Talk:Wolfgang Tillmans

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdhillon8, Mei001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blanca2019. Peer reviewers: Mdelamerced.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

One reference is specified: a web page advertising/selling one book about Tillmans. The web page says nothing; does whoever added this mean that the book is the reference? If so, this is a start, but let's see page numbers. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Tillmans directs that warning flags should be removed

See this edit and its edit summary. Extraordinary. -- Hoary (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"LGBT"?

Tillmans has recently had "LGBT" categories added.

I don't know anything about him, personally. The article says various things that hint that he may be gay or bisexual. Well, is he? If he is and it's important that he is, then the article should say this, with a good source, and the categories should stay. If there are no good sources for this, there should be no such claim in the article and the categories should go. -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to see this article finally taking shape. On LGBT: have added one ref. this is really not controversial at all though.--Artiquities (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In the most recent edits to the article you have added Category:LGBT artists, Category:Gay artists, and Category:Gay men. Now, I neither know nor care whether he's gay, but people should only be so categorized for a good reason. Where is the good reason? Or which is the "one ref." to which you allude above? (And if Category:Gay artists is appropriate, then why is Category:LGBT artists also needed?) -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably not all needed, or even any? There is the LGBT history project included here above, no? Please remove, I bow to your experience. Artiquities (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim to know, but I'd guess that he's been added to the LBGT history project because of some of his photography, not because of his own sexual orientation. Anyway, for whatever reason, somebody thought of adding him to the LBGT history project. And they were welcome to do this. If you're saying that this was what prompted you to announce that he was gay, I'm alarmed. (And when I see this in the context of some of the userboxes on your user page, I'm also amazed.) Please be extremely careful in attributing any sexual orientation to anyone. This is really not an encyclopedia's concern, at least until it clearly becomes public knowledge (and not only via mere tittle-tattle). -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That anyone should be slotted into a category such as "gay" or "bisexual" via a WP article is so problematic on so many dimensions that it should not be contemplated, aside from rare cases. The first problem is that sexuality is a fluid aspect of primate behaviour. Modern Western societies have manufactured this notion of hard-and-fast boundaries, abetted by definitions pumped out by academics and medical "authorities" who have used such slotting to advance their lucrative careers. Rarely is any thought given to whether a unitary designation of sexuality can capture the complexity of sexual thought and action among individuals. A case in point is this very artist, whose motivation for photographing male bodies might have been quite unrelated to his own patterns of sexual arousal. Who presumes to know?

The second problem is that by categorising BLPs and BDPs like a dog marking its territory, WPians who mean well are in fact reinforcing the marginalisation of non-straight identity, for want of a better term. Do we have a category for heterosexuals? Exactly the same quandary is involved in the not-uncommon wording "openly gay", which I've seen in a number of BLPs lately. Sometimes the word "openly" is piped to coming out as though humans are naturally heterosexual and need to escape it in such schematic ways as are described in that article. The word "openly" assumes a default of not being open—that somehow any departure from heterosexual thought or behaviour is abnormal and requires "openness". Should people should be "open" about their heterosexual thoughts and behaviour? It is a fundamentally prurient construction.

The third issue is that such potentially voyeuristic categorisations spurn the rights of living people to their own inner life, their own sexual identity, however they may wish to express it or not to. It's no argument to claim that this artist's output features representations of male bodies, that he is male, that a friend of his had AIDS, and that this justifies a singular categorisation of sexuality. Even though he lived with a male partner for decades, the Nobel laureate Patrick White would be incensed to know he has been slotted into "gay", as though an object of curiosity for others to pore over. I suppose he found it insufferable to be criticised for not understanding women—a slight no doubt underpinned by the crude categorisations of journalists and some academics—all the more since anyone who reads his novels would find his insights into women more telling than those of many non-homosexual writers.

Dennis Altman, in his major work Homosexual: oppression and liberation, prophesied the evolution of human sexuality towards "the polymorphous whole". By rude contrast, WP seems to be perpetrating an in-house notion of rigid distinctions in sexuality that owes more to the 1960s and 70s than the 21st century. By all means, deal with how the topic of homosexuality, bisexuality, and the full rainbow of human sexuality have been stratified in external sources, but this internal categorisation cannot help but be POV. It is unhelpful to both readers and editors. Tony (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony1, thanks for taking the time to write the above commentary which is compelling; I shall refer others to it when this comes up next time. Appreciate it. Artiquities (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

this bio and this, and this should help. Factking (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Factking. But actually, they don't. Let's take them one by one. This bio says things that are compatible with his being gay. On balance, it suggests that he is. But it doesn't say that he is. ¶ This Guardian article straightforwardly says The two things the photographer Wolfgang Tillmans was worried the British media would _target were the fact that he's German and the fact that he's gay (my emphasis). But notice that the article doesn't proceed to say anything more about the matter, aside from reporting his dislike of gay-relevant Telegraph stupidity. Indeed, it says (slightly) more about his cycling than about his being gay. But we don't stick him in "Category:German cyclists" or "Category:Artists who commute by bicycle". ¶ As for the third one, it isn't a source; it's instead a collection of snippets that combine to show that Tillmans has had material published and/or discussed in a magazine (here, Out) for gay readers. None of these snippets says anything relevant about him. ¶ Any more material? -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The first two links are for context of how his photography and sexuality are seen by reliable sources as noteworthy. The third article is unambiguous. Out magazine, page 40 (April 2002), full page about Tillmans. Large photograph reproducing one of his images accompanies article "Wolfgang's Gaze: In a new portrait book by a German photographer, the eyes have it." Quote: "The gay Tillmans, who was born in 1968 and who won Britain's prestigious Turner Prize in 2000, says ..." So the largest LGBT magazine in the US (and possibly the world) has gone on record that he is indeed gay. In the December 2005 Out snippet (page 80) about new photography books he is described as "Queer artist Wolfgang Tillmans". In December 2002 he was named one of six Visual Artists as part of the Out annual list of the Out 100. And for those looking for the way to tie his sexuality to his work while being gay yet not a "gay artist"? In an interview with Jamie Hakim published in Attitude (Oct. 2005), photographer Wolfgang Tillmans responds to a question regarding a previous interview where he stated that he is not a gay artist: "I think the moment you label yourself you are excluding others from being able to look at your work freely. ...[I]t has become so unsustainable to stay closeted, now it is more a question of if you make it a subject which defines you and your work and which excludes 95% of the population. I don’t want that. But that is purely the way you communicate the work; how I feel and think and see that of course is 100% influenced by being a gay man. Being born in a minority so changes the way you look at things, you have to deal with an outsider position, which is actually great training for an artist" (cited in Hakim 2005:89)[Hakim, J. 2005. "The truth is out." Attitude (138), October: 88-91.]. Hope this helps with the facts as well as context. In reading through material I also feel tying into his experiences with the AIDS pandemic are germane as well. Factking (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by some of what you write, Factking. (Am I perhaps too sleepy to notice some things that you notice?) Still, they seem by the way, in view of your quotation from Attitude. There (unless I'm again too sleepy) he seems to say clearly that he is gay and that is work is affected by this ... which is straightforward so far, but then that he doesn't want to be labeled a gay artist. It does occur to me that it's possible he wants gays to think of him as gay but for straights not to consider this -- but I shouldn't editorialize (or be impertinent). I wonder what Tony will say. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A few additions

Hello, I will be working on this page for a class project from CSUEB. I would like to talk a little about how the Hasselblad Foundation described his work when he received the 2015 Hasselblad Award. Also, I would like to add more on his style of work. Please give feedback, any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

Here are some of the references I am using for these additions.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/feb/13/wolfgang-tillmans-photographer-interview-tate-modern http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/wp/wolfgang-tillmans-3/?lang=en http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/wp/portfolio_page/wolfgang-tillmans/ Mei001 (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, welcome, and thanks. I will be happy to give feedback. -Lopifalko (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

      Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

A viewpoint that is underrepresented is Between Bridges because there is not a lot information about the connections. I think there should be more on this topic because it's interesting yet it leaves the reader wanting to learn more. Blanca2019 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Blanca Sanchez

Tillman's Life Experience to HIVS and AIDS

Hi my name is Jaspreet and I am doing an assignment for my California State University East Bay, and for I am suppose to edit this article about Wolfgang Tillmans. I will be discussing on the artwork by Tillmans and how it relates to tbe AIDS and HIVs epidemic and is life throuhg professionally and personally. I just recently found out more information related to his artwork and realized that the artwork that mentioned from the site into the wikipedia web page is the one that relates to HIVS and aids. Also, he had to deal with AIDS and HIVS from the age of 16 when Jochen Klein became his boyfriend. I retrieved my information from "Photographer Wolfgang Tillmans Opens Up About Living HIV Positive". 2017-04-10. Retrieved 2017-11-10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhillon8 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wolfgang Tillmans. 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/20150308170929/http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/hasselblad-award-2015 to http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/hasselblad-award-2015/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review (Blanca2019)

Artist article page is nicely developed. The added photographs and representations of the artist's artwork adds a great visual touch for the readers to be able to see how some of Tillmans work looked like if this is the first article they are reading when doing research on this artist. The sections are nicely detailed, I think the only information I would know to add would be if I were assigned to this artist myself, then maybe. But as for someone just reviewing the page, I still think this article page is developed. Great job!
MDELAMERCED (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)