Jump to content

Talk:Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?/Archive 1

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

I have edited to try and make some sense of the McHale claims. The sources are the Tate Gallery who should know. I would appreciate seeing some sources for the claim that McHale is the author.

Piersmasterson 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Authorship claims

To save this necessary article from deletion, which may have been an option given the notification at the BLP noticeboard, I've stubbed this to its basic elements. Editors should keep, at the very least, our verifiability policy and our guidelines on reliable sourcing in mind when adding sections like that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

oh right nice one jeff you dick I needed the old article for research thankyou so very much you twat
No problem. Here's a suggestion - you probably don't want to use those parts for research, it might not be true. That's why it's gone. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The material is true because it comes from John McHale's son and he has checked it against his father's comments and work with three years of intensive research, plus he talked to his step mother who was on site when it was being produced, so why is a non-qualified person deciding on the verasity of this site, and axing it? If Hamilton or someone qualified wants to comment on it let them do so at the bottom of the text, otherwise let's have the site up again. Note: the recent inflamitory derrogatory remarks on the site were made by Hamilton's supporters not by McHale, and it was their remarks that put the site in jeopardy. In the meantime if you have some serious research questions please contact. ottex@netrover.com

So get some reliable sources on it and then you'll be all set. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I already reverted this once, but my question to Ottex is this: why the long statement. Where is this coming from? Is this original research and what does it have to do with the painting itself. This doesn't make sense to me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a painting it is collage and therefore it is referenced to specific photographed elements that can be identified, and were identified forty years ago by the designer John McHale, who said they were selected by him because they related to his life. If it is a Hamilton work then Hamilton should for a start be able to easily identify who the burlesques artist's actual real name is and similarly with the Mr Sideburns in the frame.McHale already identified the rest. If you do not understand art and iconography and mid 1950's Pop art then look elswhere. It is not worth the time of day to even acknowledge badley's asinine stubbings. Ottex

This is not how Wikipedia works. If the attribution of this collage to Hamilton should be changed to McHale not original resarch, like resarch by his son, but only verifiable material that has been published by reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy may be used, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. In articles related to living persons also WP:BLP states: Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. If primary research on the topic was done, publication oft the results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites is needed, and Wikipedia will report about this work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Consensus about the insertion of such material should be established prior to usage in the article at the talk page. --VirtualDelight 17:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is evident you are dishonest because you keep stubbing the text even though the documented references have been provided.--ottex

Fact check all you want if you are ignorant of the subject matter but stop blocking it --ottex

You must be really scared of the truth freshacconci if you do such a hatched job of editing the site Ottex3/3/07

Ah, yes, the "being scared of the truth" argument! Quite convincing. Exactly what is it I'm scared of? And why do you care so much, really? It all sounds like you're a bit too close to the subject, which would make this a bit WP:COI. The truth I'm interested in are things which are verifiable. If John McHale was more than a footnote to history, I'd be quite happy to say so: I'll join you in shouting his name from the rooftops. However, all I see (at the moment) is a campaign by his son to rewrite history, and as such, this smacks of non-NPOV and does not belong in wikipedia. Freshacconci 14:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Your only shabby recourse 'stale'accconci is to a rules based argument since you are obviously ignorant of the facts+ you have admitted you have not read Jeremy Hunt's recent article confirming McHale's design and iconic authorship. Hunt's group convened an academic team in London to look into this matter and they confirmed McHale's claim. Some footnotes pack a Pop punch. Ottex 3/3/07

In a Stewie voice: "You see. You see what i've done here? His user name is freshaconci and I called him staleacconci. You see. He was fresh and now he's stale. He used to be fresh but now he's stale. Staleacconci. He's stale."
I'll be sure to check out that article if I can find it. Thanks for the tip. Freshacconci 15:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile you have contributed zero factual information and a hack edit which you offer up with your MA as a shoddy public service to the site. Ottex3.3.07

A quick note on edit wars

To all other editors, before I get too carried away with some battle with McHale's son, or whoever he is, I'd like to say (although it may be satisfying), I'm stepping away from the fray and focus on improving the article, which I'm hoping everyone would agree is why we're here. Further comments from me will be editorial in focus and I prefer to stay away from the other nonsense. Happy editing! Freshacconci 15:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you claim to have the ability to edit the article when you have demonstrated you do not know subject matter or the current details of the subject. It is a ludicrous claim. If you really want to be hehlpful go through the text and check the spelling because there are several errors that have not yet been caught. ottex3/3/07

As I said, my comments will be editorial in focus. But a question does come to mind: do you know me? Do you know anything about me? What do you know of my knowledge in any subject matter? You don't, and I don't know you. So likewise, I have no idea whether or not you are an "expert" in this field. You mention one article which "proves" your claim. That is enough to warrent a sentence or two about new research in the area concerning authorship. It does not change history and as it stands, history states that Richard Hamilton is the artist of this piece. History, however, is being rewritten all the time--that's the enjoyment in writing about history. But one article cannot change history immediately. As you'll notice from my edits, I kept information about the current debate, but please remember, it is current. To write about it as if it were a done deal is original research. If this is how you feel, that's wonderful, write a book and we'll cite it here. But the proper academic process is slow by necessity, and a resource that is neutral such as wikipedia must be even more careful not to change established facts too quickly or with any emotional attachment. I intend to continue to edit this and any other article I wish. I have knowledge in this area and how dare you claim that I don't? Freshacconci 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not deny Warhol is a great American Pop artist, but what does your expertise in American Warhol have to do with the specialized specifics of British Pop art circa 1955-56? It is now recognized by Hunt et al in London that Hamilton has been pulling the wool over the art world's eyes and ears for years and now you are compounding his misinformation with your hack edit. Someone with expertise in British pop art would not have the vanity to edit soemthing specialised on Warhol, so why the asymmetry in treatment? Do you know the specific facts or are you just grand standing? If it is the latter then stop your hack edits. Ottex3/3/07

Lead paragraph

After looking at the links below and reading some, not all, of the discussion, how's about this for the lead?

Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing? is a small (almost square 10-1/4" x 9-3/4") collage, and one of the first works to be considered Pop art.

In 1956, Richard Hamilton, John McHale, and John Voelcker submitted the piece as Group 2 of the This is Tomorrow exhibit in London. In addition to inclusion in the show and catalog, posters for the exhibit displayed the collage.

Links to the catalog

--sparkitTALK 06:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that works, and it's factually accurate. Freshacconci 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Lest you forget page 28 that you so cleaverly link was originally written entirely by John McHale and one of the biographies on page 30 contains some brief details on his background. You have omitted two whole pages from the TIT catalogue which were originally designed by John McHale. The only complete Hamilton work is page 28. This is what one gets from amateurs trying to do botched edits on specialized material concerning British Pop art circa 1956. As for sparkit's edit it repeats the previous hatchet edit and contributes zero new information or insight to the subject matter. Warhol was a brilliant American Pop artist but his sensibilities had almost nothing to do with British Pop and Fresh/Spark keep confusing the issue trying to transpose attitudes studied from the American experience of Warhol to the British context. The mid 1950's British whacky humour is different the allusions are different and the multi dimensional iconic context is different. Unless you are steeped in it, or lived, you have no way of judging/editing what has been supplied to wiki. So stop trying a bad act in cyberspace like the Goon Show and back off. Ottex 4.3.07

I guess everyone is wrong except you. However, two editors are attempting to clean up the terrible state that this article is in. As per the wikipedia intro page: "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world." You do not own this article, you are not the sole author, you do not have exclusive authority over the subject matter. In fact, if you are who I suspect you are, you are in violation of WP:COI. I have no intention of backing off and you have no business telling me or anyone else to back off. Freshacconci 03:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've used the lead proposed above in the article, and added a controversy section.
We can certainly read, and cite references, that McHale, Jr. asserts that the work is McHale, Sr.'s. Though, I don't know if the sources I found on the web are considered citable by wikipedia standards.
I also don't know the reliability of this source, but it's interesting reading. http://www.warholstars.org/articles/richardhamilton/richardhamilton.html
--sparkitTALK 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly have no problem with a mention of the controversy--I think it's part of the story. The link above is also interesting in showing balance: McHale Jr.'s accusations and Hamilton response. Freshacconci 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: edit war about authorship of this collage

Assertions are made that McHale created the piece directing Hamilton. Whether the published sources of the assertion are citeable on wikipedia is uncertain.

Historical sources attribute the creation to Hamilton.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • I believe this controversy can be covered in the article by, of course, presenting all aspects with references. It needn't be long or elaborate. --sparkitTALK 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The Jeremy Hunt article that is quoted in the reference link covers this point adequately. The wiki material gives the backround to Hamilton's attempt to cover up the truth. Ottex3.5.07

Fair use rationale for Image:Hamilton-appealing2.jpg

Image:Hamilton-appealing2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left a rationale on the image page. Tyrenius 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct design attribution for the Armour rounded shaped tin is Loewry not Loewy as per the original text that was edited out in previous versions. In McHale's design of the collage there is another connection to Loewy linked to Henry Dreyfuss, The World of Tomorrow 1939 New York World's Fair, the phone of the future, and the ergonomic design of the Constellation vacuum cleaner as was noted in the earlier text versions. Some claim Raymond Loewy ,whereas others claim Henry Dreyfuss, designed the The Hoover Company trade mark logo, which is affixed to the Dreyfuss "Connie" designed vacuum cleaner. Dreyfuss also designed the interior of the Connie for PAN-AM, although Raymond Loewy also claims to have designed the aircraft interior for Trans World Airlines. This mix up in similar designer names and design attributions is a common textural oversight, and all part of the perceptual duality and ambiguity that McHale was conveying in his collage design.For some of the design background to the Lockheed Connie see Phil Pattons text [1] Ottex June/Oct 07. Why is someone undoing all the new material on this site? are they scared of the truth? Ottex June 8/007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The design attribution on the Armour triangular tin of ham is very confusing. Some sources credit the American born designer Loewry as per the original wiki text, other sources credit the French born American designer Loewy. In Raymond Loewy "Industrial Design" with Introduction by Laurence Loewy, published by Overlook, ISBN 978-1-58567-985-0, on page 130 there are photos of rounded Armour product packaging designed by Loewy, but it does not specificially provide an illustration of the rounded triangular form of the Armour tin. At this stage it might be useful to present a neutral position and reference Loewy in the main text and Loewry in the footnote, thus reversing the order in the wiki text. Ottex5Dec/oo7

Please stop undoing wiki text that has been carefully referenced. McHale coined the term 'Pop art' in 1954, and he told his son the iconic POP in his "Just What..?" collage design was a deliberate design reference to his coining the term. Alloway is often credited with coining the term in his 1958 article, but he did not do so. Nor was Alloway the first into print to document in general terms about popular culture and the activities of the ICA/Independent Group. If you check the literature you will find that Reyner Banham published an article describing popular culture acivities at the ICA in an Italian design magagazine, prior to Alloway's oft misquoted 1958 article. In the interest of academic scholarship and public information please get your facts straight before gratuitously deleting text. Ottex6 Dec/oo7


Quit doing a hatchet job on the wiki text. The TATE has been informed by letter of the details you are crudely editing out and the documentation is in place on public record. The interior depicted in the collage is the living room at 52 Cleveland Square where the collage paste up was performed and which was the McHale/Cordell atelier living room: the stairs have been artistically modified slightly and the original fenestration shifted from left to right. The fourth wall through which the artistic viewer peers into the interior of the collage originally had a very large "Brutalist" Action Painting by Magda Cordell hanging on the wall. Hence some of the visual humour of looking through the fourth wall at the action taking place in the McHale/Cordell atelier. The Pop art boudior reference also carries with it other connotations which will be referenced on wiki at a later date after you have and others have stopped the botched edit. Ottex06/007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ottex. It's not clear what edits you are referring to. I've recently removed a reference [2], then replaced it [3] after seeing that the link was changed to the correct page. As far as I can see you're the only person who has made edits relating to the McHale/Cordell atelier. Have I missed something?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Worked it out: it was your edit here [4] that unintentionally removed the reference.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ethics'. There was some conflicting editorial activity on the site and the "Zabo" footnote got erased. It should be filled in again with more detailed references. David Hopkins in his 'After Modern Art 1945-2000' wrongly identifies the originator of the collage design and wrongly identifies Zabo as Charles Atlas. Zabo Koszewski was Mr Universe runner up, hence the humerous visual link to the Universe as seen through the oculus in the ceiling. Some of the ICA architects in the mid 1950's were members of Team 10 and the CIAM /MARS Group; and McHale positioned the Pop art ready made of Robby the Robot and a poster from the Forbidden Planet at the portals to the TIT. At some level the collage depicts the notion of 'space ship earth' on its way to the Forbidden Planet MARS. Zabo is evidently in perfect Greek proportioned form and can be seen 'vacuuming his lungs', hence the humerous connection to the Henry Dreyfuss designed 'vacuum' cleaner and his notion of 'ergonomic man', which is also connected to Le Corbusier]'s notions of La Modulor. {Corbusier in his "Toward An Architecture" writes about "a house is a machine for living", and defines its attributes with references to 'furnature', air conditioned 'controlled temperature', 'food', 'beauty through proportion' et al , which correspond to some of the same elements as in McHale's POP art collage design). Zabo also embodies some 'beauty through proportion' Pop art attributes: he was a film star in several movies, hence the humerous food link to the "star" vacuumed ham. Zabo's surname "Koszewsky" is very close in name to the famous philosopher Alfred Korzybski that is referenced in Laszlo Maholy-Nagy, 'Vision In Motion' page 30 , which McHale used as one of his sources for his lecture on 'Dada as Non Aristotelians' at the ICA in 1955. Zabo Koszewsky lived and still works out as an iconic bodybuilder in Venice, California. McHale grew up in Maryhill Glasgow known as the Venice of the North, and McHale's first studio at #8 Randolph Mews was located in Little Venice in London. Zabo was associated with burlesque, since he performed in the famous Mae West Review. Hence the iconic tableau vivant burlesque connection that runs through McHale's collage design. Mae West also performed at Minsky's Burlesque, and with Al Jolson in New Haven, Connecticut. Mae West's other connection to Connecticut is via her play called Sex (play). McHale while in the Navy was rescued by a Mae West vest lifejacket when his ship was torpedoed in the war. You will recall, McHale was studying at Yale University, New Haven Connecticut at the time he designed the collage and provided all the iconic material for the collage. As Al Jolson said "You aint heard nothin' yet" --about the depth and complexity of McHale's Pop art collage iconography. Ottex/Dec/007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems someone was trying to vandalise the text references so I have reinintated them as per the original information. Ottex/15.2.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Who Is It?

There's a photograph of someone next to the "Young Romance" poster - who is it? --MosheA (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Hamilton claims it is his collage maybe he can tell you, and the rest of the art world. In McHale's case he claimed it was a dual image: one referenced to the actual iconic source of the image which McHale provided , and McHale also said it represents a surrogate Scots image linking it conceptually to the other elements within his collage design. So take your pick of who is the true designer of the collage: Hamilton who has postured for years, but has never identified Zabo or any of the other iconic design attributes in the collage? Or J. McHale who has furnished the art world with a consistent coherent explanation of the inter related iconic details of the collage. Shalome. Ottex/5th May 08.

McHale had worked in the late 1940's for an antique dealer in Mayfair that specialised in old master portrait paintings. McHale was also known for his considerable knowledge of optical and visual perception in art and photography. Part of the visual in-joke is that the fellow to the right in the Young Romance comic is standing next to a picture frame and he looks like an updated fifties version with Sideburns of the American fellow with Piccadilly Weepers depicted next to him in the parallel picture frame. So one does a visual double take. The other ICA in-joke is that McHale had visited Roland Penrose house on a number of occasions when assembling material for the Collages and Objects exhibit in 1954, and Roland had an old framed picture of his Dad, James Doyle Penrose, who was a painter, and the framed Penrose family picture is rather similar to the portrait of the man in the collage picture frame. Which makes for yet another visual double take. The other visual Scots joke McHale intended was that the surrogate Scots bard image links conceptualy back to Alloway.Ottex 2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What on Earth?

What on earth is going on with this article? I see that the user Ottex is disputing the traditional attribution of this artwork, but he's not referencing anything other than his personal knowledge, which isn't allowed. "The Tate has been informed" is not an encyclopedic reference. And as a result, the article is a total mess; it's incomprehensible. And what's all the rubbish about the history of the tape recorder? None of that belongs here. This is an important work, and deserves better than this hash. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that such a person as "Raymond Loewry" even exists? Raymond LOEWY was the designer who did the Studebaker, Hoover, etc. etc. Who the hell is Loewry? 216.231.46.147 (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes both designers even exist: one was French born and the other was American born, and they had very similar names. If you scoll up the discussion page this was already pointed out. It was also noted that both designers have been credited with designing the rounded Armour can of ham. As was pointed out in the original footnote which you edited out: Loewy's 'Industrial Design' contains photos of rounded Armour products, but it does not contain the specific rounded tin of Armour ham which serves as McHale's POP art rebus in his collage design. McHale's POP art rebus of ARMOUR STAR HAM is a visual compression 'tag' referencing: McHale's friend Buckminster Fuller who taught at Yale and previously worked for Armour, the star ham tin is also triangular shaped humerously like the 'tensegrity' triangles for which Bucky was famous. McHale lectured and wrote articles on Walter Gropius who was briefly the nominal head of the Armour Institute and recomended Laszlo Maholy-Nagy for his job at the Armour Institute. Reyner BanHAM was a friend and colleague of McHale's at the ICA. HAMilton did the mechanicals on the collage and collaborated with McHale on some of the This Is Tomorrow exhibit. McHale also mounted a retrospective of Francis BACON's work at the ICA. McHale was a collagist like Paolozzi at the ICA and Paolozzi was Scots like McHale . Eduardo Paolozzi had previously used down market SPAM in one of his collages; whereas, at McHale's POP art atelier with International style Armstrong furnishing (not on Hamilton's alleged production 'list of interest') they served up-market Armour Ham. The other collage conceptual connection to Armour ham comes through the image of the Ford logo, both FORD and Armour used the American ARMOR mass production system pioneered by a famous graduate of Yale, and all this is documented in the ICA Giedion's bible 'Mechanization Takes Command'. Get the Pop art picture now--editor 'not qualified' in the subject matter? Ottex 13/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Armour, not Hoover.

I've cleaned this up as best I could, removed all the irrelevant stuff about the history of the tape recorder, street addresses on Broadway, etc. etc., and removed the cleanup tag.

What I've not been able to do is add any about the true significance of the piece, it's place in the history of Pop art, the meaning of its use of modern artifacts, particularly American ones, its relation to Austerity Britain, and so on. I'm not qualified to do so, and more importantly I don't have a reference for it. 216.231.46.147 (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to run with your cut down edit version 'special editor', so be it. You are at least candid about your "not qualified" in the subject matter. Needless to say, you have completely erradicated the iconic inter-relations, depth of contextural meaning, and the other McHale design links to the work as explained in the previous version of the text. Ottex 12/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 01:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be thrilled to have you put the information back in if you could do so in a manner that made use of understandable English, and referenced your sources. The stuff I cut out was not necessarily wrong, it was just irrelevant, or more likely, incomprehensible. 76.22.20.146 (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Incomprehensible to a 'not qualified' editor. The references to McHale's work will be put back in due course. You were given the precise reference to the tape recorder, which you omited in your edit. It cannot be helped if you do not understand the technics of early 1950's tape recorder technology which brought on a consumer products revolution and revolutionised the broadcasting industry. You were given the precise reference to the TV ,which you omited. You were given the precise iconic reference to the McHale source of the high altitude view of the Earth as seen from a rocket, which you omited. The high altitude photo is a photomontage and it just so happens to be the very first foundation piece of collage material to be laid down in the highly sequenced collage paste up. This image also links to the Dreyfuss designed 'Connie' vacuum cleaner via the fact that McHale while at Yale witnessed the devastation of Hurricane Connie which was also illustrated in the same magazine source as the high altitude view of the Earth which just so happens to also depict a hurricane in the collage image. You were given a reference to Dreyfuss influence on the ergonomic design of the style of telephone depicted in the TV. The TV was placed in the collage precisely where the orignal upright enclosed fireplace with a 'viewing window' was situated in McHale's original living room, and as specified in his collage design. You were given a reference to the Tootsie pop which was not on Hamilton's production 'list of interest' and was provide by McHale. You were given the connection to McHale having originaly coined the term Pop art in 1954 and the Tootsie POP was deliberately intended to signify that fact in McHale's collage design. The Tootsie Pop is one of the final iconic images to have been inserted into the top most layer of the collage sequence. You were given the reference to the connection between the Tootsie pop and Al Jolson singing Tootsie. You were given the source reference to the Armstrong Royelle Floor ad which was not on Hamilton's 'list of interest' and was supplied by McHale, and it corresponds closely in the International style sofa, chairs and table arrangement of the sitting room of the McHale & Frank Cordell atelier living room at 52 Cleveland Square circa 1955-56. Next time you perform an edit please be a trifle more carefule, particularly since you admit you are not qualified in the subject matter. Ottex/14.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottex (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What you are continuing to fail to grasp is what Wikipedia is for. The article is encyclopedic; it is intended for someone who knows nothing about the subject but wishes to learn. Your only impetus appears to be proving how much more you know about the subject than any other human living or dead.
I removed the stuff about the tape recorder because it is NOT RELEVANT. I know this because I do, in fact, know quite a bit about the history of the tape recorder, and thus I know that it belongs in the tape recorder article, not here.
So now you are claiming tape recorder knowledge. So why did you drop the specific reference to where the Reporter tape recorder was sold and its connection to the This Is Tomorrow team members? Are you the arbiter of relevance? When are you going to contribute some factual information to the site Ottex (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08
The information about where the tape recorder was sold is trivia. It doesn't belong here any more than would the name of the store where Hamilton purchased the shoes he was wearing when he assembled the collage. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
However, Hamilton 'cobbled' the design imagery from McHale. The vendor and origins of the Reporter tape recorder and its technical context are very important to the McHale origins of the collage.Ottex (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08
Your continued references to "not on Hamilton's list" is anti-knowledge. You have not described this list, what it is, where it can be found, or what relevance to the article it might possibly have. If it is what I think it is, your discussion of what is and is not on it belongs in the "controversy" section of the article, wherein a comprehensible discussion of what the various competing claims are, and what documents support those claims. For all I or anyone else on Wikipedia knows, you could very well be a mental patient who had never seen this collage before. If you're not, you have to CONVINCE US with references to outside sources. Expertise in a subject is NOT INTERESTING; the ability to identify and point to verifiable sources is. Think back to your own education; when you were born you had never heard of Hamilton or McHale. How did you find out about them? Where did you learn of the evidence for McHale's son's claim? SHOW US. Phony erudition about the meaning of the iconography contributes nothing; you might as well include a paragraph about the history of Dearborn, Michigan -- that's where Ford is from. But don't let me give you ideas.
The connection between the Ford logo and Ford's Fairlane home in the USA and Irelend was already covered in the Warholstars citations by McHale several years ago, and therefore there is no need for additional editorial assistance from you who claims no expertise in the subject matter. Ottex (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08
Hamilton's production list is constantly refered to in any academic discussion of the work. It is a series of one line items that he alleges to have used to direct Magda and Terry during the culling and cut out process of the collage. It is uncertain if the original list still exists as a certified authenticated document, all that is on record is the list in Hamilton's later published account. What the wiki citations and commentary was demonstrating was that the Tootsie POP+ the Armstrong Floor ad with International style sofa and chairs are not on Hamilton's list. So it was not a Hamilton derived image it was provided by McHale. Furthermore, Hamilton's alleged production list is devoid of any consideration of perspective, scale, left and right or up and down symmetry orientaion which is vital when directing a collage production team culling disparate images for a tight dimension collage. Furthemore Magda is on record how the iconic material was provided to Hamilton and the team from McHale's files which Hamilton has neglected to menion for alomost 50 years. (A documented reference to an example of McHale's images was dropped in your edit.) So this puts toll to Hamilton's explanation of how the collage was actually originally designed.Ottex (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08
Please note that the production 'list of interest' Hamilton alleges (vide: Ham's 'Collected Words') to have used in directing his wife Terry and Magda Cordell in the culling and cut out of images for the collage is not the same as the earlier production list cited by John Paul Stonnard and others which is mentioned by Terry Hamilton in her correspondence to McHale at Yale. The earlier Hamilton production list refered to by Terry Hamilton in her letter to McHale had nothing to do with the selection of internal imagery of the "Just what...?" collage. Whereas, in fact Terry's earlier cited list relates to the on-going production of the Senses panel, the Spectrum diagram and other art work under production that McHale had sent design material to Hamilton to produce for the TIT.Ottex (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08
If it is "constantly referred to" then it should be a simple matter for you to CITE IT. You have been given ample information on how to cite a reference, whether it be a book, journal article, website, or what have you. All you ever offer is BALD ASSERTION, which is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the Jolson connection important? Prove it. Is his picture in the collage? Identify it. How do you know it's Jolson? "I know it" is not an answer. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. I submit that your total failure to grasp even the basics of Wikipedia posting style, both in the articles and on this talk page, are further evidence that your edits are outside of the orbit of Wikipedia content.
Yes the connection between Al Jolson singing Tootsie and the Tootsie pop image is importatnt along with the other visual and design inter-relations since Hamilton has never pointed this out in 50 years and has claimed all along that the collage is quote "tabular" ie not conceptually or iconically interrelated. You were provided with the referenced link between Al Jolson and the Jazz Singer image in McHale's design. Are you now claiming there is no link between them?Ottex (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08
Again: NOT GOOD ENOUGH. You seriously need to read up on what "reference" means. Bald assertions don't cut it. You haven't provided ANY usable references here. Your own opinions are not interesting or valuable. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not McHale has a legitimate claim to authorship of the work is an interesting subject. Your edits are doing a grave disservice to that idea. My edits may well be glossing over a number of key points of the piece; but I have reconstructed the article into English, and organized the primary pictorial elements of the collage in an understandable way. Have I left out stuff about the connections between some of the items? Yes. It's not proven. It's not referenced. HOW DO YOU KNOW? That's the key -- how do you know? Tell us that, and your edits stay. 76.22.20.146 (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It's you that is doing the disservice and should change your Tyres.Ottex/08

PS: I'm still looking for evidence that "Raymond Loewry" ever existed. Note that I am not saying he didn't; I'm saying that WE NEED EVIDENCE. 76.22.20.146 (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Googling "Raymond Loewry" produces almost exclusively references that are obviously typos for Loewy -- Studebaker, Hillman Minx, trains, Armour ham, etc. etc. The only ones that look as if they might be really Loewry are for Rosenthal china -- hardly landmark modern design, and certainly nothing to do with Streamline, which was Loewy's contribution, not "Loewry". Is there a Raymond Loewry? Did he ever design anything for Armour ham? I don't think so. If I'm wrong, show me. Bald assertions aren't going to cut it. 76.22.20.146 (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Go beyond a reliance on Google to other texts, or maybe change your tyres. Both designers are credited with designing the rounded Armour ham products. By all means go with Loewy which was suggested earlier in the discussion as an alternate. Even though the photos in Loewy's Industrial Design do not actually give a picture of the rounded triangular form of Armour star ham. If you go with the way you have it then it leads to the iconic design links between Loewy and Dreyfuss since they both collaborated on many design projects together including the World of Tomorrow which preceeded This Is Tomorrow. Again a fact Hamilton has never pointed out in 50 years. Ottex/08
I would be THRILLED to "go beyond a reliance on Google to other texts", IF I COULD FIND ONE. I can find NO REFERENCE to any person named "Raymond Loewry". You claim to know some; let's have them then. What are you waiting for? What are you hiding there? Your confusion about this nonexistent designer, a mere typographical error for perhaps the most famous designer of all time, casts a very poor light on your credibility. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"Raymond Loewry" does not exist. Go on, prove me wrong. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
These points are entirely correct. WP requires validation of material through reliable sources used from a neutral point of view giving proper balance without personal knowledge or new conclusions. Material that doesn't follow this may be removed. Ty 08:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize; I've been editing without logging in. Both 76.22.20.146 and 216.231.46.147 above are me. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not worry in the heat of a discussion it is forgivable to drop one's draws to a close.Ottex (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Ottex/08

There is no heat, and no discussion. You have provided only one reference, the warholstars link, for your assertions. The warholstars link has been extensively rebutted by Hamilton, with illustrations. John McHale Jr.'s views are undermined by several howling errors, such as his belief that "Guinness is known as Murphy in Ireland" (Guinness and Murphy are competing brands of stout ale). The warholstars interview is riddled with absurd layers of allusion that are not only incredible (and trivial) but sound suspiciously like Ottex in their stream-of-consciousness grammatical style.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's as never mind, though. What matters here is not "the truth" but what is verifiable in respected outside sources. The McHale assertions do not come close to meeting that test. It IS appropriate, however, to describe the controversy raised there in the article, with warholstar links (and others, if they exist).\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottex's repeated attacks on my lack of knowledge of the subject are not on point. Expertise is not particularly important. REFERENCE TO VERIFIABLE SOURCES IS. I have provided that. Even if all the books are wrong and Hamilton stole the work, the piece must remain attributed to Hamilton and Hamilton alone until such time as reputable scholars print their revised conclusions. On the face of it, judging from the warholstars material, McHale's son's claims are not strong. That's my opinion; MY OPINION DOES NOT MATTER, but the opinion of published experts in the field does. Ottex is not one of those either.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The article still needs a great deal of help. It still needs references for the sources of the collage material, the name of the bodybuilder and so forth. All of that material as it stands is unencyclopedic; I'm leaving it in, in hopes that references can be found. I'm still looking. I think it's interesting that the article has gotten bogged down in trivia like this, while the more important aspects of the piece are ignored. The name of the bodybuilder doesn't tell you ANYTHING about "Pop art"; his significance is as an icon of modernity and popular culture.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Ottex is taking this approach to restoring what he obviously feels is the unfairly maligned reputation of John McHale. By doing so he is damaging McHale's reputation further. It would be of great benefit to the understanding of this important art, and important artist, if he could take this dispute of his elsewhere, and attach some verifiable scholarship to it. As it stands, it merely surrounds John McHale with the odor of scuttlebutt and scurrilous rumors.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is all correct. We need verifiable reliable sources for all content. However, please refrain from caps, as it's considered shouting. See WP:TPG#Good_practice. It's not necessary to sign every paragraph - once at the end of a post is fine. If there is reliably sourced info on the items in the collage, that would be a worthwhile inclusion. Ty 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for shouting. Some points don't seem to be getting through. Also, I normally would not sign every paragraph except for Ottex's unfortunate habit of interleaving his later remarks in the middle of others', which makes it very difficult to see at a glance who is saying what. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. I think it would be useful to break any problems up into specific points and give each a heading so that each can be discussed clearly. Ty 00:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of McHale authorship Claims

Here's a new section for discussion of the McHale authorship claim made at Warholstars, and Hamilton's response. I think the claim is interesting, but McHale Jr. has some serious credibility problems and an obsession with detailing every conceivable event in his father's life that could possibly be brought to bear on the work's meaning, which obscures its actual meaning. I think Hamilton's recollection of events is more credible. I might be wrong. But unless and until some reputable source adopts the claim, this smacks of original research to include it here. I think the controversy legitimately belongs here, with both sides presented, but the attribution of the work cannot be changed at this time. No other encyclopedia in the world would change it merely on the say-so of the son of the claimant, that's for sure.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV we do not assess which claims are right or wrong, but only which ones are verifiable as being from reliable sources. We then express those in due proportion per WP:UNDUE. So the only issue is whether McHale's statements meet the criterion for use, and, if so, whether they are a majority or minority view in order to assess how much relative weight to apportion them. If it is a "tiny-minority" viewpoint, it may not merit inclusion at all. Ty 00:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New Section For Discussion of Raymond Loewy vs. Raymond Loewry

I maintain that no such designer as Raymond Loewry ever existed. I would love to be proven wrong. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Just_what_is_it_that_makes_today%27s_homes_so_different,_so_appealing%3F/Archive_1&oldid=1086318729"