nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, Administrators
22,417
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + +
no edit summary
I came here to say "why is such an obvious non-painting, by an artist who is not primarily known as a painter, included (and given such prominence) in an article about ''painting''?" I see I'm not the first! Why is this even (apparently, reading between the lines of the above comments) contentious? Delete it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:57, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
I came here to say "why is such an obvious non-painting, by an artist who is not primarily known as a painter, included (and given such prominence) in an article about ''painting''?" I see I'm not the first! Why is this even (apparently, reading between the lines of the above comments) contentious? Delete it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:57, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
: In the article there is: "''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques.''" The image shows precisely that; an example that shows how wide is the world of painters. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:48, 13 May 2008 (EDT)