the section is actually sufficient at the moment as it's not even slightly about the subject of this article.
      • This is now N/A due to moving the content to a new section.
        • Yes, that works a whole lot better.
  • The unsatisfactory 'Films' subsection is currently the only component of 'In popular culture'. Where is the subsection on 'Literature'?
    • Thanks for adding a bit on literature; as I've indicated, that seems as unsatisfactory as the 'Films' list, and for the same reasons.
      • Ditto
        • As above, hugely improved.

Note: I've removed a couple of instances where the article's title was redundantly echoed in section headings.

Images

[edit]
  • All are on Commons and plausibly licensed.
  • Please wikilink Evelyn Nesbit.
    • There is both a painting and a photo of Evelyn Nesbit in the gallery, the first instance is wikilinked.
      • Ah, ok: but that's probably UNDUE: why do you think two images of her are needed?
        • The images being of the same model focuses on the aesthetics of the different media.
          • We can't do that without cited text that talks explicitly about how artists using different media favoured her as a model, otherwise it's your opinion which is original research by image and caption. Citations are needed.
  • We have 2 galleries to accompany the section 'Family members, wives and life partners' (a mealy-mouthed apology for a title if ever I heard one), with 13 images between them. This seems WP:UNDUE for a section of one paragraph which basically says nothing more than the fancy-that claim "Artists use family as models." This is extremely thin, to say the least: I'm not convinced that the section is even necessary, but if we're to keep it we need to find something more solid to say about it: was it just the easiest thing? just to save money? because artists were so vain they liked to portray their partners and mistresses? (What about all the portrayal of close friends' wives who were also the artists' mistresses by the Pre-Raphaelites and the Bloomsbury Set, surely there is some analysis we can cite there?) It must be possible to find an art critic who has written about Renoir's use of Aline Charigot, too, given that he later married her. In short, we need to cite some real statements about the practice by scholars and critics, not just to SYNTH-ishly state that A, B, C, and D all did it. Perhaps if we have some more solid text it will become clearer which images are actually needed to support it.
    • I'm not sure what to say in response. The section and images are merely illustrating the fact that some individuals fitting the definition of art model at the beginning of this article were not paid professionals, but had a prior relationship with the artist. The title "Family members, wives and life partners" refers to those relationships in a direct and inclusive way. The article is mostly about paid models, but it is not off-topic to acknowledge that some famous works (exemplified by only 13 from the 17th to the 20th centuries) were created with unpaid models.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure that gets to the bottom of the issue here. Both the text and the gallery just say "here are some instances"; what is missing is any sort of critical discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at it again, the main issue here (weak text or no) is that the gallery of 8 images in 'Family members, wives and life partners' looks WP:UNDUE (per WP:GALLERY) to illustrate one simple point (wives can be models). Suggest you use one image per century which at least makes the point of continuity in time.
  • The images sandwich the text in 'Clothed modeling'.
  • Pixel dimensions are specified for some images. This is not forbidden but it's inadvisable as it overrides user settings: folks can specify how large thumbnail images are to be in their Preferences. Much better to use "|upright=0.6" or whatever value (can be greater than 1) to size images proportionately.

Sources

[edit]
  • There are sources in the lead, of which some introduce "new" materials not in the article body. I'd suggest it would be best to remove all the sources from the lead, for the avoidance of doubt.

(has been fixed)

  • [3], [5], [6], [8] exist only in the lead, so they are certainly "new" (i.e. misplaced).
    • One section in the lead which included all but one of these citations has been moved to the body. Although the word muse is often used, The 20th Century Muse[3] is only cited in the lead.
      • Improved, but we can't have claims and citations only in the lead. Would be best to remove all the citations from the lead, it's way clearer and avoids this issue.
        • I remember the "rule" about citations in the lead that they be limited to supporting statements for which the average reader would need immediate evidence of validity. I could likely move #3 (Vizin) but would need to see the text, and that book is in my local university library, not on my bookshelf as are many others.
          • You could just move the entire sentence as it is.

(has been fixed)

  • [5 Borzello] lacks page numbers. ***
    • Although credited with 70+ percent of the text, this reference must not have been one of mine, since it is not available online or in my university's library. Used only as a cite for a platitude that most models are anonymous and unknown, I will simply delete it.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • [29] is the primary source (Natural Way to Draw, Nicolaides, but the author is missing from the citation, needs fixing), and can't be used to establish the claim about the impact of the book or about its popularity. ***
  • [31]..[32] are used collectively to support a general statement. This is Original Research by Synthesis (WP:SYNTH).
  • [33]..[36] ditto.
  • [37]..[38] ditto.
  • [39]..[40] ditto.
  • [41]..[43] ditto.
  • [46]..[47] ditto.
  • [51]..[53] ditto.
  • [88]..[89] ditto.
  • [44]..[45] ditto, slightly softened by the "Some" but still SYNTH.
  • [54]..[56] ditto, the qualification also ditto.
  • I am sorry to say, therefore, that essentially the whole of 'Academic modeling' needs to be rewritten from fresh sources which directly support the claims made without synthesis. It may be that [4] and [55] could form the basis for a synthesis-free section. The books in 'Further reading' may also be useful here.
    • OK, the rearrangement and additional qualification has converted the usages into examples not general rules.
  • The instances of [4] in 'Academic modeling', and one in 'Photography', need page numbers.
    • Done
  • Foreign language sources e.g. [14] need |language=se and |trans-title="KYO – The Art Models' Trade Organisation".
    • Done
  • Every source needs both |title= and then either |publisher= or |website= parameters.
    • I have fixed all of these that I can find.

Summary

[edit]
  • This article requires some sections to be rewritten, and one section to be created. I'm happy to support you through these changes, provided you're willing to undertake them reasonably promptly. (have been fixed) Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.