Talk:Sculpture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mobile sculptures

Aren't mobile sculptures called kinetic sculptures?—Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackGriffen (talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 February 2002 (UTC)

Joan Miro

Added mention of Joan Miro's proposal of gas sculpture. Daniel C. Boyer—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.53.67 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 February 2002 (UTC)

Duomo

The Duomo picture doesn't belong on this page. - snoyes 21:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

alterations to sculpture wiki

Hello I have just edited the scuplture page because the definition seemed a bit amateur. I hope it meets with everyones approval.

I have removed the reference to a dubious term 'sculpting' In 25 years as a sculptor I have only ever heard it used by people who dont know anything about sculpture - the same ones who call me a sculpture (meaning sculptor).

I am fairly new to wiki and am not sure if my use of bold tags is good form - I havent time just now to search the form documents, but will asap. if they need correcting please feel free...

I have also fleshed out -so to speak - the section on nudes It wasn't really saying anything. i hope i have managed to represent the previous contributors meaning.

I am currently writing a book on sculpture as a process. if its ok with you I will come back and add content to this section when I write anything broad enough for inclusion.

thank you David—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.168.8 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 February 2005 (UTC)

me again

After writingthe above post about changing the sculpture page i thought it would be better if i registered. added this so that you can see my username and contact. DavidP 18:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scuplture of the United States

Just a notice for all of you sculpture-heads that Wikipedia is in need of a Sculpture of the United States page. 72.1.206.21 14:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

straus=strauss?

someone changed the link that said straus with one "s" to strauss with two "s"s. why???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganpan (talk • contribs) 17:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

another visit

I'm not a full time wikipedian, but am a full time sculptor, I drop by once in a while to look at how this page is doing and usually get fairly depressed. so once again I have added a bit. I hope that the previous editor isn't too miffed about the changes I made to his text. I tried to keep the essence of what he/she had to say in the newer version. Still this page is a mess. it is need of a coherent structure. and please no more lists.

Dont forget when you are about to add something that the word sculpture means many things, including:

• a single object - a sculpture
• an activity - the making of sculpture - the tools of sculpture
• a collection of sculptures - exhibition of sculpture
• a discipline in the arts - the proffession of sculpture - those famous sculptors
• an art historical area of study - schools and movements, traditions and styles - classical sculpture, totemic sculpture.

as well as iconographic, archaeological and theoretical subjects.

So next time you want to add your say, please try and put it in some context, before you ruin one that someone else has taken the trouble to describe.

thanks DavidP 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

sculpture & sculpting v portraiture & portraiting

Thanks for tidying up my edits so neatly Bppen, although I hope you dont mind that Ive gone back and changed the word 'sculpting' from your version.

Perhaps I'd better try and explain.

The word Sculpting exists but it is seldom if ever used as the verb to describe the act of making sculpture.

In many ways a similar case is the word Portraiture - meaning both a discipline and a genre - that should change into the verb portraiting. Another term that is also hardly ever used.

The same is true of the words 'architecture' (architecting) and literature (literating). Simply adding an 'ing' certainly makes a word, but it doesn't always make one that makes sense, when was the last time that anyone did some mechanicing to your car?

The reason for the exceptionaly rare use of these terms is perhaps that, when one is looking for a verb to describe the specific act, a far more precise one is always available that actually suits the activity involved. In the case of sculpture, carving, modeling or assembling and in the case of portraiture, painting, drawing, carving etc.

So the question "what are they doing?" would be far more likely to be answered with "carving a portrait" than "sculpting and portraiting".

Perhaps I'm being a bit fussy here, but you know how it is when something just sounds plainly uninformed, its hard to let it go un-commented. DavidP 13:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

an attempt a more inclusive entry

.................................................. Hello -- I'm the new wikipedician who boldly revised this entry 11/2/05. The notion that "sculpture is PRIMARILY concerned with space" applies to one direction of contemporary sculpture but it does not apply to my direction -- to several other contemporary directions-- or to any of historical traditions of either Europe or the rest of the world.

Sculpture has become a very divergent field. We could now say that if a piece of sculpture is in the next room, all we know is that the room contains something smaller than itself.

I'd prefer to omit discussion of "form" , "content", and "meaning" because I do not believe that they should be distinguished from each other -- i.e. that this distinction accompanies one point-of-view --- but not all points-of-view.

Whatever "neutral" definition we would agree on would probably be too general to be useful -- but Wikipedia could then offer outside links to offer further discussion of the variety of directions sculpture has taken, now and in the past.

I could do that on my website -- you could do it yours -- and Wikipedia could invite anyone else to do the same.

For your information, my website is: www.ilovefiguresculpture.com .............................................. 11/4

I've put up a new entry -- as an attempt to present the diversity of sculpture in a way that would hopefully be acceptable to advocates of each of the divergent directions.

I'd then like to see out-side links to advocates for every possible kind of direction.

I apologize to those who created the definition that I replaced -- as I accept that mine will eventually (maybe immediately)be replaced as well. Hopefully we'll eventually have an entry acceptable to all of us (which is my notion of the "neutrality" that Wikipedia strives for)

Mountshang

hello mountshang. thanks for taking the trouble to write something, and from such a clear point of view. I have to say that I agree with all that your new version says.

My previous attempts were all aimed at trying to be as inclusive as possible too. The starting statement that sculpture was concerned with space in particular, had evolved as a common denominator to almost all entries on this page over time, It was meant in the sense that 'space' and its issues are what makes sculpture distinct from say, painting - the bottom line of sculpture being that it is in some way three dimensional, even if it is only involving concepts of three dimensionality as you prove in your 'sculpture next door' example.

Space is not just a contemporary stance, sculpture IS always set in the context of space, wether conceptual, abstract, ancient, figurative or spiritual - otherwise it would be 2 dimensional, literary, or some other form. perhaps you mis-construe the term primary, in this case it means the first, before any issues of likeness or subject, tradition or genre. establishing that sculpture is three dimensional seems a very good place from which to develop sections about any additional concerns.

your new text appears to take this for granted and begins the subject at a degree of higher sophistication, something that perhaps might have been more appropriate somewhere other than the first paragraph. we must remember that wikipedia is a tool for the uninformed as well as the well versed - it is usual for the first para to be a basic overview. So a neutral statement is more or less exactly what is required above the sections.

I am unclear about what you mean by 'anybody could put up a website...' but it does seem that to state that wiki's content should be through outside links rather defeats the purpose of wikipedia.

I am sorry that you are unhappy with the terms 'form' and 'content' - but to remove them for having that pov is to deny readers access to two terms that are well established, important and what is more critical to a coherent understanding of sculpture as a subject. I will revert that para. It is not neccessary to discuss them at all - there are linked pages for that, but they should be present as they are currency in 99% of debate (even if the debate is one that says they should not be distinguished, have you added to those pages?).

DavidP 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

artisan and class

I removed this para

In societies with sharply divided social classes, sculpture has always been considered a trade to be practiced by artisans (except, as with Michelangelo, an exceptional sculptor was promoted to a higher status).

because

• It is social history that is just as pertinent to any branch of the arts as sculpture - see flemish painters - so is more appropriate on the visual art page
• It doesnt follow that artisans are low status - as was not the case in renaisance italy - even michaelangelo never made it beyond sculptor.
• Sculpture hasn't 'always been considered a trade, but the artisan probably does predate the very concept of art as we use it.
• societies with sharply divided social classes such as Los Angeles, in the present - doesn't have an artisan class - but the dominant class (the getty) does refuse to see the sculpture or murals of its hispanic lower class as worth patronising, even though it is arguably amongst the most exported art forms of the US.

Class and status are far too relative terms to make such generalisations with. class and status in renaisance italy are not comparable with today, for instance. where status may be raised by notoriety or a degree of fame, class, or even social position may not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidParfitt (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

a proposed outline

Someone (an administrator of some kind? ) has identified our section as a mess -- and, though I think that a mess is an appropriate way to display a messy topic -- I'd like to propose the following structural outline - with nested categories indicated by the number of X's that precede each of them: .........................................................

X WHAT IS SCULPTURE: Three dimension, man-made objects selected for special recognition as art.

XX historical reasons for making that selection : Romanticism/ Orientalism/ history of art museums/ etc.

XX additional current reasons for making that selection ( contemporary art museums/ cowboy art / ethnic art / other special theme art ). This is where a discussion of form and content would occur. (historically, items were selected as sculpture, and put into the Louvre, for example, without any idea of content -- and that still happens with artifacts from prehistorical societies. But today, intended content may be the only thing that distinguishes the found- object in the gallery from the found-object that is left in the trash can.

XX various outside links for individuals to argue their case.

X HISTORIES OF VARIOUS TRADITIONS OF OBJECT MAKING.

(this is where the sociology of artisans/patricians/art-stars would be discussed -- and yes, I do think that literacy = social status in every human society ---- and painting is usually closer to writing than sculpture is. The outstanding example is Mandarin culture in China -- where painting can be considered a kind of caligraphy (and China is , after all, the world's largest and oldest society.

XXX China (with various nestest categories to be determined.

XXX India (with various nestest categories to be determined).

XXX Africa (with various nestest categories to be determined).

XXX Pre-Columbian Americas (with various nestest categories to be determined).

XXX Europe (and Euro culture areas ) (with nested categories as follows).

XXXX Classical

XXXXX human figure

XXXXX portaiture

XXXXX animals

XXXX Christian

XXXX Modern

XXXXX early modern

XXXXX post-modern

XXXX other European traditions

XXXXX doll and toy making

XXXXX folk arts

XXXXX commercial / industrial design.

Some explanation follows------------------

1.We should present sculpture as a category of things selected for recognition as such --- rather than as a kind of human activity (like warfare/farming/religion etc.

Because -- many things that we now consider sculpture were originally intended to be something else: knives, helmets,fetishes, toys, propaganda,ornaments, etc. --- while most such things are still not considered sculpture (like 99% of the tombstones found in any cemetary.

The idea of collecting a variety of things -- regardless of their original purpose --as sculpture rather than as a trophy or curiosity or ancestral relic -is unique to Western European culture and is less than 200 years old - even if the objects collected are hundreds or thousands of years old.

2. The kinds of things that people and institutions have recognized as sculpture over that 200 years are many --as is the language/art theory used to explain those various recognitions.

3.To be useful -- an encyclopedic discussion of sculpture can list the different reasons for calling something sculpture -- and to be even-handed-neutral --- this discussion should try to present those reasons in the language used by those who use it.

4. The best way to accomplish the above -- is to let advocates for each kind of sculpture speak for themselves ** without editing ** on their own outside link ** even if an overall editor (or team of editors) must decide which links are presented and which are not.

5. How we separate the various categories of European traditions cannot help but be controversial.

The Romanesque sculpture of Autun is Christian but not Classical --- the stone figures on the facade of Rheim cathedral are both Classical and Christian --- while Donatello's erotic young male nude is distinctly a Hellenistic Classical revival, even though it's called a "David" to fit it into the Christian liturgy.

And of course, there's that recent distinction between the Modern and post-Modern --- made messy by the fact that the first iconic artist of the post-modernism, DuChamps, worked in the golden age of Modernism.

I'm guessing that irreconsilable versions of these histories will be presented -- and that's where a selection of outside links should be offered. - Mountshang

i added the "cleanup" template to the top of the page, as the introductory paragraph is way beyond a paragraph! there are no real "administrators" on wikipedia, we are all equal editors. there are some Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines we all try to follow. I'm fairly new here too, just learning and reading as i go (there are a LOT of guideline pages once you start digging, dont worry about trying to learn it all at once ;)

re: the article and your suggestions. good ideas, but this sculpture page is meant to be an overview of the idea. the "history of" has its own seperate page(s): History of sculpture.

see also Category:Sculpture and Wikipedia:Sculpture basic topics for other subtopic pages that have/need to be started. --Quiddity 20:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I was about to say that I too think your ideas are good mountshang, but wished to make a representation for the activity as well as the consumption (object) of sculpture... then I read quiddity's comment about the history being more appropriate elsewhere and suddenly the sense that was starting to form was gone again - quiddity is right I think.

So perhaps a with a bit more discussion here, we can sort out a similar definition of what could go both here and on the history of sculpture page and then post the appropriate stuff to the right places - we might even help the history page by doing this - altough at the time of writing I havent looked at it. besides its always good to discuss the subject, whatever comes of it.  :DavidP 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

............................... ............................... ............................... Thanks for the encouragement, DavidP and Quiddity.

So let the main entry just be the sentance about "three-dimensional objects selected for recognition" followed by history of recognition up through today (i.e. a survey of sculpture art theory)

David wishes "to make a representation for the activity" -- and that would be covered in the historical section that follows (which would include sections for contemporary activity )

All of the below topics, as now written on the Wikipedia site, should go into the European sub-section of the "history of sculpture" -- and these topics should also be presented for each of the other subsections (Chinese, India,Africa,etc)

1 Traditional materials

2 Contemporary materials

3 Forms

4 Sculptors

7. Sculpture genres

While the following topics would be specific to European:

5 Greenfield Products Pty Ltd v. Rover-Scott Bonnar Ltd.

6 Nudity ( which I think is a discussion of the Greco-Roman tradition that continues to this day.)

Topic # 8 -- External links -- should be sorted --

one possible sorting would be:

• scupture web-museums.
• sculpture brick&mortar museums (including all those one-sculptor museums -- like the one for Brancusi currently posted as "Sculpture from Roumania".
• sculpture organizations
• vendors of sculpture materials
• dissenting opinions concerning anything on the page
• sculpture schools
• individual sculptor sites

Mountshang

Hi, I cleaned this article up a bit. It still needs a lot of work though. I removed a lot of vague comments that can apply to most forms of art and tried to group some related concepts. I tried to keep most of the relevant material in some way though. Hopefully someone with more time and a deeper knowledge of the subject can take it further. It looks like you have a good plan for this article. Merphant 06:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

the introductory paragraphs

I'd like to remove the entire first section except for the first phrase -- because everything else is superfluous and can't help but be confusing and digressive.

There's no need to talk about what sculpture could be, (for example: the Duchamps reference) because a sculpture could be anything.

There's no need to talk about what it has often been -- because that follows from what we, today, wish to identify as historical sculpture, and there is no permanent consensus on what distinguishes an historical artifact from a sculpture.

For example, the most famous sculpture from ancient Egypt is the Nefertiti. And yet -- this item was found during the excavation of a sculptor's studio, and the current prevailing theory is that it served as a model for workmen (like the plaster death-mask used in later centuries) rather than as an it item for any kind of public display. Have you ever seen a plaster death mask in an art museum ? The only reason for calling it a sculpture is that the public, 3000 years later, likes to look at it for reasons probably best identified by Camille Paglia: Nefertiti looks like an aloof, sexy, modern movie star. If I had to separate Egyptian artifacts from sculpture -- I would call it the former --but we all have our own opinion, don't we ?

Another example: I recently attended an exhibit of ancient, native-American art at the art museum. The exhibit included a fine collection of arrowheads -- well lit to display their elegance and craftsmanship. Is an arrowhead sculpture ? Fifty years ago -- it was an artifact in a dark, dusty case in the local history museum. What will it be in another 50 years ? Who knows -- the point is, that what is displayed as historical sculpture changes just as what is displayed as contemporary changes over time.

All that we know about sculpture is that it is three- dimensional and that some one (or some institution) now wishes to call it 'art' --- and that is all that the introduction to this topic should include.

--Mountshang 17:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes made today

Today, I've made the major changes indicated above.

So far, I've found four ways that articles about sculpture (and other arts) have been categorized in Wikipedia:

by Religion (Buddhist, Hindu,Christian, etc)

by historical period (Ancient,Medieval,Renaissance, Modern etc)

by country (Italy, United States, Russia etc)

by genre (mask,pottery,glass etc)

That means that the same story might eventually be told four times (concerning, for example, the Medieval Hindu masks of India) -- but I think we have to accept that -- and hope that each contributor reads the other relevant contributions.

So far, there's VERY LITTLE about sculpture on Wikipedia.

Nothing about Hindu or Ancient Egyptian or or anything French, Russian or German or --- you name it -- it's not there.

But there is a good entry for Buddhist sculpture, Italian sculpture -- and I've just beefed up the entry for Sculpture of the United States.

It may be several decades before even the major periods get covered -- but, hopefully, time is not an issue.

--Mountshang 19:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Mountshang: a rather brutal series of edits, but I have to say that it is a vast improvement. never thought i'd be so glad to see some of my own words vanish. well done.

next perhaps its time to strip the section entitled Genres of items that clearly arent genres but rather are forms or materials. if suggestions for genre are needed then perhaps stuff like minimalism, formalism, totemism, cubism, realism, and more recently site specific, installation etc. will start to flesh this out in a few days, after i get time to search some existing wikilinks out - Ill also have a go at finding some content for the missing countries.

just to retain that oh so wiki sense of perversity I wondered why you changed the spelling of aluminium when, apparently, as a spelling it is prefered in the US (see [[1]] and the Aluminum page is redirected to the Aluminium page anyway.

DavidP 18:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou, DavidP, and others, for your patience.

The fun part of this project seems to be assembling (or watching others assemble) the details for each country, period, and genre. The current section on Buddhist art, for example, really floored me with that picture from Afghanistan. I'd never seen anything quite like it from China, Tibet, or India.

I'm going to be working on the genre I've called "Modern classicism" -- because that's what interests me the most. I've started out with a description of the Greco-Roman classical tradition, which I hope others will amend as necessary.

Some of the best contributions so far have come from CARPTRASH. He documents each of his entries with references and pictures that he has taken himself -- and he doesn't just write about the famous sculptors that everybody knows.

Regarding the listing of "Genres" of contemporary sculpture, I see your point about distinguishing genres from forms or materials -- but have no idea how to do it.

BTW -- I didn't touch the spelling of aluminium/aluminum. My spelling is so bad, I have yet to notice, much less correct, the possible mistakes of others.

Mountshang 14:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern sculpture

I've put in a section for Modern Classial sculpture -- along with entries for all the sculptors that are mentioned. Eventually, I hope to expand it with further discussions of genres like animal sculpture, expressionism, socialist realism, and cover the classical sculpture from South America, Mexico, South Africa, Australia, the Middle-East etc.

What's missing is -- of course -- all the other directions that sculpture took in 20th century European-culture countries.

I know very little about these kinds of sculpture -- and I'm hoping that others will work on this area.

Mountshang 21:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

New top image

the new picture by the ToC is a terribly lit photograph. all that can be seen is the silhouette of the whales, completely removing the important characteristics of form and texture. please replace. --Quiddity 18:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(Full Disclosure - I did take the phtograph.) You are right, of course, that the backlighting does not allow much of the texture to appear, though you can see a lot more if you click through and view the image at full size. However, I don't think the texture is that central to appreciating this work. I think that the most interesting thing about this particular sculpture is the overall form, which does come out in the silhouette. The sculpture stands out very strongly from the background, calling the viewers attention to its shape and imposing size.

I think the inclusion of this photo benefits this article partly because it is a different type of sculpture (scale, location, combination of statue and fountain) than any other found on this page. Also, it has the advantage of being a good shape to fit alongside the table of contents. Johntex\^talk 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be harsh, but i think your personal connection is biasing you to a large extent. Of the 3 elements of a photograph (shape, form, texture), this image only contains shape (with a hint of form at fullsize). The effort is appreciated! but the image is just not an excellent one, and why settle for anything less? (this is a good photograph of sculpture, even though a large amount is out of focus.) --Quiddity 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually think I am very able to control my individual bias almost completely in this case. I am fond of the photo, but not tremendously attached to it. That is why I point out up front my connection to the photo - so that anyone here can keep it in mind when evaluating my opinion. Any fondness I do feel is for the photo itself, not the sculpture, so if we decide this is not a good illustration of the concept of sculpture, then I will happily remove it myself if no one beats me to it.

A bigger factor in this dicsussion may be the fact that I am not a sculptor! My reading of this article has led me to understand that the "form" of a sculpture is what I would have called the "type" of sculpture, for example a bust or fountain. Under that understanding, I believe that the shape of the article and the form are both well represented. There is an added advantage that we don't have another photo of a fountain form in the article.

Is my understanding of what "form" means incorrect? If so, then perhaps the article should be reviewed on this point to be more accessible to a novice, and perhaps you can tell me what "form" actually does mean in this context? Johntex\^talk 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The definition i'd intended was that from "The Art of Photography": "In art, form is distiguished from shape as the three-dimensional aspect of an object". I was meaning that in the whale sculpture photo, it is hard to get a sense of the overall 3d shape of the piece. If i didnt already know quite well what many different whales look like, i might have a very hard time deciphering what shape the sculpture was, as it is mostly in silhouette (due to the backlighting). This is probably less clear for you, as you have a very good mental 3d representation of the sculpture, because you saw it and walked around it! I very much agree that it would be useful to have pictures of a fountain and other larger works in this article. I still suggest that this may be a poor photograph, but my major concern was with it being displayed so prominently at the top of the article. You're welcome to place it lower down, until it gets replaced by something better. Hope that all makes sense :) (am still on 1st coffee..) --Quiddity 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

re-tabbed.

Oops sorry Johntex I must have been changing the image as you were writing your last comment - sorry I have to agree with quiddity in as much that I too thought the image a bit unclear. I take your point about the need for balance in the examples shown here, but really dont think that the dolphins are particularly good examples of a fountain, and hate to say that they aren't really very acomplished sculptures either. (I do hope you didn't make them, if so, my apologies). I chose the Boccioni because it was about the only figurative yet reasonably recent sculpture that I could find in commons - It also nods towards a degree of abstraction which might satisfy both the classicists out there as well as the the more avant garde (tongue firmly in cheek).

Johntex strictly speaking the 'form' of a sculpture is widely understood to mean all the physical attributes of the work, including its scale, material, technique and location (in other words everything that is physical about it). this is usually in contrast to its 'content' which is understood by the same to signify all the narrative, symbolic, representational 'meaning' that the maker has inserted, or the viewer can perceive. as you can imagine these distinctions overlap, and are often the subject of debate. The 'type of sculpture', as you put it is more the domain of art historians, who do love to tidy things into neat categories, they like best to divide things up into 'schools', styles, nationalities and ism's - mostly things that artists aren't too concerned with.

I really must agree with you that the page needs work. It is quite a while since I last visited, and it is amazingly better than it was. but unfortunately it is still very confused.

It is hard enough imagining a template that can handle all the vested interests of producers, critics, historians, and all the opposing views that they have... making that template work and then it surviving more than a few edits, when someone really needs to add bloody sandcastle making to the mix, is a superhuman task. thats why I gave up on it ages ago.

dont let my cynicism put you off though - keep asking those questions. ---- regards DavidP

• Hi David and Quiddity - thanks for your dialog about this. I very much like the image David has found. I think it is a great choice for the head of the article. So, I feel good that an article on sculpture actually leads with an example of sculpture. Concerning the sculpture of the whales breaching from the fountain, I still think it may be good to include this image in the article somewhere for two reasons: (1) we have no picture of a fountain (2) we don't seem to have any examples of a sculpture that approaches this one in size. I don't know where in the article would be the best place, so I would look to you for guidance. If you have better examples of fountain sculpture or large-scale sculptures, then of course that would be fine. Or, we could start with this image and replace it later as better photos are found. What are your thoughts? Johntex\^talk 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

I saw this article nominated at Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations but I don't think it fully meets the criteria yet. The lead section should be longer, giving a two or three paragraph summary of all the article's content, and also there need to be some references. I would also suggest trimming the number of images and not having the large gallery sections interrupting the flow of the article; perhaps including a mention of some particularly notable sculptors; and converting the lists under 'Greek-Roman-classical' into prose. Worldtraveller 10:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wandered in here

made a few changes - saw a lot more to do - and then discovered this discussion page and almost "unwatched" the whole thing. But decided instead to take a few deep breaths, try a couple more edits and see what happens. I could not help but notice that there was no mention of water, for example under "fountain" and found myself wondering why "bust" and "relief" were listed under European [or whatever] when they are pretty universal, reliefs at least. Anyway the best thing to do is get out my straight razor, have at it, maybe nick a few faces, draw a little blood, have some fun and see what develops. Carptrash 06:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) oh yes, apropos of a discussion up the page, my daughter once said of her trips on the road with me, looking at sculpture, "Sculpting with Dad is no picnic." There was a use of the word 'sculpting" not mentioned.

Also. while I'm here, what does anyone/everyone think of these statements?

• Free-standing sculpture, not intended to be displayed on a pedestal or shelf.
• Perhaps the majority of public art is sculpture.

Perhaps?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"It is common for film sculptors . . ."

Is this referring to sculptors who create sculpture for movies? Like Rudolph Parducci's giant figures for the Circus Maximus in Ben Hur? If so, it can be better worded, and those folks are certainly not the only ones doing this sort of thing. I don't want to change it if it is referring to some technique that I am totally ignorant of - not out of the question by any means. Carptrash 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the mill Carptrash. I share some of your observations. As for 'film sculpture' It seems to me to be a bit of an advert for ferrocement (personaly i find that polymerised tile adhesive works so much better) anyway - my point was to be that we really dont need a 'how to' guide right here, right now, or we'll have to do one for every obscure process that sculptors get up to (what adhesive do you use for sticking fresh flesh onto green ash poles?). so I would like to suggest its deletion. one more thing, why the pre-occupation with sand on this page? huh god knows. DavidP 00:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes,, it seems to me too, that with all that can be written about sculpture, sand need not be mentioned more than once. However the sand folks might have a strong lobby and I'm more comfortable just adding what I wish to add and leave subtraction to folks like . . . ... well like you. So, go for it, with my blessing. Carptrash 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

the section on modern technicques goes into a lot of detail on some but little on others and should probably become a sub-section somewhere Holdspa 16:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sculptor article badly missing

The article that discusses the skill/trade of sculpture-making. The current one is devoted to sculptures only and totally ignores people who produce them, i.e., sculptors. `'mikka (t) 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I totally agree. How are sculpture created! Can't find it here!
  • If you are talking about sculpting stone see Stonemasonry. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Also Stone sculpture and Stone carving. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

what the history modelng sculpture

I took this adit of yours and am moving it here until i [or someone else] can ffigure out what needs to be done with it. it is not very complete like this. Also, please consider registering and singing your edits. Carptrash 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

==modeling sculpture are found all round the world for expamle:==

See also History of sculpture—Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptrash (talk • contribs) 16:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I deleted all the external links. Most were simply promoting minor artists or dealers. A couple weren't but were about much more specific subjects than "sculpture" (e.g. the gargoyles at Yale University). The only one that somebody might want to reinstate, if they are feeling incredibly generous, would be http://sculpture.org.uk.

To anybody reading this, please don't feel shy about having another clearout of the external links when this sort of stuff pops up again. If something is really important then there should be a wikipedia article about it. External links can be useful, for instance to point to online timetables in an article about a city's transit system or to provide sources to validate the content of an article, but there is no excuse for inserting them indiscriminately.

And please watch out for Shira Tal. Someone (it might not have been her) has spammed her link to Painting, Heidelberg and Sculpture - and possibly to other articles as well. Ireneshusband 03:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Youri Messen-Jaschin Article needing some attention

Might someone who frequents the sculpture article be able to do some clean-up of the Youri Messen-Jaschin per a note at Talk:Youri_Messen-Jaschin? Just a thought ... Thanks! Keesiewonder 00:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

India

I had a good hack at this, apologies if I hurt any feelings. The sculpture of India is well studied and sorted into periods and styles. Ideally this section could set them out clearly, with an inline image for each (of better quality than those provided). Short of this, one can hack and push it around ... 20:08, 31 December 2006. Rsaum 20:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am joining you in hacking around the India section, starting with dates and periods for the images, which need some identification [please DOUBLE CHECK MINE] - but.... Carptrash 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a comment placed in the India section that I'm moving here in toto, and I paste:

PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK, IT WILL HELP U TO GET MORE IMAGES OF INDIAN SCULPTURE,,,UPLOADED BY NAQUASH

http://www.flickr.com/photos/indianartnaquash/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/indianartnaquash2/

--otherlleft 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BUT, more important (opinion)

is the fact that there seem to be no sources anywhere to be found and as this article grows and becomes more and more complicated there will be voices raised soon, very soon, demanding some accountability from us. So... do we add sources after each section ? [what I intend to do for starters], or at the end of the whole piece ? or WHAT ? Carptrash 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One of my friends is into sculpting using modelling wax. I was hoping I'd find some helpful information about it in this article, but I just found that the materials section is virtually nonexistent. Will somebody add to this post soon, lease? Alphapeta 01:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Info on how sculpture was made was removed in February

It appears a User:Sparkit removed a whole section explaining how stone sculpture was made and removed it to its own page at Stone sculpture in February. I just did a test to see how big it would be if I readded it to this page and it doesn't say the article is too big. The situation is further complicated by the exact same text existing at Stone_carving#Stone_Sculpture. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello and HELP

Can we please get an art historian here to help? I teach sculpture and practice it as well and this page is an embarrassment. The "Materials..." section, though short contains sweeping generalities that are not now nor were ever true. Just because all we have left from antiquity are stone and bronze sculptures doesn't mean they weren't making 3-d objects from wood (Trojan Horse) and paper maché, etc.. Durability is not the usual objective as is stated here. Point here being that early sculptures, like most art before Duchamp, including all sponsored by the Catholic Church, was made to function as document or as idol, or mediator, object of worship or, in general to refererence and/or stand-in for a 'being' ( or phenomena) to commemorate or worship. Examples include: Stonehenge, Easter Island, the statues of ancient Greece, Rome, General(s) Everybody, the Metric System (outside of Paris) and so on. This is a huge topic. Andy Goldsworthy is mentioned early on in the materials section and yet there is no reference to Donatello, da Vinci, Bernini, Rodin, Brancusi, Giacometti, Davd Smith, Tony Smith, Eva Hesse, Ed Kienholz (to get to the 60s by leap-frogging countless artists) yet someone named Jim Gary is included? That section shouldn't be on the page at all since materials evolved with time, which would be obvious to anyone reading through the entire history. Just to note: Pablo Picasso was primarily a painter who dabbled in sculpture like his buddy Matisse. Neither significantly advanced the genre. This whole section is just wrong.

If I could, I would take a year and get some help, but I have three full time jobs and a family. I teach sculpture at a university with a relatively lame Art History Department, but excellent Graduate Fine Arts Department, or I would forward to the resident expert(s). It's too much for one, or even all of us, to take on. Most Art History Departments have historians that specialize in specific time periods.

Is there anyone out there with an encylcopedic knowledge of the history of art, including the contemporary? The mention of Rosalind Krauss in the Post-Modern section is excellent (she is citable for starters) and I would suggest that fields be kept more general until there is consensus. I've been around a while, had a pretty good, international education, and haven't heard of a lot of the "guys" mentioned in that section.

We should stick to major shifts in the genre with the major artists who we associate with them. Flushing out comes after the basics.Bmccarren 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well put BmcCarren, you have just re-iterated exactly my feelings when first coming to this page. I spent a while trying to sort it out too, until I realised that not only would one need an encyclopaedic knowledge, but you would also have to virtually live here to repair the excessive tangents that this page is prone to (what is that reference to 'retroarchaeology doing in the first para?)- and that is even before the problem that arises when you consider that the page has to satisfy not only those seeking a definition of sculpture as an academic subject, but also any 'sculpture' regardless of merit as an object in its own right, not to mention the hundreds of inexplicable, but valid disciplines that also lay claim to the word i.e. Scenic sculpture, body sculpture(athletic), hair sculpture, sand sculpture, even natural topographic sculpture.

Really this page is a perfect example of conceptual exasperation sculpture. 81.102.245.79 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

History

While I tried to look up templates, I couldn't get there. It seems obvious to me that the first section of "Sculpture" should be a "History of Sculpture" which is the hard, comprehensive, citable and continually expanding portion.Bmccarren 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

Having re-read the article and then this discussion page, a thought occured to me that just might help to put some perspective on where this page is getting confused. The article from the start makes the assumption that sculpture is Art, with a capital A.

Now clearly sculpture can be Art but it is not exclusively within the domain of art. Primarily Sculpture is a definition of an object with certain 3 dimensional or spatial qualities. not neccessarily even 'visual' art. Secondly sculpture is an act.

If we start with a clear definition of exactly what defines a sculptured object, whether it be considered art or something else, a wind sculptured landscape for instance. It should then be a fairly simple matter to chapter out all the various aspects of sculpture that need representing, such as the history of sculpture, contemporary sculpture. In doing so we could conveniently link to pages that deal with these eminently legitimate subjects in their own right.

Then we would be spared the task of writing a conclusive history of everything, as most 3 dimensional objects seem to count in some way or other as Sculpture - and there are rather a lot of them around. 81.102.245.79 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your shepherding us through this fairly simple matter. Carptrash 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Americas section needs expansion

First off, I was surprised to see there's no Sculpture of Canada and Sculpture of Mexico articles, and in what mention of Mesoamerican cultures there is no mention of those cultures by name; jade also being important to note as a medium, no? Then the mention of totem poles etc in North American aboriginal cultures - I think I'll change "boat" to "canoe" by the way - should go on to say that sculpture in the Northwest Coast area reached a very high degree of sophistication, accelerated by the advent of metal tools after European Contact, and again the particular cultures/peoples should be mentioned, as well as the latter-day renaissance of same, perhaps mention Bill Reid (sculptor) and others in the process; there is no Northwest Coast art article but perhaps there should be.... Similarly Inuit sculpture is a whole topic obviously in need of mention here, also with its own article, and likewise there's a great modern-era resurgence and, from all aboriginal traditions, new forms of experimentation (one huge display at the Vancouver Art Gallery last year was Northwest-type masks and paraphernalia - made out of hockey gear, and damn some of it was good (normally I retch at the Canadian obsession with hockey-related whatever). In both Northwest Coast and Inuit examples, jade again should be mentioned, and in particular argillite as a notavble specialized medium (Haida artists only, nobody else has access to the stuff....).Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Great ideas, all. And looking at your user page suggests to me that you are about as qualified as anyone to do it. I have a surprising (to me anyway) amount of information on Canadian sculpture and would be willing to toss in a few things, but since I am hopelessly addicted to both opinion and original research, I'm not going to be the flag carrier here. Also, I'd check into Canadian copyright laws about pictures, - having just had about a zillion of my pictures (mostly American (as in United States) sculpture plucked out of wikipedia. I have Canadian sculpture, and a few Mexician, pictures too, but am not inclined to share if they are just going to get removed by the Copyright Crusaders. einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some, but was amazed to find how little we had on Pre-Colombian art in other articles - scary! Is this article really B standard - parts certainly, but other bits.... Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Painting on Sculpture

I've removed the painting that User:Sherurcij added to the article Sculpture because it is really out of place there. The painting doesn't illustrate the text in any way, or add to the section where it was placed. It is an article that depicts SCULPTURE not sculpting, or making sculpture, or sculpture techniques etc. Perhaps adding a piece of Tibetan sculpture might be more apropos. The added image by the way had no date, no artist, no material. Moreover it is an obscure painting by an obscure painter, and really is out of place following Michelangelo, Lipchitz and the Classical Greek. I would appreciate discussing that image further on this articles talk page. Thank you. Modernist (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact this article currently only discusses standing pieces of art, and not the process of creating them is a weakness of the article, since it is the redirect location for sculpting, sculptor and others. Landor is far from an "obscure" painter, and the date is clearly displayed as being 1905. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. If I (or you) can find a few similar images, and we can add some referenced text, then perhaps creating a new sculpture technique section can be added with a gallery and/or just some images and text. We might have images of casting, welding, carving wood and stone, etc. Landor is a valid painter, but he is indeed obscure, as are lots of good artists..Modernist (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine

This article is about sculpture - the art, the history, and I fail to see how cocaine or your referred to blog about cocaine is relevant. Also sculptress according to your own edit is not a term used anymore, in favor of sculptor, so don't use the arcane term...Louise Nevelson, Chryssa and Louise Bourgeois are sculptors not sculptresses - the term is irrelevant and outdated.

Please write another article about cocaine smuggling if you must, it is a peripheral irrelevancy here..This is an article suppossedly about art important and worthy enough to be in an encyclopedia. Modernist (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images in galleries

Unfortunately, under the laws of the United States, sculptures and other 3D artworks are copyrighted and there is no freedom of panorama allowed. As a consequence, I have removed from the modernist section the depictions of the following works: Epstein, Gonzalez, Giacometti, Bourgeois, David Smith, Calder, Tony Smith, Ferber, Noguchi, Rosati, and Nevelson. Because these are non-free photos, they can only be included under the terms set at WP:NFCC and gallery items that do not visually expand on concepts raised in the text certainly do not qualify. Note that the Picasso one gets to stay because there was a court case that ruled that that particular statue was in the public domain. Please find replacements from examples from countries that have acceptable freedom of panorama for sculptures (see Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama for details). howcheng {chat} 21:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

While I do not agree with your interpretation of WP:NFCC, I will add to the text and then re-add images as appropriate with Fair Use Rationales. Although all the images removed had Fair Use Rationales and should remain in the article, demonstrating visually what cannot be described in words..Modernist (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of having fair use rationales on the image page. If only it were that simple. The bar for inclusion set by NFCC point 8 is deliberately high, stating that in a nutshell that non-free content may only be used where absolutely necessary for reader comprehension. There are already a number of examples from countries with free FOP to illustrate different types of modernist sculpture. Non-free images whose purpose is to show the variation within modernist sculptures are simply not needed. However, if there are specific points to be made by inclusion of specific sculptures, then please by all means do so. The one thing you cannot do is to have the non-free work in there with minimal or no commentary. I hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned I disagree with your interpretation, however I will respect your opinion and I will re-add imagery only when the text specifically demands it and/or the works are needed to illustrate a particular point..as it stands there are currently enough images in the gallery to clearly depict modernist sculpture...Modernist (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In the UK & Europe freedom of panorama isn't even an issue with the copyright status of photographs of sculpture. As the whole basis of copyright law in Europe rests on the key phrase that copyright is valid for a "creative idea fixed in a particular medium". So a photograph is not a derivative work of a sculpture, any more than a symphony is a derivative work of a sculpture, or a drawing of harry potter is a violation of J.K. Rowling's manuscript (it is a text, devoid of visualisations, although trademark issues may apply - or references to the copyright of others visualisations). A photograph as a flat piece of paper (or 2D matrix of pixels) cannot partake of the very three-dimensionality that makes a sculpture distinctive, in other words the medium that the idea is fixed in. For Wikipedia to tread this route is foolish, as it could lead to such eventualities as a textual description being seen as a derivative work of, say, a painting. Personally I am quite glad that this is the chosen route of all you fine people who pour your effort into this, as it will ensure that less people remain under the impression that Wikipedia is of any useful relevance to them, and they may seek out a less sterile, and perhaps better informed truth elsewhere. I say this because I have just read this page on sculpture and it is little better than garbled supposition. 81.107.147.216 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so we have one copyright law "in Europe" do we? Well I never. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No real; mention of ther "OTHER" sculpture Clay plastic media

Lots of words on stone, metal sculpture not much on useing CLAY or other modern plastic media. Also, no mention photos of Pre Cplumbian CLAY or STONE ,MEATAL sculpture! Thanks! Andreisme (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese section not very good

The section on Chinese sculpture is just not very good. It is written in an odd voice and has a strange focus on western interest in Chinese sculpture that isn't really relevnt. Just because westerners prefer Tang Sculpture, that doesn't mean Chinese themselves stopped sculpting. Should be fixed by someone who knows the history better than I do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afuhz (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

sculpture/sculpting

I think this page should be split between two articles, one for the act of sculpting, and one of the product...

• Sculpting (currently redirects here), an article on the act of making sculptures, how they are made, the history behind it, materials used (now and past) and famous sculptors (perhaps, if a third sculptor is not made)
• Sculpture, an article on the history of sculptures (but not sculpting itself), their cultural and religious influences, famous sculptures etc...

Opinions? -- 203.171.195.127 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

One article that already exists is History of sculpture, which should cover some of the above. Bus stop (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Painting

I added an image about a sculptures ateliers to give some indication on the art of making sculptures. 77.251.69.14 (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Count Troubetski

The Article mentions a Count Troubetski. I never heard of him or any similar name. And found nothing in google either. I guess he does not exist. Or the name is spellt very different. --helohe (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in a rush (doing year end inventory in a library) but probably the article is referring to Paolo Troubetzkoy. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I've added him in. JNW (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all sure about this statement.

"As the century progressed, modern classicism was adopted as the national style of the two great European totalitarian empires: Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, who co-opted the work of early masters, like Kolbe and Arno Breker in Germany,"
The part I do not like is the idea that Nazi Germany "co-opted" the work of Arno Breker, who I consider ((very much like an opinion) to be an opportunist rather than an "early master." But before I do a blitzkrieg on this section I thought I bring it up here. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it could do with some rewriting, if not quite a blitzkrieg! No need to go calling 20th century artists "masters". Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And Breker happily went along with it all, no co-opting necessary. freshacconci talktalk 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Galleries S*X!

FYI Galleries are bad per

The galleries in sections India, China and Gallery of Modernist sculpture should not be in the article unless they're mentioned in the article text. Galleries without a text discourse are for Wikimedia Commons, not for Wikipedia. I suggest reducing them and writing text that use a few of the images as examples of certain styles and usages of sculptures. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree Trev M ~  04:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

More rational introduction

What more can I say? I would like to add more citations, as well as to define the difference between "removal-" and "addition-" -of-materials methods. I'll keep an eye in here. In the process of trying to tone down the term Plastic arts which as one commentator pointed out, under that article's talk, is archaic, and I think, misrepresentative. I'm a practising sculptor as well as engineer. See you! Trev M ~  04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Postminimalism

This is just a list of artists' names explaining nothing to anyone unfamiliar with all these artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.231.67 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sculpture from China

I have a very interesting and I believe rare sculpture from China. I have no idea how to search for this piece. But, it is copper I belive. The left arm is raised in the air with the index finger pointed up, and the right arm is on the side with the index finger pointed down.

How may I go about identifying this?

Thanks!

This is not really what this space is for, but my thoughts are that you find someone, (or a book) who knows a lot about Chinese sculpture and ask him/her about it. Carptrash (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What about The Spire in Dublin?

The Spire of Dublin is recognised as the tallest sculpture in the world. Surely this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. I do not know what section of the article it should be placed because I know nothing about the subject so if someone is educated in this area could you please add a piece about The Spire? Thanks Dylan (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we include sentences

such as this one?

"'Michelangelo's David is possibly the most famous sculpture in the world. "

Or should we add that it, "possibly might not be" or what? it should at least be footnoted, or is that one of those "obvious" statements that can just stand on its own? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Change it - although it is one of the most famous sculptures in the world...Modernist (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Good job...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Bombsite

This article is a bombsite. It is almost useless. It does not have any structure. Instead it is a laundry list of things without any attempt to put them in any kind of context. It needs a lot of work, and, sadly, I suspect, it needs a lot of trimming.

To start with, the definition of sculpture is appalling. As always on wikipedia arts pages, bad definitions are given. Therefore, I have deleted it, substituting instead a introduction which, while not perfect, is at least not actively misleading. It can certainly be expanded; please do, but try and keep to what can be verified. (We don't need to define everything! If there is no scholarly agreement on a definition, attempting one is almost certainly synthesis, and also, unlikely to add value to the article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pho-logic (talk • contribs) 08:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Killed the list of types of sculpture. reproduces info found further on in the article, is bad style, and is pretty incoherent. if you can fix, please do, but it certainly shouldn't live at the top of the article Pho-logic (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Going to/have changed the section sculptural materials to sculptural processes. This is a more useful way of thinking about sculpture, and less likely to lead to lists of things. At least instead we might get lists of verbs, which are more interesting. Pho-logic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

In a display of naked and unashamed eurocentrism, I have moved european sculpture to the top. Why? well, partly the argument that, you know, other sculpture isn't really fine art in the proper sense & that western sculpture really is just more important than other sculpture (especially given that most contemporary asian or african sculptors work in the western tradition), but also because I suspect that most people looking for an article on sculpture would really like an article that started with classical greek sculpture and goes on to modernism.

This is pretty problematic I admit, and morally kinda dubious. However, the alternative --- an article that painfully & anachronistically lists every moderately important sculpture in asia, africa, and america, before eventually giving a really detailed treatment of european sculpture, as at present --- is worse. So I'll do it, and hopefully we can work non-european sculpture into the article in a coherent way.

Pho-logic (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the section on gothic sculpture is unsourced & is a word-for-word match for some other site. that site may have nicked the material from here, but still, given it's unsourced, would be good if it could be sourced. Pho-logic (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Before making wholesale changes please develop some sort of consensus. You already have done this at other articles, this is a collaborative project...Modernist (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The introduction seems ok to me, the chronology as is and the order of the article as is also seems ok to me...Modernist (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with intro: well, no one actually thinks sculpture is created by shaping or combining hard materials. Oh, sorry eva hesse, you're not a sculptor no more. (It's also as unsourced definition, and should therefore go.)

More to the point modernist, last time I made bold changes to an article it turned out that I was, you know, right on the merits! And you were, to put it bluntly, wrong. Like spectacularly wrong. (Like reinserting non-sourced false claims wrong.) I see you have reinserted the material under greek-classical: do you have any intention in the next month of sourcing it? If you are not willing to commit to sourcing, I intend to delete it, and keep deleting, because per WP:V, material must be sourced. I don't mind the rest of the non-sourced material, 'cause as far as I can tell it is either true or at least not actually kinda-racist wrong. I very much dislike the habit of tagging things and leaving them in the article, because it isn't helpful

PS opinionated OR? Come on, we all know that until Modernism happened sculpture was generally carved or modelled and then it was constructed is a sky-is-blue claim. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As already stated comment on the article and not on the editors per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, I agree the article is a mess - its not mine and its not yours and it needs a lot of work. Tags are really ugly and useless unless you can add sources and/or better material. No one is arguing that this article does not need work...Modernist (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RE Phologic: Based on what other encyclopedias seem to do (ie, the Grove), I think we should focus more on philosophical and aesthetic aspects rather than trying to create an international history based around a medium (the style of which will have more to do with other art from the same time and region than any sort of international tradition of sculpture). We could pare down an international outline based on general trends, without having it degenerate into a list of names. The detailed historical information here can be delegated to more specific pages. I strongly disagree with the proposal to increase focus on European sculpture because other cultures 3d productions are somehow seen as "not art". Regardless of the ritual intentions of, say, African masks, the institution of the museum makes it "art", as far as historiography is concerned. Should we exclude Altarpieces from being "art" because they were made not to hang in museums but for a ritual / religious purpose? Anyway, if you like I can email you a copy of the Grove article so you can get a better idea of the approach I would favor. Lithoderm 20:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that grove article is actually from the dictionary of aesthetic concepts or somesuch, no? I could be wrong. I definitely agree that the current history-of-sculpture approach is inappropriate & would like to see a lot more delegation. Re: non-european sculpture --- it isn't that I don't think it is valuable, or that it would be out of place in a history-of article. Just that I don't think that non-western sculpture is as important to an article on the term sculpture, because unlike western sculpture, most of it wasn't made with any knowledge of the term sculpture.

I think the treatment of sculpture here is shocking though, in that the article is fundamentally unreadable. I mean, we ignore Greek & Roman sculpture for thousands of words, despite them giving us the concept & tradition. There's a weird, duplicative list of media right after the intro. Most people won't read past the first para; most people who do won't read past the first page. It should be possible to read the intro and have some clue, and read the first page and have a pretty good grasp. Pho-logic (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding citation tags to the lede is not necessary (esp. since most of that is general knowledge information) and citation tags are only used to let editors know there is a problem: since it's being discussed here, what's the purpose? It's a mess now and WP:LEDE specifically states that the lede shouldn't use citations for the most part. This sort of info is or can be discussed in the body where it can be cited (if not general knowledge). I will leave it for you to revert as there is no need for the tags, otherwise I will revert later. freshacconci talktalk 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Er, is it general knowledge that sound and text can form sculptures? I actually don't really think text works are generally considered sculpture -- to the man-on-the-clapham-omnibus it would be kinda weird to call lawrence weiner or kosuth sculptors (not wrong maybe, but that's certainly something that needs cited.) Is it general knowledge that sculpture is that art that uses hard materials? I don't think so: no-one told eva hesse, for instance. I am not comfortable with the current intro unless it is sourced adequately. This is really really important, that we adequately source important claims.

The conditional exemption for introductions is limited to where the material is discussed and sourced below in more detail. There's no more detailed citation that would allow me to follow up the claims made in the intro, and therefore the exemption does NOT apply. Please do not revert without providing sources, per WP:V. Yes, it is a mess. The way to remove the mess caused by cite needed tags is to actually provide citations, not to just remove the tags! (In the same way, as glanville williams puts it in his discussion of the jury trial, if the confidence is unwisely reposed, it is right that it be disturbed.) Just because you are unhappy that it has been made obvious that the intro is built on shaky ground, doesn't mean you get to hide the engineers' report.Pho-logic (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Then those claims should be cited in the materials section, not the lede. As for "general knowledge that sculpture is that art that uses hard materials": if we're talking about the man-on-the-street, as you cite as our standard, then, yes, sculpture is made from hard substances. As for the the other material, the lede should rightly explain in general terms that sculpture since the early 20th century has meant an ever-expanding range of materials. That would then be discussed and cited in the materials section. The lede is a mess, let's not make it worse. freshacconci talktalk 22:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Whoops, you're right.... that is the source of that article. Glad to see we agree re. focus. I do think that non-western traditions belong here, though, for various reasons... I would be cautious in assuming that ancient civilizations such as the Greeks had a distinct notion of fine art akin to ours, or that this concept forms any kind of linear, monolithic tradition... and African "sculpture" is at least as important as the Greek when looking at Modern art... In any event, I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do... I can't promise much as I have an aversion to working on very general articles, which require a huge amount of work and are unlikely to please all parties regardless of the amount of effort put in... a very frustrating process that becomes a time sink, and I am a student, after all. ;) Lithoderm 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries -- it is a good comparison because it makes clear how lacking this article is! I agree they belong --- I just don't think the current alphabetic treatment does justice to them. (I agree it is bad to unthinkingly assume A Western Tradition, that way leads "white people sculpt like this, non-white people sculpt like this" Pho-logic (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear - we all agree this article is a mess; and needs a lot of work. It is helpful - Pho-logic if you want to take it on - to work up an idea or a new model for the article on a workpage in userspace - User:Pho-logic/Sculpture or something along those lines...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, if you agree that the article is a mess, the practice of continually reverting good faith edits is pretty hard to defend. (Interestingly, I am pretty certain I have never made a substantively wrong edit; this is in pretty stark distinction from your record, which has included a slap down from the Disputes Resolution Noticeboard for arguably breaching 3RR in order to re-include a false, plagiaristic, unsourced claim.) Noticeably, this article has been a disaster for a very long time. The fact that I am dealing with problems is not grounds for reversion, and I am actually getting to the point of being pretty willing to keep going to the disputes resolution noticeboard, which almost certainly will back wikipedia policies that local consensus can not overrule over your desire to keep this article as it was. For instance, the lead does not have any relation to Wikipedia's style manual. Like, none at all! So, it is very difficult to defend reverting back to unsourced claims by reference to wikipedia policies premised on the style manual. (Especially good faith edits, which it is very very bad practice to revert when it is possible to instead improve).

I have deleted material under greek-roman classical. This is because (a) it is unsourced, (b) no editor has stated they are willing to source it, and (c) I do not think it qualifies for the truth exemption of WP:V. Therefore, unless you are willing to source it (or commit to sourcing it at some point), please do not revert as it will be in contravention of WP:V, in particular burden. Even if you do intend to source it, it is my personal opinion that it would be more correct to develop consensus here before editing the page. Pho-logic (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

ps it is very noticeable that you & acconci have not made any attempt at all to fix the clear problems with the article on neo-classicism, despite your rabid commitment to reverting attempts to fix it previously. This makes me very suspicious of any claim that you have the right to revert any edit that I have not developed consensus on before editing (which, bee tee dubs is very much against the well-respected policy WP:BOLD, the essay WP:DRNC and many other important WP ideas) , because as far as I can tell neither you, nor acconci, have any commitment to following through on talkpage discussions in order to actually improve articles. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that, and I was right on the merits of every single one of the edits I made, as acknowledged by every editor who independently researched the matter. But you never fixed the problems I raised despite the clear adherence to wikipedia policies on content I displayed. Pho-logic (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record you violated the 3RR policy I didn't - over the limit is beyond what was there, and that comment was wrong, I saw it only after the thread closed, otherwise I would have commented. That article is undergoing a lot of work [2]- why aren't you helping to work there?...Modernist (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why am I not working there? because when I made good faith attempts to improve that article, they were summarily reverted and even clearly correct edits were reverted without any consideration! It was made very obvious that my contributions weren't welcome, and so I outlined my concerns, made it clear I wasn't going to edit the page (in order to avoid any suggestion of impropriety), and left. Sadly for you it was also made very clear that you are more concerned with the swift reversion of edits by IP contributors than the quality of edit, to the extent, as I say, that you were prepared to die in a ditch over an unsourced, plagiarised, false claim that no editor apart from you & acconci was even willing to defend --- and neither of you were (or are now!) actually willing to defend it on the merits! (& neither of you have made any positive contribution since!) I really am sorry here, but I am placed in a very unpleasant position here: good faith attempts to improve articles are not treated with the respect due them, good faith edits are not honoured as such, and you have not, for all your fine rhetoric, actually attempted to work collaboratively --- that is, with a proper respect for other's edits as representing honest, competent, and sincere attempts to fix what have been abysmal articles. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion you should help work the article...Modernist (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the hell should I? I don't trust you, because when I have made good faith efforts to improve articles, they have been treated like shit. You have to understand that actions speak louder than words, and it is intensely unpleasant to make a correct edit, have it reverted, and be accused of vandalism & sockpuppetry* for the temerity of knowing wikipedia policies & being, you know, correct! I don't want to edit neo-classicism, at this point, because it was like having teeth pulled when I made utterly unobjectionable edits. The prospect of doing anything there is so unappealing it isn't even funny; why should I spend my free time being insulted and devalued? 203.109.211.160 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• And I quote And now there's a brand new editor with a grand total of five prior edits popping up on the IP's talk page with words of support and (of course) in total agreement with the IP's edits. This just gets better. duck sauce anyone? A newbie indeed. freshacconci talktalk 12:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC) . At no point has acconci apologised for that disgusting failure to observe the assumption of good faith, at no point has he even acknowledged that it was an uncalled for and offensive remark! Personally, if any admins want to check IPs, I can guarantee that there will be no overlap, because I don't even know if LHirsig is male or female! 203.109.211.160 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

it is noticeable, modernist, that you make a habit of apologising for glaring errors only after your failure to attain basic standards of politeness has been commented on. In future, instead, perhaps you could try and apologise before your interlocutor has been forced to raise the issue, and so spare them a great many unpleasant moments. I don't doubt you don't mean to offensive; it is still an important feature of etiquette that you always preempt issues, so that no-one ever has to say: I am not Skirtopodes, or I do have something to contribute. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In haste and in order to give you access to those guidelines I grabbed that welcome from another page - and forgot to change the salutation. Get over it and stop attacking other editors - this fit that you keep throwing is getting tired...Modernist (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't care less if you though I was the Queen of Sheba the wiki-weenism over this kind of issue is absurd. But you didn't apologise until someone else raised it (not even me: LHirsig, who acconci slandered quite unjustly and has never apologised to); you didn't remark that I was welcome to edit neo-classicism until I had made it very clear that I wasn't going to because I felt hugely unwelcome, and (to be blunt) you realised it looked pretty appalling that you'd basically chased off a useful and competent editor. If you'd made those remarks before you were pushed to the point of having to, they would be far more convincing. As things stand, they would not have been made to an editor who was less forthright than I am. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I am actually pushing this really hard, because I do think it is important that people are challenged on this stuff. Suppose I wasn't a generally thick-skinned, rule-reading person. You would have (contrary to Policy) put several false, unsourced claims back into Wikipedia, and realistically, they would still be there. There would still be an article that had an intro consisting of a literal copy-editing error! You have to own that failure to actually deal with the situation in front of you; you have to consider, in the bowels of Christ, that your approach to this project might be flawed. Imagine how many time this has happened, and the correct IP editor has just buggered off and never said a word more? 203.109.211.160 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been away from here for a while (did a bit yesterday) and don't know whether to leap into the fray or try and sell tickets and popcorn on the sidelines. Reading over the above postings, and NOT knowing (or bothering to find out) what the particulars of the 3R's and all the rule stuff is about, I am inclined to comment on the use of the work "art" all over the place. I think that we do better here mostly without it. Sculpture (opinion) is a process by which religious, ceremonial, functional, art and probably other artifacts are created. I think that we should proceed one little edit at a time and see what we can agree on. Carptrash (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, André Malraux in his amazing photographic survey of the sculpture of the world, ‘’Le Musée Imaginaire de La Sculpture Mondaile,’’ states in the beginning of the volume entitled ‘’La Statuaire’’, "Notre gout d’abord. Il a succeed à celui qui, à partir du XVI siècle, ensevelit ou ignora tout ce qui l’avait precede; non moins péremptoire, il est souvent plus clandestine" . Since I don’t understand French I have no idea what this means but it must be as significant as much of what else is written here. Carptrash (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

To get away from the personal attacks above maybe a separate section about the Introduction is required. The only issue I have is with the use of the word "hard" in the opening sentence. Sculpture is a three dimensional art but the materials do not need to be hard. Take Claes Oldenburg as a very prominent, prime example.
And the final sentence of the opening paragraph - how is "text" an established form of sculpture? As a surface decoration? Sionk (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the main problem with the intro is that it attempts to define sculpture, something that isn't really possible. Instead, it would be more useful to describe sculpture. I don't like the listing of materials either, because it is pretty universally allowed that you can use any material to make sculpture.

PS. Text is a pretty established form of sculpture considered in a broad sense. See Kosuth, I guess, for the a good example. Pho-logic (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

For instance, something like this would be a far better introduction, which although bad, at least lets you know what is in the article

Sculpture is the branch of the visual arts that operates in three-dimensions. Traditionally, sculptural process have focussed on carving and modelling, generally in stone, metal, and wood, but since modernism shifts in sculptural process have lead to an almost complete freedom of materials and process. The Western tradition of sculpture began in Ancient Greece, and is widely seen as a producing great masterpieces in the classical period. During the Middle Ages, Gothic sculpture represented the agonies and passions of the Christian faith. The revival of classical models in the Renaissance produced famous sculptures like Michelangelo's David. Modernist sculpture moved away from traditional processes and the emphasis on the depiction of the human body, with the making of constructed sculpture and the presentation of found-objects as finished art works. In the sixties, the sculptural field expanded dramatically with land art and post-minimalism combining with the death of painting to leave sculptural practices as arguably the leading form of contemporary art.

This is VERY Eurocentric. But like I say, I don't know enough about non-western sculpture to feel comfortable integrating it in. Pho-logic (talk) 08:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Good beginning of an idea for the lede. Although the final sentence is inaccurate - It should begin in the 60s and 70s since Land art really begins in the late 60s and its heyday is throughout the decade of the 1970s; post minimalism also began in the late 60s and extended throughout the '70s and since painting didn't die and The rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated - I'd say the so called death of painting is not needed in the lede in an article about sculpture and the phrase arguably the leading form of contemporary art is opinion not neutral...Modernist (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Joseph Kosuth is an important conceptual artist as is Lawrence Weiner and others...Modernist (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally wouldn't really call them sculptors, (but then some of kosuth's later works are pretty sculptural) but I think that quite often people do lump them in as basically-not-painters.

I do think it is important to give a sense of the shift away from the dominance of painting. After all, the biggest move in art over the past fifty years is from sculpture-that-you-bump-into to sculpture as-very-important --- the Turner goes to a sculptor roughly 2/3rds of the time, Fried and Krauss stop talking ptg and start arguing sculpture and so-on, something pretty unimaginable a hundred, or even fifty, years ago! I agree that death-of-ptg is out of place. Would be interested in a sentence that gives that sense without being quite so. Pho-logic (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We can work it out, we can discuss the emergence of sculpture as an important major mainstream development in 20th century art from Picasso through Gonzalez through D. Smith and T. Smith, Judd, Serra and points beyond that; we can figure it out. Michael Fried has immersed himself these days in Courbet, Goya, Manet, early modernism and Caravaggio, I haven't really kept up with Rosalind Krauss since The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The suggested intro by Pho-logic sounds a good improvement to me ...apart from the misplaced comma in the first sentence. The size of the intro lede should be commensurate with the size of the article as a whole so, if there is an expert can be found in non-Western sculpture, suitable summaries can be incorporated too. Sionk (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the focus of the introduction should be on sculpture; and encompass a timeline, with a worldview. The non-Western being of equal value and importance with the Western. The intro should be 3 paragraphs at the most. Pho-logic's brief historical overview and what we have defining material; as well as a brief overview encompassing Africa, Eastern and Middle Eastern sculpture, Oceania and sculpture from the early Western hemisphere...Modernist (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, ever since Fried got slapped down by Krauss over minimalism sculpture's been a sore point there. I don't know if I like the defining material; I think it is overly literal & restrictive. I also dislike how it over emphasises very very minor points (like welding or casting) and sculpture gardens. Pho-logic (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim Gary

There are levels of renown accorded different artists. This is a consequence of the notice taken by critics and other commentators in the world of art. Jim Gary is not mentioned by serious writers on the history of art. This is not a value judgement. This is an empirical evaluation on the amount of attention paid to artists and artworks by generally regarded serious commentary. This article is an overview of the vast field of sculpture spanning many centuries. That wideness of scope of this article further exacerbates the problem of the inclusion of Jim Gary. There has been an editorial tussle over this. I do not see the justification for any mention of the artist Jim Gary in this article. I am not saying that the artist is not good or that the artwork is not good. I like some of it. But I don't think standards should be bent to accommodate one or two insistent editors. Sources should be presented to show true prominence of the artist or the artwork. I don't think Jim Gary has received that kind of critical recognition that would cause us to regard him or his artwork as of major importance in an article on the overview of centuries of sculpture. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I understand the limitations of the article and although I believe that he has received significant recognition as a sculptor with popular appeal, I can understand the preference to exclude the image I introduced and subsequent expansion by others. Not all sculptors can be presented in the image gallery of his area.

Most importantly however, the topic at hand is not critical acclaim, it is the use of diverse materials by sculptors. His use of diverse materials is very representative of the topic where, for some time, his work was held up as an example and, as any good editor should, I will argue strongly that this long standing sentence in our article on that topic ought to be retained. Having labored to make his article better, I have been exposed to the amount of recognition he has received and lots of information about his work. The great popularity of his whimsical works obscured his fine art in many publications (not all - the Washington Post, ABC News, Sculpture Review, and others featured his fine art), but -- the incredibility of the diverse materials he used so effectively in both his fine and exhibition works will remain a good example of that aspect of our article with an overview of sculpture. Time will tell about the critical acclaim issue, which is beyond our role. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The artist Jim Gary did not achieve the sort of critical acclaim I think we should be looking for in an article such as this one, titled Sculpture. When I look over the References, Notes, and External links sections of our Jim Gary article, I don't find the artworks receiving recognition from serious commentators in the field of art. A level of recognition is attained—but it is not necessarily as fine art. A "Sculpture" article should confine itself to that which has found its way into the canon of fine art, or at least something close to that. We know that there is an expansion into new materials with each subsequent generation of sculptors but I don't see any source crediting Gary for an accomplishment that had bearing on seriously-regarded art. Recognition by respected critics would have to be greater than we find for Gary in order for his name to qualify for inclusion in an article that is an overview of a long period of time and in as wide an area as sculpture in general. These are my opinions. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Final comments -- I believe that having been featured in Sculpture Review, the publication of the National Sculpture Society, qualifies as professional recognition for Jim Gary's fine art. That organization is characterized in this encyclopedia as, ... which is often referred to as the foremost figurative sculpture magazine in the world... (boldface, mine). I also note that, upon his death, tributes to him were published in 160 countries as "art news" as well as, coast to coast in the major news publications and media of the United States.

That said, I shall not press further for the retention of the long standing sentence in this article on sculpture in the section on diverse materials used by modern sculptors -- although discussion of the unusual materials he is recognized to have used consistently throughout his career (including his fine art) now fails to be included in this section of the article, because of this deletion. The long-standing sentence remained in our article without any "editorial tussle" for years. In my opinion, this leaves a significant hole in our discussion and if they are to be discussed, he is the foremost example. Thanks for expressing your opinions, we shall have to agree to differ. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully your "Final comments " comment is just how you felt at the time. This discussion is the sort that makes wikipedia .... world class. As for Sculpture Review (perhaps I'll try and write up a stub to get rid of the red ink) - I notice that the statement in the NSS article, "which is often referred to as the foremost figurative sculpture magazine in the world" is not referenced. To me it sounds like something off their letterhead. Not that I have anything against Sculpture Review, (I actually had an article published in it), but they have written about hundreds of sculptors since being founded around 1950 (a wild, unchecked guess) and all of those artists, despite the wonderful things said about them, can't appear in the first paragraph or two of of an article dealing with ALL sculpture throughout ALL time. You suggest (and I paraphrase) that the final decision about where Gary will stand in the history of sculpture gets to be made by history, and we're not there yet. True. Hopefully wikipedia will be around then, and if deemed advisable, he can be reinserted. But at this time, I go along with the "he does not really belong there" folks. Carptrash (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

PS I did find "hailed as the foremost figurative sculpture magazine in the world, " on the NSS website, so that needs to be kept in mind. Not that I disagree, but, quoting someone about their own magazine is marginal, at best. Carptrash (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you draw me back -- Although I prefer editing articles and rarely participate in talk topics, I concur that this type of dialogue is a reason for continuing to edit here, once flakes are dismissed the editors devoted to contribution here are easy to respect. My "final comment" was to agree to defer reinsertion of the sentence I was defending while still asserting my purpose -- and noting that my point seemed to escape those responding. My purpose was not to make sure Jim Gary was mentioned in the sculpture article, per se. My purpose for continuing to argue the point was because I consider him the foremost example of the immediate topic of the paragraph, diverse materials used by contemporary sculptors, and that now has no good example showing a sculptor with his range of materials. I do not think critical acclaim is relevant to concession that Jim Gary is a good example of a sculptor using a wide range of materials. Perhaps I have gained a much greater understanding of the materials he used in my work on the article than most WP editors have. A better example should replace a long standing and relevant sentence on the topic of the paragraph or else it is not germane.

Do I think Gary compares to Michelangelo? Of course not. Yet, I care not about mentions in the "serious" sources about contemporary artists -- time will tell whether some of the ones garnering "serious" comment will be of any note in two hundred years... look at what garbage gets "serious" discussion among publications bound to churn something out each month, quarter, or term (my value judgment). Do I believe that works such as his universal woman, his stained glass woman with tattoo, and some of his abstracts will endure? Yes, and I also suspect that his skill with Stegosaurus rivals Calder's Stegosaurus. The Gary work (well publicized in the New York Times and such) preceded the Calder work of the same name (hummm... are there any predecessors for dinosaurs in Calder's work?). I know that Calder's circus obtains "serious" discussion. Why not Gary's exhibition? In this case I expect that if Gary's fine art survives the test of time, so will his exhibition. I do not think Calder compares to Michelangelo either, but I believed that he deserved inclusion in the gallery, so I entered one.

I concur about not integrating promotional hyperbole into our articles. I had no knowledge of its source. I was just challenging the internal inconsistencies in WP that could be identified quickly in our "serious" work. There are so many holes in this area that need further contribution -- I do hope you will start something on the NSS publication. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I do feel a bit unsettled about my role in this discussion because I am have in the past encouraged editors to include lesser known artists in such articles. However here I feared that a dragging out of everyone's personal favorite sculptor who started using non-traditional materials could lead to a trivialization of this section. like you I am inclined to bow out of the discussion, but for a different reason. I am a (self-proclaimed) sculpture historian whose interest in sculpture wanes rapidly after the modern era begins. Like you I would rather be editing Sculpture Review (when did the name change from National Sculpture Review anyway?) than engaging in this sort of discussion. So I will go back and look at the "New Materials" section with a new eye and ........... see what I see. Carptrash (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning Jim in the article; I objected initially to the image and I don't consider Jim's work to be as relevant as say - Calder. However to mention him, in context of using mixed material is ok with me...Modernist (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with the removal of the image that I inserted. I'll just reinstate the long-standing sentence, it was there for several years. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is pointless to be mentioning Jim Gary in this article. He is not considered an artist in the same sense that every other artist included in this article is considered an artist. That makes the inclusion of Jim Gary misleading to the reader. The artists already included in the article are those artists that would be mentioned by writers on art. Writers providing commentary on 20th century sculpture would mention many if not all of the artists presently in the article. Such writers would not mention Jim Gary along with the other artists. A writer speaking about the work of Henry Moore, Isamu Noguchi, Barbara Hepworth, David Smith, Louise Nevelson, John Chamberlain or Mark di Suvero—would not be mentioning Jim Gary. When an artist is taken notice of as being of consequence it is often in relation to his or her peers or contemporaries.

The argument is being made that there is a "new materials" section in this article when in fact there really is no such section, nor should there be such a section. There is a section Materials of sculpture through history. The twentieth century is awash in new materials. There are innumerable artists of all caliber using all variety of materials. No source claims that Jim Gary's use of new materials is remarkable.

More importantly Jim Gary is not considered an artist by those commenting on art. This article should be confined to those recognized by those commenting on art in general. Jim Gary has not enjoyed recognition by those critical thinkers that write about art. Jim Gary is not included among those commented upon by those that write about the various people in art. Just because he is notable does not mean that he belongs to a group of artists recognized as being of note. Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Earlier I wrote "However here I feared that a dragging out of everyone's personal favorite sculptor who started using non-traditional materials could lead to a trivialization of this section." We now (24 hours later?) have how many sculptors in that section? These are about the first individual sculptures named in the article and they are who? Carptrash (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The sculptors added in this edit and this edit only add to the several 20th century sculptors that were already in the article. You pose the question—"they are who?" I think they are artists whose work one would encounter in first rate contemporary art museums. One would encounter their work repeatedly (on repeat visits). The several artist's work might be on view at the same time. These are the sorts of three-dimensional artworks that have come to define modern art. Jim Gary's sculptures have apparently never attained that status. The sculpture of Jim Gary is not included in group shows of 20th century art. Commentators do not mention Jim Gary as an artist alongside any of the other names in the article. This distinction sets Jim Gary apart from the other names mentioned in the article. Including his name would be misleading because the implication would be that he is a part of this group, or at least that his artwork is. We have to make a distinction between what artwork is recognized as being of importance as art and that which fails to garner that recognition, for whatever reason. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I am ambivalent as to whether or not the list that I added remain, I created a context in which a minor figure could be named alongside well-known sculptors. I'll leave it to consensus here whether or not we include Gary...Modernist (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The first sculptor named in this article, supposed to be, more or less, a survey of all sculpture over all time, is Pablo Picasso, who's fame as an artist does not really stem from his sculpture. This is followed in order by Alexander Calder, another 20th Century modernist and then by Andy Goldsworthy, Joan Miró, Marcel Duchamp, Yves Klein, John Chamberlain, Jean Tinguely, Richard Stankiewicz, Larry Bell, Carl Andre, Louise Bourgeois, Jim Gary. Call me old-fashioned, but starting out with over a dozen names, all 20th Century Europeans or Americans seems to be, as we say in my home, "Bad feng shui." Get rid of Gary? I say get rid of the whole bunch, or at least move them to some other, distant part of the article. If we are writing for the ages, let's not get too bogged down in one century. Which also happens to contain all of our favorite sculptors? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The lede images precede the text with the Dying Gaul and Michelangelo's Moses. Cubism aside, Picasso is credited with the invention of constructivist sculpture - making him one of the key figures in 20th century sculpture. I have no problem with these artists being upfront: Calder, Goldworthy, Joan Miró, Marcel Duchamp, Yves Klein, John Chamberlain, Jean Tinguely, Richard Stankiewicz, Larry Bell, Carl Andre, Louise Bourgeois et al...Modernist (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Hepworth should be added. Her work is recognized by art historians, critics, and curators. Jim Gary is not recognized in this way. That is why I am arguing for his removal from this article. He has his own article. He is notable by Wikipedia standards. But he is not recognized as having stature specifically in the fine arts. Bus stop (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Was Hepworth working with a combination of unlikely material? I associate her with Henry Moore whose sculpture seems more unified than those on the initial list...Modernist (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I just meant that Hepworth was an artist that could appropriately be added to the article. Do reliable sources delve into the introduction of new materials and new techniques vis-a-vis 20th century sculpture? If so, this could be mentioned. But I have not even seen the source crediting Jim Gary for innovation in this area. But most importantly I haven't seen the source regarding Jim Gary as a fine artist. This is not meant to detract from him. He is simply not an artist regarded in the category of a Hepworth, a Moore, or a Noguchi. I think that for this reason we should not be suggesting to the reader that Jim Gary is part of this group. I obviously see little point to his being mentioned in this article. It might not be a bad idea in this article to provide a link to the New materials in 20th century art article. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Granted, I believe Gary is an excellent example of a sculptor using diverse materials (or we wouldn't be discussing this today). Although some academics rarely have mentioned him, he was listed in Who Was Who in American Art, 1564-1975: 400 years of artists in America (Peter Hastings Falk, editor-in-chief, Sound View Press, Madison, Connecticut, September 1999, in three volumes) for his fine art (the exhibit noted featured his sculptures composed of diverse materials). He is very widely known for this and I expect that time will be the judge of his position in the history of art. He is widely appreciated and always has garnered popular recognition, hence all of the tributes at his death ranging from ABC News, Time, New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, International Herald-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Sun, Dallas Morning News, to the Denton Record Chronicle as well as the immediate coverage by Associated Press and United Press International and the University of North Carolina. He was featured in the New Yorker as well as on CBS and PBS stations. How is that accounted for? Why would they publish and broadcast such about an "unknown" sculptor? There are articles published about his work and diverse material use in every city where he was booked to exhibit in a museum or venue. I'll bet more has been widely published about him than you might understand. His fine art remains in private collections not museums, that is where he first gained recognition, however. I suspect that his whimsical works put off some academics, but he always was recognized as a sculptor and his fine art always was noted even though the exhibition was identified as being about dinosaurs derived from twentieth century behemoths. The analogy to Calder always must be drawn, not only for aesthetics, but for playfulness. Calder's circus is as important in his work as are Gary's critters to his work -- and Gary's exhibition traveled around the world, being booked by highly respected museums and "cultural" venues right along with the popular ones. His skills are frequent topics as well. WP cannot expect to qualify as an academic source on art, but I do expect it to attempt to bring topics to general readers, why not acknowledge someone recognized popularly as a sculptor who used unusual materials in the discussion of the diverse materials used by contemporary sculptors and educate about the possibilities? Isn't that an objective here as well? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is not a realistic comparison between the reception Alexander Calder has received from for instance serious writers on art and that of Jim Gary. This article should try to remain focussed on that which pertains more to serious art as opposed to lighter fare with a generality higher entertainment quotient. A measure of this would be the venues in which the work has been shown. Another measure would be the sort of contribution to fine art an individual has achieved. In for instance Calder's case there are the mobiles. They are an area of fine art (sculpture) that are well-defined and credited largely to Calder. There actually is no area within the fine arts of "dinosaur sculpture made from automobile parts" despite the fact that Gary worked in this area. Something can have entertainment value without rising to the level of thought-provoking art. When writers and curators recognize something as art, I think only then does it become material potentially for inclusion in an article such as this. Gary's work has not received serious recognition from commentators in the sphere of activity that this article should try to confine itself to. To include Gary's work here is to mislead the reader about the nature of Gary's work vis-a-vis the reception (non-reception) it has received in the art world. To include Gary's work here is to hamper the reader's ability to develop discernment between that which has received that recognition and that which has not received that recognition. The reader should not be misled in this way therefore the name should be removed. Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I see little justification for adding the name Jim Gary to a list of names including: Joan Miró, Marcel Duchamp, Yves Klein, John Chamberlain, Jean Tinguely, Richard Stankiewicz, Larry Bell, Carl Andre, Louise Bourgeois. These names are accorded serious status due to the commentary on them by serious writers about art in the twentieth century. They also showed in venues where serious art was shown in the twentieth century. This article should not be thought of an an indiscriminate collection of all that was called sculpture in the twentieth century. There were concerns and preoccupations that were considered by the curators and art critics at leading institutions and publications. None of these entities paid any attention to Jim Gary. This is not a value judgement. We have a responsibility to the reader to distinguish between serious concerns that relate specifically to the time period under consideration and that which was off the radar at the time. It could be that reevaluation will include Jim Gary in those artists which matter but sources don't support that now. This is an edit that in my opinion should be reverted. Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that we disagree, I think that was explored in 2011. I rely upon the immediate international coverage of Gary's death to indicate his status as a sculptor and believe it qualifies him for recognition for our readers. He was memorialized by the NYT, Time, ABC-TV, and most other prominent media. The numbers of people who attended exhibitions of his work while he was alive, could exceed some of the sculptors you list readily. His fine art is privately held internationally and never is cast off and sent to auction.

Without a doubt, he is the best example I have seen for the use of diverse materials in his work, so I have placed him among those being discussed in that vein. I suspect that you focus too closely on his whimsical works for a value judgment that might just be very personal. That is like focusing on Calder's circus and disqualifying him from discussion as a serious sculptor. The subject matter of dinosaurs was followed by Calder when he created a Stegosaurus after he met Gary and saw his. Chamberlain worked with automobile parts. Picasso often chose animal subjects in his sculpture. Gary's works are a thousand times more complex than Picasso's Bull head, yet are easily as effective a use of unchanged existing materials to create another image and they are created with the highest of skills. Our readers deserve to see not merely academic judgments, but works identified as notable in their lifetimes by everyday sources. As a fellow editor here, I will persist in placing entries where I see this as fitting and I would hope that you do not take that personally, as I respect your skills even though we do disagree on this point. I would prefer that the entry not be deleted. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That whole list of sculptors using various materials has been removed, if that helps. Far too recentist. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that and do want to compliment the editors who have labored on the revision of the article. It is a job well done! Will read through it carefully as I have time. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Still ongoing... Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oversized photo galleries

To continue an old thread, Galleries S*X, I have to agree parts of the article look more like Flickr than Wikipedia. Maybe we can agree to include a maximum of, say, four images in each gallery? After all, there are main articles for each sub-subject which can, if required, be more comprehensively illustrated. Currently we have 18 images of Indian sculpture, 14 images of Chines sculpture and 19 images of Meso-American Mexican sculpture, which is wholly excessive considering there are separate articles on these topics! Sionk (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, we are blessed with the availability of all this visual art, we should use it. I wish we had more images, its all good, albeit unevenly distributed. What the article really needs is more text. If we had some quality input on Chinese sculpture we might divide that into sections with galleries of four as you suggest. We did that here The Disasters of War and here Self portrait...Modernist (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is currently problematic though given that we don't use the material effectively. I suggest we remove most of the images (leaving those explicitly mentioned in the text) and note that if anyone is able to integrate the material they should feel very free to. I think it is particularly bad that the images clog up the article, pushing useful text away from the viewer. 12:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Pho-logic (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree as stated. Visual works of art need to be seen and text is not required although it is helpful. Whats the point of removing rare and useful imagery. I'd rather see a piece of Indian sculpture than have a description...Modernist (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material

I do not think that this article needs to have sections entitled Types of Sculpture, Materials and Techniques, Contemporary Genres, and Techniques. We need to rationalise that.

I also don't think the current approach of providing a history of sculpture is appropriate. It might make more sense to take a thematic than a chronological approach. But that's another issue. Pho-logic (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What you have presented us with are two things that you think the article should not be. I have a mantra that I've developed over the years that says, "Don't bring problems, bring solutions." Try sitting in a lotus position and chanting that for 2 or 3 hours and then consider coming back and telling us what we need to do, or at least what you feel needs to be done, to improve the article. For the record, I am basically on your side. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's be realistic, there's a lot more problems than solutions. My suggestion would be to kill the currently existing sections on types etc, and replace with one entitled Materials and Processes, which discusses traditional/contemporary processes.

If it were just me, I would move almost all the material on this page to sub-pages (sculpture in meso-america, etc) and put a brief potted history of sculpture here, and then try and talk about thematic issues. Pho-logic (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is bad feng shui

David Patchen Bloom, 2012 (Blown and hot sculpted glass)

to have sculptors post pictures of their own work in wikipedia. It is a lovely piece and all, but . . . ...... And although I am technically still pouting and am taking a wiki break, I think that break will be defined as a break from adding new material. einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't need it...Modernist (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Classical

I would prefer not to refer to classical greek-roman sculpture in reference to anything other than classical Greece. It is potentially confusing given that the classical period of Greek sculpture is a very sharply defined period and style and is often contrasted against the baroque Hellenistic or the archaic Archaic. Antiquity is a perfectly useful understandable way of referring to the pre-Christian Mediterranean. (Also, say, Cycladic art is hardly classical.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pho-logic (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal with History of sculpture

I'm thinking of working on this for the WP:The Core Contest, and starting by merging the much shorter History of sculpture to here. On the whole the history sections here are much longer, and have broader coverage. On the other hand the sections at History on Prehistoric, Ancient Near East and Aegean sculpture have nothing here. The (north) American sections seem identical. This gets far more hits - 1600-2000 per day vs. 60-100 - which to my mind is a strong argument against doing the merge the other way and boosting the History. The merged article will still need a good deal of rewriting, expansion and referencing. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the merge - Sculpture needs a lot of help too...Modernist (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added here what I think is useful from the History, but won't redirect it yet. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge away. Under close scrutiny, of course. Carptrash (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Expansion

Modernist & I have been adding a lot of stuff, & I think it's in much better shape, but has got huge - 133K now. The Modern section is listy & repetitious - Smithson and Judd are mentioned & linked 3/4 times each, & needs a trim; Minimalism is covered twice (no, 3 times), and lots of people seem to be both Modernist and classical or contemporary. They'll have to make their minds up I'm afraid. We didn't have a Modern sculpture & it doesn't get much of a look in at Modernism, so I've set that up & just copied everything there, before doing the trim, in case I throw any babies out with the bathwater - I won't edit it further. Hope that's ok. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Over there, I noticed the following absentees: Kathe Kollwitz, Jacob Epstein, Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, Barbara Hepworth, Elizabeth Frink, Jeff Koons, Andy Goldsworthy, Richard Long (artist), Tetsuo Harada, Ian Hamilton Finlay, Damien Hirst, Anthony Gormley, Tracy Emin, Rachel Whiteread (has a pic).

No doubt there are others. Contemporary sculpture seems to be almost entirely an American affair! Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In our modernist gallery of 27 images there are 9 Americans, 10 counting Noguchi...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Minimalism and Postminimalism were American based movements, we include the pioneers...Modernist (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was horrified

File:FDR memorial.jpg

Robert Graham, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, 1997, Washington, DC.

to discover this bit of misinformation, not only in this article, but in several others. Then when starting to track it down I discovered that a lot of the Modernist images here are repeated in the Modern sculpture article. I plan to remedy that after finding where else this sculpture by Neil Estern is attributed to Graham. I am tying to decide whether to track down who started this scandalous falsehood and write them to please be more careful. Feel free to join in. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It was me...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, my understanding was that Graham made it, if not I'll remove it. By the way Johnbod just created Modern sculpture last night by copying it from here...Modernist (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The theory is that modern sculpture can be made into a stand alone article...Modernist (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd take a second look at your understanding. Sculpture at the FDR memorial was done by Graham, Segal, Baskin Estern and maybe a few more. This particular section was not by Graham. Do we need references here? I like the separate article idea. Should I butt out while you shift thongs around?Carptrash (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your input...Modernist (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(copied from the other page) Since this was set up as a straight copy of the section at Sculpture 24 hrs ago, nearly all the pics were then the same. Really additions should be here [ie Modern sculpture ] rather than there [ie here], as sculpture is around 131k bytes, and too long by most standards. "Modern" can be used as purely a matter of date, as distinguished from (and also including) Modernist, not to mention contemporary/Post-modern etc, & personally I'd take the article that way. At the moment a clear definition isn't made. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC) - see the previous section. I certainly hope you & Modernist take it on, as a lot needs doing there, & I'm not planning on doing much. So far I actually trimmed the text here quite a bit without actually cutting much at all, as there was a lot of repetition, but also many gaps even I could see. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I find this section

"Aniconism remained restricted to the Jewish, Zoroastrian and some other religions, before expanding to Early Buddhism and Early Christianity, neither of which initially accepted at least large sculptures. In both Christianity and Buddhism these early views were later reversed, and sculpture became very significant, especially in Buddhism. Christian Eastern Orthodoxy has never accepted monumental sculpture, and Islam has consistently rejected nearly all figurative sculpture. Many forms of Protestantism also do not approve of religious sculpture. "

a fairly long section of who did NOT use sculpture, located too near the beginning of the article to be pointless. Perhaps it can go later in the article when the various periods that these religions fit into are are discussed? Carptrash (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree - it mystified (?) me when I saw it added. Filled with hemming and hawing, qualifications and contradiction, seems like it wants to say something but it doesn't know how...Modernist (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Africa vs Egypt

Our section on African sculpture begins "Most African sculpture was historically in wood and other organic materials". This is only true if we choose to ignore Egypt. And perhaps some Roman stuff. We can either re-name the "Africa" section something like Sub-Saharan or write an explanation as to why Egypt does not count. I lean slightly towards the "Sub-Saharan" side, but could easily be convinced otherwise. Carptrash (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat more disturbing (to me) is that the first link in the article goes to African sculpture - which turns out to be, as far as I can tell, an exact copy of what is in the Sculpture article. Wikipedia discourages cut & paste editing, not just from external sources, but (I think) from internal ones as well. This link, which I am about to remove is tantamount to having a link to its self. I wonder if the pictures are all the same too? Carptrash (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is probably true even if Egypt is included, though not in terms of what has survived. Most Egyptian tomb statues were wooden, and much else. But Egypt has termites. I have gone round many of the "main" articles adding improved material from here, as most were & are very basic. In the case of African sculpture, which already shared some text which has been retained here (at the end) the texts have probably ended up as near-identical, including the pictures, as the other article was so poor. At the moment the link is therefore not much use, but what if someone expands the other article, as I hope they will? On the whole the link should be left. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So, I am going to throw in a little bit of language at the front of our African section about Egypt, then perhaps take a look a African sculpture article. I have a few books on the subject but am also swimming uphill against the sands of time. Feel free to amend whatever I come up with. Carptrash (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Totally absurd enormous stacks of massive so called thumbnail images flowing all the way down the right hand side of the page past the contents section and flowing into the first section.

The layout of this page looks totally absurd with the massive stacks of ginormous thumbnails flowing all the way down the right hand side of the page past the contents section and flowing into the first section.

This is also true for some of the following sections where thumbnails are appearing in the wrong sections due to bad layout.

Some users choose to have thumbnails 120px across, the default is 220px and this is too large for some screens, including mine. To call an image such as Moses which is 300px by 400px a thumbnail is a joke. You should not be overriding choices made by users in their preferences by hardwiring the thumbnails as 300px.

Also it is recommended that images that are fair use, such as the Shark, should not be in galleries. This does not mean it is an acceptable work around to put them in thumbnails besides the gallery and so to appear as if they are part of the gallery. The recommendation is because the Fair Use claim is that they are important to the article, as such you must put something in words to support that in the article. You do not even mention the artist or the work.

You are being far too indulgent in padding this article with too many pictures. Some of which are even in the wrong sections because of the thumbnail stacking. If you want that many pictures scattered around you need more supporting text.

QuentinUK (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What looked really ridiculous was your gallery in the middle of the lead, which is no doubt against all the guidelines, as one never sees such things. Opposite the TOC is an excellent place to have images, instead of just a big white space. The increasing diversity of devices and screen sizes is certainly making it difficult to suit all pieces of kit, something that our image advice, little changed in recent years, has failed to keep up with. Many editors now place most images to the right to help cope with different widths of screens, and 300px has emerged as the typical forced size for visual art articles - on most screens 220px is too small, perhaps especially for sculpture. It is a very common fault in WP page design to make a fetish of keeping images and the relevant text right next to each other; in a heavily illustrated article this may be impossible, especially on some screens. The subject is highly visual, and the text already very long, and the certainly heavy use of images is I think appropriate, and other editors put more in than I would. The article gets some 2500 views per day, & I don't think the current layout should be changed without more comments along these lines. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (or viewers have problems reading Wikipedia on their devices) this should really be a discussion for MOS:IMAGES, not here. Generally the default 220px should be sufficient for illustrating articles. Mind you, MOS:IMAGES suggests 300px width is allowable for 'lead images'. I'm not sure all five images are suitable/required for the lead section - for example the Assyrian gate is more of a frieze than a sculpture; the tiny Netsuke object is surely incongruously large at this size; the portrait style Michaelangelo sculpture is a whopping 450px high at this scale. Perhaps one key illustrative image should be retained at a larger size to introduce the article, while the remainder are reduced. After all, noone is going to suggest the dozens of other images throughout the article should also be massive! Sionk (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The gallery was not "in the middle of the lead". It was between the lead and the contents. Look in the history.
If readers don't like the big white space they can click "hide", that's what the button's for. Large white spaces will also get readers used to seeing what a typical art gallery looks like.
"Diversity of devices..." That is why there is a user option for thumbnail sizes. People who want 300px thumbnails can have that if they want, if weren't for their user choice being overridden.
"Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px")."( MOS:IMAGES ) First, note that they use a ratio of 1.35, this scales up the user's choice. For larger images this sort of scaling should be used rather than putting in a fixed value. Second, this is the maximum, and is based on the assumption of a single lead images. The MOS:IMAGES article is assuming that there will be one lead image not 5.
Just checked the most popular visual art, Film and both it and the MOS:IMAGES page itself both use a single default size thumbnail. Probably museum visual arts articles all have the same editors.
"common fault ... fetish" it's called consistent layout style. Readers will have no idea why the illustrations are there, and which art movement they are part of. It's just a random jumble and a mess.
There is not too much text. It could be broken up a lot more. There are no illustrations for the first section "Types of sculpture". The second "Purposes and subjects" only has 2 pictures, one of which is not even a sculpture, it's a coin.
QuentinUK (talk)

There is so much nonsense here I really can't go through it all. There may not be much text, but evidently too much for you to be bothered to read, or you would know that coins fall under sculpture. If the images are left as they are they will cover the first sections very nicely on most devices. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The images as they are now are fine as lede thumbs...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of images in this article is excellent. Since it's a visual topic we need lots of pictures. I especially think the placement of images to the right and then under the sections is extremely helpful in illustrating the content. This is all good work and should only be improved but not removed. Jojalozzo 23:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is not about reducing the number of images only changing their layout. It is the layout that needs to be improved. QuentinUK (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Working on a new layout, a bit of patience please

I'd like to work on a different layout system for highly illustrated articles - what we have now (in general) seems to be a complete mess, and this article is pretty messy IMHO. I'll be done within a week with my experiment - a little patience please. I suppose everyday I could revert to my last version and start again, but what's the point? As far as I'm concerned almost any change to the visual layout of this article is an improvement.

Specific problems here:

1. the number of photos at the top and the resulting stack totally clog things up.
2. the galleries (and resulting stacking problems) clogs it up and overwhelms the reader with fairly small images. Bigger images in the galleries would generally be worse. I generally like galleries, but not so many large ones.
3. toggling between "show contents" and "hide contents" results in a completely different overall visual - generally even worse for "hide contents"

What I'd like to come out of this:

• A real layout guide for highly illustrated articles. Have you noticed that MOS:Images and WP:Layout really don't have anything about an integrated layout (especially for highly illustrated articles)? Rather they address the individual elements that are being laid out (concentrating on the trees rather than the forest), or just talk about section order.
• a way to avoid or minimize stacks of images, which can appear in various (ugly) ways on different divices.
• something here that people could come to - on various devices - and say "That really looks nice!"
• the use of "upright=" (relative size) vs fixed px's

Any help or comments would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• It would have been better to choose a smaller and less high-traffic article. Remember that images should face into the page. And that some of us have preferences set at 300px, where "upright 1.4" is just enormous. I never use the "scaling" parameters because they make no sense when there are other variables. The whole question of image size & placement has become much more complicated since the sizes of screens became so varied. I have to say that so far yours looks just awful to me. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I prefer the way we had it. These articles aren't easy and IMO it worked - don't mess with it...Modernist (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the placement of photos on this page doesn't come even close to working - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Look at everything from the History section and below. Huge galleries overlapped with different sized photos on the right result in visual overload, with the unbalanced overlaps making me nauseous. Look at the top - if you hide the TOC, you get a stack of 6 large photos going down to the 4th section, imposing a boring uniformity on the article blocking the entire rhs. As far as setting your preferences at 300px, I think you should set your preference back to normal and all changes in picture size should be set using scaling parameters. Imposing your px size on each picture on other people in a way that can't easily be changed, is just as annoying for them, but you can change your preference, and they can't change the size of each pic. Using the scaling parameters is clearly superior. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Image in "Materials and techniques"

I question the inclusion of the image by Arnold Henry Savage Landor, found in the Materials and techniques section of the article. I think that image is of a two-dimensional work. I believe this article is about three-dimensional work. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a painting of a carver carving, apparently large Tibetan letters - whether those letters count as sculpture is an interesting question. I'm not that attached to it - it's one of the few remnants of the old article. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

File:HEECH.jpg

Nothing, Iranian sculptor Parviz Tanavoli's depiction of the Persian calligraphy of the word hich, meaning nothing, late 20th century (bronze) Niavaran Palace library, Tehran, Iran

Please note that on 30 April 2013 user Freshacconci deleted from the entry a photo of renown Iranian sculptor Parviz Tanavoli's work Nothing, citing as a reason "Not needed, not representative of sculpture historically", and advising me "do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Sculpture; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox."

I would like you to judge if the said user was right in deleting the picture rather than moving it to a more representative section of the entry, and that if I have committed vandalism in trying to introduce the work of a renown sculptor to the world.

I look forward to your judgment. --Echopapa echoromeo (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, he was correct to remove it. Does it really need explaining why? This is a very crowded article, and the work was obscure and by a relatively little-known atrtist. That does not mean it was vandalism to add it. I think the copyright status on the image file is incorrect also - the work is still in the copyright of the artist surely? Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• He was correct in removing it. There are thousands of sculptors whose work could be added to this article; we cannot add every artist...Modernist (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do regret using the pre-written template warning as the wording is incorrect to this situation and I should have written a message in my own words. However, I do stand by my edit. Echopapa echoromeo has attempted three times to insert the image without explanation or an edit summary of any kind and three editors have removed the image. I explained in my edit summary that the image was not necessary and in an article spanning the history of sculpture, this particular piece is not appropriate. As Modernist has stated, we cannot add a representation of every artist so there needs to be a sound encyclopedic reason for including a particular image. You have provided none and in fact reverted other editors' edits without any sort of explanation. There are other articles that may be better suited for this image. An article such as this should only contain historically significant works. freshacconci talktalk 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention and reply--Echopapa echoromeo (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

wrong image

The image labelled "tympanum of Vezelay abbey, Burgundy, France, 1130s" in fact shows the 19th century tympanum on the West Front by Viollet-le-Duc, which replaces the original destroyed during the French revolution for which there is no evidence of its appearance. The reknowned surviving 12th century carved portal with tympanum is found inside the building, marking the passage from the Western narthex to the nave of the church. Mattymootoo (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed & the image file corrected, though it is still used wrongly on lots of other language WPs. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I just removed this phrase

Sculpture is often used mainly to describe large works, which are sometimes called monumental sculpture, meaning either or both of sculpture that is large, or that is attached to a building.

because, if for no other reason, it really does not work as a sentence very well. Also, I am not quite sure what it means. And you? Einar Carptrash (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What it says? Figures 1 inch high tend not to be called sculptures, nor do figures in eg porcelain. Needs a bit of a rewrite though. Johnbod (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we can be pretty sure that any sentence that combines "often used mainly," " sometimes," either or both," and "or" could profit from a rewrite. A reference would be nice too. Carptrash (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

bronze contracts as it cools

Unless this is verifiable, I believe that "Common bronze alloys have the unusual and desirable property of expanding slightly just before they set, thus filling the finest details of a mold. " is incorrect. It is my experience that bronze goes into the mould, takes the impression from the walls of the mould and shrinks away as it cools, details being determined by the quality of the mould, the material the mould is made from, the temperature of the mould, the temperature of the bronze when it is poured into the mould and the rate at which the bronze cools in the mould, to name just a few of the factors involved.

---

lutedcrucible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutedcrucible (talk • contribs) 14:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Chinese sculpture

Make a separate article...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is titled 'Sculpture', not 'Western sculpture', and therefore should feature sculptures worldwide without bias. Are you saying Asian sculptures shouldn't be discussed in details in this article and should be excluded to their own articles? -Anddme (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia in case you aren't aware. We discuss sculpture from all over the world in this article and yes western sculpture as well. If you are so inclined to see an article on Asian or Chinese sculpture then create one...Modernist (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you notice there is a Chinese section in this article in which we include these links:
  Main articles: Chinese art, Chinese ceramics, Lacquerware, and Chinese jade
  we do that with almost everything in this article - links to more complete related articles...Modernist (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

However English is the International language and therefore should serve to best represent the views from all people around the globe. Yes, you do discuss western sculpture, to the point you won't even allow me to add some diversity to the lede images. In case you haven't realised, 90% of the text and images in this article are devoted to western sculpture already. Btw, I'm not inclined to see an article on Asian sculpture; I'm inclined to see an article on sculpture with sculpture and its development from all over the world featured equally and without bias. -Anddme (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So you are still saying Asian sculpture should not be discussed in details in this article, and should be relegated to other articles with such links -- which is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm not only interested in Chinese sculpture, but Japanese, Indian as well. And I think the historical development of these sculpture styles should be discussed in the same details as western sculpture in this article. -Anddme (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? All the subjects are linked to more complete articles without exception. This article covers an enormous worldwide field; if you think those subjects need more intensive coverage then make an article...Modernist (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• My suggestion to you is for you to create several articles on Asian sculpture and improve African sculpture and improve Sculpture in South Asia, Indian sculpture, Japanese sculpture, and create Chinese sculpture. They will improve this encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Just wanted to reiterate my standpoint: I'm saying historical development of Asian sculpture styles should be discussed in the same details as western sculpture in this article (like from Ancient Greece to Renaissance, to Neo-Classical). (I'm not talking about article linking. Of course all the subjects in this article are linked to more complete articles, West or East, but they are not discussed in the same details in this article.)

I summarise your standpoint as such: This is English wikipedia so this article should have a natural focus on western sculpture. If this is your opinion then I understand and repect that, though don't personally agree.

Thanks for the suggestions (not personally interested in African sculpture though). Will do.

-Anddme (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I am very curious to see what gets discussed here and what get moved to other linked articles. I might even pitch in at some level, who knows. Carptrash (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As the article explains, sculpture (at least large sculpture) became significant relatively late in the history of Chinese art, and, in terms of what survives, the same is true of India. I doubt it is true that "90% of the text and images in this article are devoted to western sculpture". The Chinese section could be longer, but the Pre-Columbian American section seems the one most obviously too short, maybe followed by the Ancient Near East. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

90% was an exaggeration of mine. I was just talking about the fact that only western sculpture gets discussed in various laid-out stages of development in this article. I would also like to divide Chinese sculpture in similar laid-out stages, as the sculpture style got influenced by and evolves with dynasty change, religion spread, etc. -Anddme (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the features of Chinese art is that it continues to look back at traditional styles and forms, so the changes in style are less marked than in Western art. I suggest you start by creating Chinese sculpture, much of which can be compiled by extracting sections from existing articles on Chinese art at different periods (explaining in the edit summary when and where from material is borrowed), and then gaps filled in. Or even just expanding the material at Chinese art. This could then be summarized here. But there certainly isn't room to treat every culture here at great length, and we should concentrate on what is most significant and typical. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John. Got it. I think another reason why changes in style are less pronounced in Chinese art is that China was more of a unified culture throughout its history, while the European culture was divided among different countries so that new styles could pop up from different places and influence each other more easily. -Anddme (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That too. As you've seen, I've added a bit & will try to add more in the New Year, Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Statues of Historical Females

In terms of public art, I hereby propose a new article devoted to the sculptures of historic women (rather than symbolic or mythological representations). In Boise, Idaho alone we have the Anne Frank Human Rights Memorial, as well as statues of Anne Simplot and Julia Davis. kencf0618 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sculpture. 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/20090104060402/http://www.artmuseums.harvard.edu/exhibitions/sackler/godsInColor.html to http://www.artmuseums.harvard.edu/exhibitions/sackler/godsInColor.html

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) 18:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sculpture. 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/20090525100233/http://www.nbz.or.jp/eng/middlejomon.htm to http://www.nbz.or.jp/eng/middlejomon.htm

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) 12:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The photo gallery

for the Minimalism section contains two works by Tony Smith and two by Donald Judd. I think it is a good practice to include only one work per artist, per section, in a survey article such as this. Unless I hear otherwise I shall remove one image from each of them. Carptrash (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)