Talk:Hawaii series by Georgia O'Keeffe

Hawaii series by Georgia O'Keeffe is currently an Art and architecture good article nominee. Nominated by Viriditas (talk) at 20:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Painting and photography series by Georgia O'Keeffe

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Photography: History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• While it is well established that "two of the paintings from this commission, Crab's Claw Ginger Hawaii and Pineapple Bud, were used in advertisements that appeared in popular American magazines in 1940" for Dole pineapple juice, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, writes "Despite her efforts to provide Dole with appropriate works, the corporation never chose to use O'Keeffe's paintings in their ad campaigns for reasons that remain unclear".[1] This is a very confusing statement. What does the MFABoston mean by this statement? Thinking about it further, my guess is that the MFABoston meant to write instead "Dole never used the paintings of Fishhooks in their ad campaigns". That specific statement makes perfect sense, since MFABoston hosts the painting Fishhook from Hawaii, No. 2, but the general statement that says "the corporation never chose to use O'Keeffe's paintings in their ad campaigns" is quite clearly wrong and ambiguous. This should probably be corrected by MFABoston. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure anything is actionable here. Will revisit in future. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Messinger's choice of Bella Donna as the best painting in the series seems unusually odd, considering all the other works. Further, her comments indicating the series isn't important is also slightly odd, but has a bit more merit for several reasons. One wonders how to handle this given all of the other opinions available in the three subsequent exhibitions since Messinger originally wrote her appraisal, but I will attempt to represent them in proportion to their importance. This is an interesting example of an opinion of one art historian influencing future opinion (her opinion about the series is still cited) while new opinions about the series arise. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently working on this. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Drohojowska-Philp writes that the circular fishhooks paintings in the Hawaii series represent a surrealist technique which emerged as "O'Keeffe's initial use of a circular device to frame the distant dimension of clear sky", which in turn was followed by other famous works making use of the same technique, such as pelvis bones, doors, windows, etc, particularly after 1940. While this makes some kind of sense, I find it very odd, considering that At the Rodeo was painted in 1929, using a similar idea. Another odd thing, is that I seem to be the only person who thinks At the Rodeo resembles a peyote flower, and makes use of the famous psychedelic color palette popularized by Huichol art, whose colors are said to derive from the practice of ingesting peyote, which heightens the perception of these shades as a result of the experience, leading to Huichol artists using this specific color palette. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Saville 1990 partially addressed this from a different POV. Currently working on resolving this. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Art historian Katherine Hoffman argues that the economic reality of the Great Depression (1929–1939) led O'Keeffe to take commercial art opportunities to earn additional income". This is disputed by Saville. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed it. Multiple source say otherwise. O'Keeffe had lots of money at this point. I think it’s possible that Hoffman got some things wrong. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Painted on Oahu (White Bird of Paradise?); by March 1, two paintings completed on Oahu; did not paint on Kauai, trip too short (one full day?); painted on Maui (many paintings, most productive period); possibly painted on Big Island (Pritzlaff helped her find flowers for the paintings); still working on it. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In progress. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There’s some major confusion in the secondary sources about the number of paintings in the 2018 Papanikolas-curated Georgia O'Keeffe: Visions of Hawaiʻi exhibition. Some of the sources say that all 20 were exhibited, while others say only 17. I think the news reports might have confused things, but I’m still working on this. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Confirmed that 17 were initially exhibited, although it's possible that 18 appeared at later stops on the tour. This is because the missing painting in the series Hibiscus, turned up at auction as the exhibition was opening.[2][3] Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• New issue: "You don’t necessarily think of O’Keeffe as a photographer, but she made at least 20 photographs of Hawaii,” said Papanikolas." I only see 14, plus two of which were taken by another photogrpher, so 16 in the set. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I was wrong. There are indeed 16 O'Keeffe photos, of 18 in total. Updating now. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Resolved, although it doesn't explain where the missing two photos are in terms of inventory at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sourced to Volpe 2018 pp. 239-240. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: There are 17 by O'Keeffe archived in the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum, and an additional 2 by Stein. So, 19. I think Volpe implies that in the catalog, but perhaps only showed 16 at the exhibition, I don't know yet. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Still can't find the exact names of the two species of Heliconia depicted by O'Keeffe. I may have the answer in the next day or so, but I also may have to use the shorthand "Heliconia sp." I was surprised to learn how diverse the species is, with at least 194 species, as well as its ancient age going back almost 40 million years. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I intend to identify and expand all the plants depicted, compare them to her past and future work (if necessary), expand the non-native info and relevance, link it to the colonialism sub-narrative, and upload images that remarkably resemble what O'Keeffe saw. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In progress. This will take a few days. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First half done. Still working on uploading images and adding explanatory content. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Roxana Robinson's Georgia O'Keeffe: A Life has unusual errors about O'Keeffe's Hawaii trip. This is likely because the book was published one year before Saville completed her documentation. I'm only using it once in this article at the moment for a single, blue-sky fact, but I'm considering pulling it altogether. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Need to add sketches. In progress. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 2021, O'Keeffe's Hawaii photos from the series were first shown in a traveling exhibition dedicated solely to her photography." Not sure if this is accurate. The photos were indeed, shown for the first time in a dedicated photography exhibition, but I believe they may have also been shown at the 2018 NYC exhibition. Either way, the sentence probably needs to be rewritten for clarity. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least one person on Commons is arguing that the paintings are in the public domain, but I find this argument to be unusual. O'Keeffe was fiercely protective of her work and would not have allowed her paintings to have lapsed into the public domain. The argument on commons is that a copyright renewal has not been made, so either some or all of the works in this series are now in the public domain. I find that impossible to believe given the history of the work, so I have not uploaded the paintings. One person has, but I've disputed the upload on the site and I have not included it here. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]