Talk:Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion of Iconography, Content, and Meaning[edit]

I have added a paragraph to the article about the meaning of the collage as I understand it. This is from my reading, but it is perilously close to original research. I hope to have some proper references for it soon. I think this aspect is far more interesting, and important to the germination of Pop art, than trivia about what theater someone saw Al Jolson perform in or where a tape recorder similar to the one pictured may or may not have been purchased.

What I would like is a citable reference to a work that mentions where the individual cut-out items are from. We have the name of the bodybuilder, and so forth, and in some cases a citation for the magazine the images were cut out of, but not a reference that establishes this list of items. McHale Jr. makes some plausible claims (and some not-so-plausible ones) but no one with a scholarly reputation. This is an important work, arguably the first piece of Pop art, and it deserves better.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You carp on and on about references and when you are provided with them you edit them out over and over again. You are just plain decietful about Hamilton's cover up, and who you are aparently fending for. You were given the Magda Cordell citation which refutes Hamiltons's bogus claim about the origins of the collage matrial. Magda Cordell never claimed they were Cordell sources: she stated both in her taped interview, and as reported in the Robbins text, that they were McHale supplied and handed to Hamilton for the production cut out and paste up. Furthermore you were given the citations on the Armstrong floor ad which was not on Hamilton's "list of interest" nor was the Tootsie POP image on Hamilton's "list of interest", and they were supplied by McHale along with all the rest of the iconic imagery for the collage production.Ottex (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08[reply]
Those are not references. Or maybe they are; no one can tell, because of your refusal or inability to cite them intelligibly. It is apparent that you have an ax to grind concerning Hamilton v. McHale, but have no actual information to impart nor any comprehension of how to incorporate it into this article or even how Wikipedia works. Every article you have touched has been destroyed by your edits. I'm taking this to an administrator. This has got to stop. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start again here. Ottex, please provide a ref and its contents on this page, so we can take it one step at a time. This needs participation and consensus by other editors to sort out. Ty 04:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC) I don't know how to edit, but I just wanted to point out that the claim that the female model is Jo Baer needs at least some sort of citation. And even then, I think it needs to be worded in a way to make clearer that this hasn't been confirmed - it's just her claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.32.180 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The work[edit]

I've removed the contents of this section here (below) for the time being, until it can be referenced. If it can be done so reliably, then it will be a useful part of the article. This needs to be done carefully and with precision. A link stored here for now: Photos of Zabo Koszewski

The pop art collage shows a modern home interior, identified as Magda and Frank Cordell's living room at 52 Cleveland Square (where artist John McHale also lodged when in London).[citation needed]. There is a photographic cutout of a bodybuilder, Zabo Koszewski, a Mr. California, and Mr. Universe runner up, as photographed by Bruce Bellas, from Tomorrow's Man (September 1954)), holding an outsized American Tootsie Pop with the word 'Pop' visible on its wrapper. He stands barefoot on an Armstrong Royelle floor (from an advertisement in the American magazine Ladies' Home Journal (June 1955), which depicts a very similar furniture arrangement). The bodybuilder is paired with an almost nude female burlesque figure posed on a sofa.
A variety of modern industrial and packaging designs are on display, including a Streamline Moderne tin of Armour ham (designed in 1944 by Raymond Loewy) placed on a coffee table, a reel to reel tape recorder, the crest from an American Ford Fairlane, and a Hoover vacuum cleaner (designed by Henry Dreyfuss) (from an advertisement in the same issue of the Ladies' Home Journal).
A number of popular media elements are included as well: a newspaper, a television, a framed page from a romance comic strip (Romance comics produced by Jack Kirby and Joe Simon), predicting the work of Roy Lichtenstein; an ambiguous image of the moon or high altitude photo of the Earth as the ceiling oculus evoking a visual pun of both a theatrical 'canopy of heaven' and a 'skyscraper', an image of sunbathers on a beach as a rug, and windows that look on to a view of a Warner Brothers cinema advertising The Jazz Singer.
The title caption for the collage came from the first line of copy in the Armstrong Royelle floor ad.

End of copied material (indented). Ty 04:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You,"Fnarf", are using out of date printed books to justify massive surgery edits to the text. Since those texts were written other authors have been discussing the pros and cons of McHale's claims in art forums and in the journals such as Jeremy Hunt, and also John Paul Stonard. Stonard's work is biased toward Hamilton and scews some of the crucial historical details, and gets one of his footnotes wrong and mis-interprets some of McHale's Yale correspondance by letters with Hamilton and his wife. The positive aspect of Stonnard's work is it proves through the Yale correspondance that the work between McHale and Hamilton continued, and did not break down as Hamilton alleges in his Tate interview. The other question of McHale's POP art versus Lawrence Alloway's erroneous personal claims to authorship have been settledOttex (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08[reply]
Settled WHERE? The claim you are refuting has never been made, even by Alloway. It's certainly not in this article. BTW, he said 20 years ago that he didn't come up with the term "Pop art", which I gather is what you are referring to. It's impossible to tell, though, as usual. These "art forums" and "the journals" need to be referenced. If you are suggesting that there is widespread support for the notion that McHale created the work -- and you are, repeatedly -- then you are just plain wrong.
Your edits have once again completely destroyed this article, and made even the slightest understanding of the subject impossible for the average Wikipedia reader. Brilliantly done, sir. 76.22.20.146 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottex, please provide on this page full details of a specific source and exactly what that source says, so that other editors can evaluate it with you. I would like to work with you on this. At the moment you are working against all the other editors contributing to this article. If you continue to do so, you are likely to get blocked from editing altogether. Ty 03:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Magda Cordell quote --concerning her accessing the contents of McHale's files which were handed to Hamilton and used in the production of the collage-- has been given and it is germain. It refutes Hamilton who has been obfuscating the truth for years. Now we have an editor with no knowlege in the field trying to block the citation and the context.Ottex (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08[reply]
Thank you Tyrenius for sorting out the subverting and blocking of cited sources by the other editor. Somehwere up this discussion page I inadvertently invoked your moniker vis a vis the editorial 'change of Tyres'/tires. An apology is in orderOttex (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08[reply]
Ottex, I'm not sure whether you look at the article's history [1]. If not this might explain why sometimes editors find your comments difficult to follow, and also explains why sometimes you appear to be arguing against your own edits [2]. For instance, I made the recent edits adjusting your contribution, but essentially preserving your citations [3]. If you don't look at the history you might be missing some of the commentary on the article that takes place through the parenthetical edit summaries. Of course, you might be thanking Ty for something else, and know about tracking the article's history, in which case apologies.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens. Elsewhere in Robbins (see extensive quote below), in a section NOT cited by Ottex, we find that the collage was not part of the exhibit at all! The collage was only used in the catalogue (in black and white) and one of the posters. Here's what it says on p. 69 (article text by Graham Whitham): "For the catalogue and also for one of the posters, Hamilton produced the collage Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing? (it was not part of the exhibit). Much of the material came from McHale's legendary trunk of American magazines and was selected by Magda Cordell and Terry Hamilton from Richard Hamilton's 'list of interests,' which were general categories such as man, woman, food, history, and cinema. Hamilton then made the final selection and arranged the images." There's the trunk after all. Note that though Ottex accuses me of using outdated sources, most of what he has tried to incorporate comes from a nearly-twenty-year-old book. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 07:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magda Cordell[edit]

Is there a date for when she said what is quoted in the article? Does Robbins give one? Ty 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottex is being extremely disingenuous about the content of that quotation, I'm afraid. I have the book in front of me. The quotation is from a section entitled "Retrospective Statements", and are undated; presumably they date from around the time of the exhibition, 1990. Here is what she says:
"It was just before John McHale's departure for the States that the discussions about the exhibit took place, its content and style fixed, and an agreement reached between McHale, Hamilton, and Voelcker. John did not arrive back from the States until a few weeks before the show opened, and we painted and installed the structures of the final exhibit together with the Hamiltons and Voelcker [...]
"During John McHale's absence, he sent me instructions for exchanging ideas and messages with Richard Hamilton. After my own short visit to America (as I recall, the last two weeks of January 1956 and all of February, or thereabouts), I brought back magazines and bits of materials for the show, including a rough sketch of an exhibit poster by John. I can't recollect if the poster was ever used, but I still have it. [...]
"While Richard, of course, ′put together′ the well-known poster collage for the group (Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?), some of the material in that collage came from John McHale's files, and both Terry Hamilton and I helped gather the images. We often looked for material in the studio John and I shared. Sometimes when I look at that poster, I think it looks a bit like the sitting room in Cleveland Square where our studio was, but this may be only my imagination." From page 190 of David Robbins, The Independent Group: Postwar Britain and the Aesthetics of Plenty, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press, 1990.
So: the charge that the design of the collage was done by John McHale is absolutely NOT supported here. Quite the opposite; she says that Hamilton did it. The rough sketch McHale supplied is for a different design -- which is exactly what Hamilton said on Warholstars. And even if the collage sketch was McHale's, Hamilton made it; authorship is his (barring further evidence, of course).
SOME (not all) of the materials for the collage came from McHale's files (no mention of a "famous trunk"), and magazines brought from America that may or may not have been his -- from this, it sounds like they were Magda's, though. Of course, supplying materials does not constitute authorship. The fact that some of the materials came from McHale's files has been well known and acknowledged; I know it's in Livingstone's book, for instance. That is not an authorship claim.
In addition, the claim that the collage represents the Cleveland Square flat is so far completely unsupported, and certainly isn't supported here, where she says "only my imagination".
Ottex has continually implied that I "know nothing about the subject", but I have actually gone to the trouble of locating and extensively referencing actual material, and even quoting it at length. He has not, and his statements are clearly at odds with the actual truth of the materials he claims to reference. Perhaps it is not I who knows nothing; we have no evidence of Ottex's knowledge whatsoever, and a fair amount of evidence against it. You be the judge. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 07:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I clicked "minor edit" by mistake when incorporating this information in the article. It's not a minor change. I don't know how to fix that. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 07:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do a "dummy edit", i.e. something insignificant like a space, and just use that edit summary to correct the previous one. However, no need this time, as you've said it here anyway. It's not a disaster! Ty 07:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I tried that -- added three spaces to the end of a line -- but it didn't appear in the history. Oh well. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no difference to the layout, so it won't save. Try adding a line space above categories or under a heading, or losing the space under a heading. Ty 08:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship[edit]

That section is as long as it needs to be, as the various viewpoints are clearly shown. In fact, it's too long for the length of the article, but the solution there is to expand the rest of it, as I'm sure there's plenty to include. Ty 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hamilton[edit]

Who's he? Richard Hamilton? If so, best to call him "Richard" not "Terry". Ty 04:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry O'Reilly, Hamilton's wife between 1947 and her death in 1962.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McHale's collage contributions[edit]

You,"Fnarf", were provided with the precise reference to one of the images supplied to Hamilton from McHale's files by Magda Cordell as shown with photo and text on page 58 of Robbins "Aesthetics of Plenty", and it was edited out as not relevant to wiki. It is very relevant to the case, and how Hamilton was handed the McHale image for the collage along with other material from McHale's files. Magda Cordell explained how she and Hamilton's wife Terry went back several times into McHale's studio to pick up material from McHale's files and how these were handed to Hamilton for the paste up and production of the collage. It did not take two able bodied arts woman many trips into McHale's studios to pick up an estimated 17 or so image sources from McHale's files, particularly when one of the American magazine sources contained three of the crucial collage elements of the title to the collage, and image of an Armstrong Floor ad --which was not Hamilton's alleged production list of interest. When the publishers of "Aesthetics of Plenty" were seeking factual documentation Magda Cordell supplied this McHale derived image, (Earth viewed from a rocket which came from Life Magazine), along with other McHale material to the publishers for inclusion in the book. Later on after the publication Magda Cordell donated this material to Yale University as part of the McHale archive collection for all the public to examine. With reference to other McHale collage sources used in the collage work, according to the 2008 book publication page 534, " Art as the Definitive Visual Guide" ISBN 978-1-55363-091-3, it is recognised that quote: "The oversized American lollipop has the word "Pop" accross its wrapper, a reference to John McHale, who collaborated on the work, and invented the term Pop art in 1954". By the way, Livingston ( cited above in the discussion) is correct where he asserts the material was in John McHale's media laden tin trunk sent over from Yale ahead of time and located in McHale's studio at 52 Cleveland Square in Paddington London. So please let us now have the citation placed back into the "Just What..?" siteOttex (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08[reply]

Please try to be succinct, if you want people to read your argument. The footnote you suggest does not add any more information than is already in the text. The quote does not estabish co-authorship. Ty 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The scales of Justice hanging over this site wag two ways and Hamilton's deception about the collage over the years is gradually coming to light, no matter how you try to tip itOttex (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You dispute an edit reversion but introduce other sources not included in the original edit. The word 'iconic' in your original edit [4] is original research because it implies that the iconic collage derives its effect from the source materials, provided, according to the claim, by McHale. This combined with edits elsewhere that suggest that McHale is a co-author of the collage [5] presents a problem. And though I have some sympathy with the idea that McHale has been overlooked by art history, WP is not a place where history can be rewritten; it can only reflect the art historical consensus that exists. Having said that, the quote above (not included in the reverted edit) about McHale collaborating on the work is, in my opinion, relevant and could be added to the text (bearing in mind that a source naming McHale as a collaborator is somewhat different from a claim that McHale has joint authorship).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottex, please study WP:NPOV. Wikipedia follows majority verdicts with some allowance for minority ones and nil for tiny minority. This is nothing to do with personal opinion. No other editor is trying to "tip it", apart from you. Get your views established elsewhere; then they will be valid for wikipedia, which is not the place for innovation per WP:NOR. I think everyone agrees that Hamilton used some of McHale's material. That is as far as it can go here for now. Ty 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly you may be willing to recognize some of the contempory art experts account and are not adversed to recognising McHale was a 'collaborator' of the collage. The main problem you seem to be having is over the 'authorship' term.Ottex (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in sympathy with Ethicoaestheticist. I tentatively suggest some wording along the lines of "Some of the source material was provided by John McHale, who is seen by XYZ (insert name of Kindersley author or the book if no author credited) as a collaborator on the work." That however should be in the main text, not in an infobox, which should be restricted to simple non-ambiguous material. I'd like to get other editors input here. Ty 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ty, and I really appreciate how you and Ethic's have been very fair, reasonable and even in your edits and comments in these difficult protracted discussions.Ottex (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The arts editors here are very motivated for quality and we're looking to get the right article for a reader. You've brought in some very interesting material which I didn't know about (this isn't my specialist area). The question is simply how to incorporate this, but we have to follow wikipedia policy, which is fairly restrictive and inherently follows the status quo. When that changes, then the article will follow. I suggest the best approach might be to drop the black and white issue of authorship and write a more subtly nuanced article that describes the evolution of the collage, showing where the different ideas and elements came from, but being scrupulously objective about this and referencing it tightly and accurately. That, I think, would be very useful for the reader. Certainly the assertion by McHale Jr can be made and Hamilton's refuting of it, but to make this a focus is not going to do anyone any favours. The wiki way is to present the facts, so the reader can make up their own minds. We do not seek to resolve issues that have not already been resolved in the major sources. Ty 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.P Stonard was in correspondance with both Richard Hamilton and John McHale Jr. Most of the original sources identified in the Burlington article on the "Just What Is..?" collage were provided by McHale to Stonard; but, Stonard failed to give complete citation credits and he failed to place the material in the correct context in his article. Meanwhile, Stonard was in correspondance with R. Hamilton, and he was also ascerbic about Stonard's article. So the research validity of Stonard's article and conclusions are still in dispute. Ottex/6/o9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Provide a valid reference. Otherwise it's not usable on wiki. You should know that by now. Ty 02:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it is in private correspondance, if you want I can download the whole private corrsepondance on this discussion site to prove it. Stonard should have printed a retraction on his article, but he did not have the integrity to do so. The dispute is not about where the actual magagzine image sources were derived ( I previouly posted them on wiki before Stonard's article appeared), Stonard was also provided them by John McHale Jr when J.P.Stonard was still writing his article. But J.P.Stonard chose in his article to attribute them exclusively to Hamilton. Stonard also completely misinterpreted the content of John McHale the artist Yale letters to Hamilton , and this has contributed further questionable research on the subject. It appears Mr. Hamilton may be a bit of an artistic fox, but he was quite perceptive when he characterised Mr.Stonard's article as "rubbish".Ottex/06/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.168.34 (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts. If it's private correspondence it can't be used on wiki. Get it published in a verifiable source, then it can be used. In the meantime, please desist from making comments about living people which are contentious per WP:BLP. Violation can lead to being blocked. Ty 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone shows a remarkable familiarity with the wrong facts: the Hoover was not a "Constitution" model, and it has not been confirmed that Joe Baer is the burlesque artist in the collage-- that was designed by J. McHale and cut out and pasted up by R. Hamilton assisted by his wife and Magda Cordell.70.48.168.34 (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ottex. You are correct about 'Constitution'. That was barely more than a typo. It should be 'Constellation' of course. As for Ms Baer, the Stonard article states that it is Joan Baer. Stonard himself accepts that he has not located the specific source of the image. It's not easy to research porn mags, since libraries don't keep archives of them, and in any case the real name of the model would not be published. But there is no good reason to dispute that it is indeed Baer, and in any case we rely on what reliable sources say, and the Burlington says it is she. There is of course no evidence for your claim that McHale created the composition, only that he posted a box of magazines from America, from which the images were cut. I note that your only response to the addition of detailed (and correct) information which improves the article is to sneer at one simple slip up, which you could have easily corrected yourself. Paul B (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are attributing a sneer. When I contacted Ms Baer she did not confirm or provide a precise photo of the burlesque image. So you are going on Stonard's interpretation. On the matter of Magda's vist to John McHale at Yale. Magda records in Robbins "after my short vist to America ... the last two weeks of January 1956...I brought back magazines and bits for the show ,including a rough sketch of an exhibt poster by John." This and other historical facts confirms that Magda was visitng John McHale at Yale in January 1956.70.50.103.29 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Ottex[reply]

You are being less than honest again. Baer does not possess a copy of the image, of course. Why should she? We always knew that. If she had, Stonard would have published the precise source. She stated that it is she, and she is known to have posed for these nudie images in her youth. There is no reason to doubt her, beyond your need to discredit Stonard, who simply report what she says and does not "interpret" anything. As for the "rough sketch of an image poster", Hamilton has already answered that. McHale produced rough ideas for several designs, some of which Hamilton developed, some of which he didn't. Even the ones that he did create were developed far beyond the original rough designs by McHale. There is no evidence whatever that Just What Is It was one of those designs and there is no record whatever that McHale ever claimed that it was. You know all this of course. Paul B (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Hamilton ever positively identified any of the sources of imagery supplied to him (by McHale) for the collage? Positively, No. We know Stonard has tried to back Hamilton up, by even he has not been able to positively ID many of the images, including the burlesque artist and its link to Minsky's burlesque a.k.a Warners.Ottex (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton is not an art historian. He has no need to identify the sources in detail and there was no reason why he should have remembered exactly which magazines were used. If you and your mates cut and paste stuff from magazines to make a a poster you are unlikely to keep detailed records. He had no idea that the image would become so iconic and remain famous half a century later. The source hunting is only of interest because of that fact. It's pretty much irrelevant to anyone other than an art historian. It's hardly a surprise that Stonard could not ID all the sources. Magazines are ephemeral. Paul B (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This belies the fact that McHale knew the souces and ID some of them to his son many years ago, including the Tootsie POP and Zabo the body builder. Whereas Hamilton has never ID any of the sources in the collage with 100% certainty. So far in the last fifty years Hamilton has only ID one image, the beach image, and even that is still open to question since it may in fact be discovered to be an image of Coney Island or some other beach.If Hamilton had originated the images then he should still be able to ID the Victorian looking gentleman in the portrait, or the periodical, or the tape recorder. The others have already been ID without Hamilton's input.Ottex (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument makes no sense (and of course we all know who you are despite using the third person). The magazines were owned by him, so of course he could later identify where images had been cut out. Hamilton could not, and was not even the one who actually cut out all the pictures, so he would not necessarily have known in the first place. Anyway, the way you are suggesting that the collage was made is actually both nonsensical and contrary to the evidence we have. We have extant studies by McHale which clearly indicate that he made rough sketches for ideas, which were developed by Hamilton. He did not give detailed instructions to use specific cut outs from specific magazines. If he knew exactly what he wanted and exactly which images to use, he would have made it himself rather than go to the bizarre lengths of sending over a mass of magazines with instructions. It would have been easier, less likely to go wrong if his instructions were misunderstood - and cheaper to transport! The procedure you are suggesting makes no logical or practical sense. Your argument about the Victorian man and other details is self-defeating, since McHale didn't identify him either; therefore according to your own logic, he can't have been the designer! Paul B (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you finally agree after all these years that the images were McHale's and "owned by him". Something Hamilton has never admitted to in over fifty yearsOttex (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the magazines were owned by him. Is this in dispute? I don't think so. In my first post, way back in February, I wrote "he posted a box of magazines from America, from which the images were cut". Is this undisputed fact relevant to authorship? It is not. Paul B (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your argument about procedure you neglect one crucial fact: the TIT was meant to be a collaborative effort. McHale was evidently collaborating with Hamilton. When McHale sent over at least five designs for various works from Yale to London he was evidently collaborating with Hamilton. McHale was not just completing everything in ready made form, which McHale could have easily achieved at the Yale Design Department, instead as the McHale/Yale correspondence shows, he persisted in trying to collaborate with Hamilton.Ottex (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a page for arguing a point of view or expressing the results of original research. If there are valid sources which have information that needs to be included, then cite them. Otherwise read WP:TPG. Ty 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"he persisted in trying to collaborate with Hamilton." Indeed, that's presumably why he sent over rough ideas, and only proposed his own design (the abstract one) later. You are contradicting your own earlier claims about the design process now. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were provided with facts and citation sources as per wiki rules, and yet P Barlow you persist in stubbing material on the wiki site. Hamilton said he did not know who the image of the bodybuilder was when he pasted it down, and both the BBC and Stonard have reported this. In that case Hamilton did not know it was "Zabo" nor did he know it was featured in Tomorrows Man. Right now as it stands, because of your gratuitous edit, the wiki site gives the public the wrong impression that Hamilton deliberately chose the image because of the "Zabo" Tomorrows Man connotations, and he certianly did not, and he never claimed to. So re-instate the citation and facts, rather than overiding the facts with your personal opinion. You are no doubt aware that the Pop artist McHale claimed he knew the identity of the bodybuilder image, and thus you seem reluctant to have the implication of the facts publicly disclosed. Moreover,in the last fity years Hamilton never identified any of the actual collage images in terms of their iconic source content, the only one he did comment on was the image of the carpet and that has not been confirmed. Stonard, when he wrote his article had access to this wiki site, and the sources were already publicly posted on this site. Stonard in his article still has not indentified the source of the Tootsie POP and he has not made any commnent about its iconic significance. So Stonard's "modern interpretation" is lacking in this matter, and on some other foundamental issues. Ottex (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did not know what precicely most of the images were. He and the others cut them out from ephemeral magazines over fifty years ago. No-one can be expected to remember details in those circumstances. In any case it is not even relevant to the meaning of the image who the body builder was. He was just an emblem for a consumerist ideal of the male body, drawing on and supplanting the classical ideal of the Farnese Hercules. We don't know if he "deliberately chose the image because of the 'Zabo' Tomorrows Man connotations" or not. This article as it stands simply states that that's the name of the magazine from which the image comes. However, it's highly unlikely that any viewers even in 1956 would know that, so it's irrelevant to the public meaning of the figure in the collage. McHale would have known exactly where the image came from because some of his magazines were used and were returned to him. So he could see exactly which bits had been cut out for the rest of his life. You write, "Stonard in his article still has not indentified the source of the Tootsie POP and he has not made any comment about its iconic significance." Stonard does discuss the Tootsie Pop and its 'iconic significance', albeit briefly, on page 619, so this is false. He states that ""Koszewski, who had also won the ‘best abdominals’ prize, suggestively holds a Tootsie Roll Pop in place of a dumbbell, inserted through a slit cut between his thumb and forefinger. This image is taken from an advertisement for Tootsie Roll Pops, a type of lollipop, which appeared in an as yet untraced advertisement in a comic book." In other words it's a standard image from an ad, but he has not identified exactly which comic book it was cut out from. So what? Why obsess about such trivia? As for the 'iconic significance', that has been discussed in other articles on pop art. It was not the purpose of Stonard's article to discuss the unfolding significance of the "pop" concept, so there's no point adding that this particular author did not discuss something that others have. As is very well known the word 'pop' was first used this satirical way by Eduardo Paolozzi in 1947 in his collage I Was as Rich Man's Plaything. He showed the collage in 1952 at the first meeting of the Independent Group, along with others in his "Bunk!" series, which also included a picture of a male bodybuilder and soft-porn images of women from magazines of the day. These collages generally understood to have been Hamilton's main inspiration for his own collage. The resemblance to Just What is It is far greater than anything I've seen of McHale's deliberatly sliced images in "Why I took to the washers in luxury flats", which you claim to be evidence that McHale created the composition. McHale's collages are are generally more genteel and 'intellectual', and rarely use "cheesecake" images with the relish that Paolozzi does (well, he was an Italian), and as Hamilton does in this case. However, Paolozzi is not mentioned once in this article! Paul B (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton never claimed he was referencing Paolozzi in the collage, other subseqent writers made that claim. If you go back carefuly over the Stonard article and read the McHale correspondence from Yale he informed Hamilton that he was sending over the design of the poster for the TIT, along with a great deal of other design material and notes via Magda Cordell, who was returning from visiting him at Yale. Hamilton acknowledges in a follow on letter that he would be meeting with Magda in a week on her return. Magda is on record --as this wiki site records-- that she met with the Hamiltons at the McHale/Cordell atelier at 52 Cleveland Square where she accessed the material for the collage poster from John McHale's files in his media trunk in his studio, and handed the material for "Just What Is..?" poster to Hamilton. The cut out and paste up was done in the living room of the McHale/Cordell atelier at 52 Cleveland Square. Stonard crucially does not quote this source of Magda's in his article. Stonard editorialized about there being abundant alternate sources of pop art material around London at the time, which would certainly obviate any need for the Hamiltons to come all the way across London and access McHale's pop art material, and use McHale's drafting board and cutting instruments, when it could have been easily done at Hamilton's studio. So there was a compelling alternate reason for why the Hamiltons were over accessing McHale's Pop art files: it was for the design and images for the "Just What Is..? collage because McHale had specifically told Hamilton in his letter from Yale that he was sending the poster design over to Hamilton via Magda Cordell. Hamilton alleges he used a production list to put together the collage, whereas Magda Cordell is on record as not recalling that she was ever provided a list by R. Hamilton. McHale is on record as having provided the measured design for the poster collage and having ID the image sources for the poster.Whereas, Hamilton appears to have subsequently had a massive memory loss about McHale's involvement in the "Just What is..?" poster, and no knowledge about the actual sources and iconic content of the sources accessed from McHale's files. This should be made clear on the wiki site, but it is not. At the moment the site gives the impression that Hamilton deliberately chose the imagery because it was Zabo etc, whereas Hamilton is on record as saying he did not know it was "Zabo" Tomorrow's Man, for Hamilton it was just a Man representing Adam. Hamilton could not recall the source of the title of the collage ,he never ID the Jazz Singer image, nor did he make the connection to 52 Swing Street, he said it reminded him of the Singing Fool which is a totally different movie. So there is a large disconnect in the account. 174.92.87.113 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just what is it...[edit]

...that makes today's talk pages so difficult, so appalling? JohndanR (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Just_what_is_it_that_makes_today%27s_homes_so_different,_so_appealing%3F&oldid=1218680726"