Talk:Collage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 

The History[edit]

I think it is important to note that Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso were working side by side during the first decade of the 20th century. Picasso did not necessarily invent collage or at least not alone. There is much evidence that Braque actually created the first collage. At any rate a fair wikipedia entry must mention that both Braque and Picasso were working in collage simultaneously at the very beginning. Some resources to help: <http://abstractart.20m.com/George_Braque.html> <http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/collage.html>

Collage techniques actually existed before the twentieth century. Braque clearly invented the papier colle technique and produced the first works combining cut papers with painting. However, I am not aware of any twentieth century artist who produced a serious successful collage using only cut papers, or a photomontage, before the German female artist Hannah Hoch, whose "Cut with the Kitchen Knife" Dada work is shown next to the introduction of the history. It is not clear why Hoch, visually represented here by her key pioneering work, is not mentioned in the text. Nor is it clear why the section on photomontage claims that it was pioneered decades later by others. Consider the following:

"Collage has a long history—the earliest surviving examples may be 12th century Japanese calligraphic scrolls. With the invention of photography in the mid-19th century, collaging photographic fantasies became a hugely-popular pastime in Victorian and Edwardian parlors. In 1912 Picasso and Braque introduced the fine-art world to “collage” (reputedly they coined the phrase), specifically the addition of actual materials (like chair caning) to their painted canvases. But it was the Berlin Dadaists who established fotomontage (literally “photo engineering”) as a fully-respected modern art form. . . The Berlin Dadaists begrudgingly admitted [Hannah Höch] as the only woman into their ranks, but they never accepted her as an equal. Hausmann dismissed her work. Hans Richter referred to her pejoratively in his memoirs as the “quiet girl” with a “tiny voice.” Grosz and Heartfield were set against her participation in the Dada Fair of 1920. Ironically, it was Höch who experimented early on with photomontage, the medium which the group would later adopt as its own. Her first mature work of photomontage can be reliably dated to a 1918 summer vacation with Hausmann on the Baltic coast. (Although Hausmann also takes credit for having invented the medium on the same trip.)" venetianred.net/2010/01/16/hannah-hoch-the-good-girl-with-big-scissors-part-i/ Womanedit (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)womanedit

Addition[edit]

Can we add a section on webpages as a Collage? or Collages in technology? According to US law, a webpage should be defined as a Collage, a new piece of art made of technology, scripts, text, images and information from many sources which may or may not be open source. Most websites make use of some open source technology in some fashion, either in the database, webserver, text or other information. Perhaps a legal expert can weigh in on this but I'm pretty sure I am right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.185.32 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Collage and surrealism[edit]

this section of the page reveals a specific problem. if mention were made of max ernst, and of works such as ernst's eerie La Femme cent têtes (1929), then the importance of surrealist use of collage would have an anchor. in the surrealist subculture, collage mimicked sleep dreams, which (according to the then current freudian account) take scraps of daily experience and combine them in unsettling or bizarre narratives. the surrealists emphasized this connection by using collage with automatic or aleatory ("subconscious," "involuntary") processes of selection and combination, and preference for print media images ("memories") rather than the use of materials as texture or color more common in cubist works.

the problem is that this article misses the forest for the trees, specifically by attempting to be academically inclusive in the "techniques" of collage (gold leaf applique, victorian photo albums as "collage" precursors???), but generally by wandering from the visual art technique "collage" to the metaphorical language that applies the word "collage" to texts, film, etc. is this an encyclopedia entry or a dictionary entry? the crux is that collage is entirely and distinctly a modernist art technique, allied with the earliest developments in film editing (griffiths, eisenstein), and unless its development and use is explained in that context one seems forced to account any sticking of something on something else as a form of collage, which strikes me as brutally simpleminded.

and the techniques mentioned are not as inclusive as the stray and distant examples propose; for example the article does not mention the significant victorian fad for historical or mythical scenes or "fairy records" produced by piecing together staged photographic components as a larger work that was rephotographed to appear as an actual scene. this was "photoshopping" bien avant la chose and was the parodic element in ernst's work.

it seems to me that this trees for forest tendency in this article is what the grubbery about "landscapade" and "prehensilouette" is basically trying to resolve. keep your eye on the ball. --macevoy.

I share your frustration at the article's failure adequately to address, in its introduction, the conceptual inspiration that underlies collage. It seems to me that, despite the fact that the word collage literally refers to sticking or gluing things, the important thing about it is the idea of creating collisions between fragmentary or displaced "signifiers" (in the semiotic sense), especially photographic images or printed text, still recognizable as being taken from some other context, and then placed in new juxtapositions which may or may not have some coherence as a new figural image. If this quality of a confrontation between disrupted, displaced signifiers is not present, then the piece is not really a collage — except perhaps in the literal and trivial sense that there has been a "sticking of something on something else", as you say. I did some work in the 'wood collage' section that attempts to address this problem, but the main intro still needs work. MdArtLover (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It could be that previous editors have shied away from more elaborate art critique, rather than run the risk of deletion due to original research concerns. It's certainly worth bearing in mind that, while a you've identified a clear omission here, it does need to be remedied with reference to reliable third-party sources. While that's particularly nice work on the wood section, I'd consider backing it up with something published elsewhere. --mikaultalk 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed[edit]

I removed the following lines:

Surrealism has made extensive use of the collage, and certain kinds of, and methods for making, collages, have been significant in surrealism. Among these have been torn paper collage, inimage, and the methods invented by Penelope Rosemont, the prehensilhouette and the landscapade.

Many art forms use collage. To only mention surrealism is silly. Also, there is no mention anywhere in literature or websites that I could find of inimage, prehensilouette or landscapade, except those attributed to Daniel Boyer himself. If more reliable sources can be provided, then I could change my mind on this note. SpeakerFTD 17:17, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, surrealism is not an "art form". Secondly, I think that collages significant in other fields than surrealism should most definitely be mentioned in this article (for instance, decoupage); we should have a substantial article here. For an external source on some of this see Surrealist Games/Includes Books and Games by Alastair Brotchie (Compiler), Mel Gooding (Editor) or Penelope Rosemont's Surrealist Experiences. I am much surprised that you are unable to find information on the World Wide Web "except [that] attributed to Daniel Boyer himself" about inimage (you can see this at [1]), the prehensilhouette [2], and the landscapade [3]. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:52, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Surrealist collage techniques[edit]

I see what Wik has done in his edit. What is the proper way to deal with types of surrealist and non-surrealist collage in this article? Is there going to be no mention of any surrealist collage technique, or should there be no such mention? How is this best to be dealt with? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:27, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You can mention common techniques of surrealist collage, if there are any, but prehensilhouette or landscapade seem to be just Penelope Rosemont's personal techniques (or her personal fancy terms for not particularly profound ideas) which have not spread much further. Your own Google links above prove it. --Wik 20:50, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
I like Wik's edit. I also have no problem with the addition of statements about other collage techniques, both surrealist and non-surrealist, as long as evidence of the factuality of the statements can be sourced from multiple, independent sources. None of the sources evidenced above qualify as independent.SpeakerFTD 21:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? In what sense are they not "independent?" --Daniel C. Boyer 22:27, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I find it tedious that we need to get to this level of granularity in the debate, but I suppose that is a necessity when the reliability of sources is being considered.
You list three techniques.
I will concede that the first technique, "inimage", seems to have two sources [4][5] independent of the statement's author. These potentially could be viewed as evidence of independence. Although I am personally still dubious of the reliability of those two sources, without evidence to contradict their independence, the sources must be assumed to be independent and the statement should stand.
But the other two techniques seem to have no independent sources.
Prehensilhouette - Only two sources, one of which is wikipedia. The other source [6] sells a book from Mr. Boyer. Not exactly independent.
This is really a moot point as one can get Penelope Rosemont's book from many other sources than this. To impose this level of standard for "independence" would cause Wikipedia to devolve into total unworkability; are we to say that anyone who had something for sale of Amazon.com would have no right to cite anything else sold thereby? We are reaching an apotheosis of ridiculousness. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:38, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I am discussing sources, as in written sources, not retail outlets. The only other written source about prehensilhouette other than Ms. Rosemont's own book
Explain to me why her book is not a source. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:39, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
is a discussion on surrealism-usa.org, yet this entity has a financial interest in both Ms. Rosemont and Mr. Boyer. If an independent source can be found (again I mean written sources here, not retail sources), then I would be willing to accept that this is a legitimate technique.
SpeakerFTD 15:21, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Landscapade - Again the only two sources are the above site and a second site selling another book from the same publishing company. Neither source is independent.
If you can find me one source that independently describes prehensilhouette and landscapade, I'll relent. Independent means that the source is in no way related to or controlled by the author and the author does not have a fiduciary or similarly beneficial relationship with the source.
SpeakerFTD 23:59, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Cite: Review of Surrealist Experiences. Relent. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Decoupage[edit]

I know my mention of decoupage is not up to snuff; can anyone help me flesh this out? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:29, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lacerated posters[edit]

I am going to be placing Lacerated posters on the Requested articles page. How should this topic be fit into collage, since it really is a form of "decollage"? --Daniel C. Boyer 00:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC) Daniel, Speaker FTD has a very valid point. Penelope Rosemont is your friend and it appears that you have some kind of financial stake in your friend Ron's book. How much does, "SURREALIST SUBVERSIONS" sell for? You know, Dan, the book written by the expert on pirate radio, or is it the expert on Surrealism?

Stub[edit]

Why is this once long article now a stub? Hyacinth 11:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad its no longer a stub. Hyacinth 09:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What collage is about[edit]

You're forgetting what collage is about. Surreal or not. Collage nevers falls under the same theme; Give two artists the same images, and they'll make two diffrent and stlyized collages. It kills me, that you can write about art and all, but you have trouble discussing it. Collage can be about really anything the artist wants it to be about. But, I'm just an artist who likes J.D. Salinger and all.

Attribution problem[edit]

The article states, "Collage was often called the art form of the 20th century...". Such a statement, it seems to me, needs attribution. Furthermore, since the writer says it was "often" thus called, there should be several examples given.

I completely agree. Furthermore, the placement of the statement is kind of random; it's like a little lost orphan sentence. I think other contributors here have just tried to be nice and leave the sentence as is, while trying to build a decent article around it. No one wants to be the meany who deletes it. But we have given the writer plenty of time to come forward and attribute this statement, and to write it properly into context. How polite do we have to be when somebody cares so little about their own work? MdArtLover 13:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
(I just realized that the above statement was a reply to myself! No wonder I agreed so heartily! ;) MdArtLover 14:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Music Videos[edit]

A music video can also be a collage and the most recent and most known of this kind of videos is this: Yes We Can as an example. --134.155.99.42 (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ISBN for book "Urban Walls"[edit]

I easily verified the ISBN for the book "Urban Walls", using Worldcat.

And in fact, this was so very easy to do that I wonder why the person who presumed to delete this reference didn't instead make a minimal effort to verify it, or else simply register a request for verification on the talk page and wait to see if someone else could verify it, since the deleter couldn't be bothered to do so (presumably because there's so much more hasty deleting to do — who has the time to give it any thought?).

Here's the information from the Worldcat listing:

Urban walls : a generation of collage in Europe & America : Burhan Dogançay with François Dufrêne, Raymond Hains, Robert Rauschenberg, Mimmo Rotella, Jacques Villeglé, Wolf Vostell

ISBN 9781555952884

ISBN 1555952887

OCLC 191318119

New York : Hudson Hills Press ; [Lanham, MD] : Distributed in the United States by National Book Network, ©2008

Here is the link: [7] MdArtLover (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Just looking in here, I think the point is this - a book has to be verifiable within the article itself. People may not have the time to go to Worldcat to look it up. It seems proper practice to list the text with the ISBN as a link. JaneVannin (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC
Thanks for adding the link. That's fine now. Setwisohi (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
To JaneVannin: I provided a direct external link to the Worldcat record; that goes one better than a mere ISBN link. I also give the OCLC number. Besides, are you aware that there are many books in libraries and in Worldcat which do not have ISBNs - for example, many art exhibition catalogues? But no matter; Worldcat lists them, gives them OCLC numbers, and tells you which libraries hold them. Please let's not make a fetish of ISBNs and Wiki ISBN links. The point is to give the reader the information as well as verification of and access to a book source — not to show off Wikipedia's convenience features. MdArtLover (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary Collage artists[edit]

I think that there should be a well-known contemporary collage artist (e.g. works in the 1980's or later) added to the images section. Any ideas? I like Matt Bryant (shown at the Tate).

Boyprose (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Carle! Eric Carle of the picture book art design authorship. Although he originally started publishing picture books in the last few years 60s, he is still working in a distinctive collage style, probably one of the best known artists. That is - if any fine art sticklers will have him in the article! I am trying to get [The Very Hungry Caterpillar]] article up to scratch, with expert help from others. So any more would be appreciated. But that is by the way. Kathybramley (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Felipe Jesus Consalvos[edit]

Felipe Jesus Consalvos is a notable collage artist that should be included on this article. His unique and amazing work, created from the 1920s through the 1950s, was only recently discovered and introduced to the world. The work incorporates vernacular cigar-band collage traditions and anticipates later developments in pop and other contemporary collage that are now considered part of the canon. Roberta Smith described Consalvos as a "self-starting modernist" whose work "belongs to the collage continuum from Hannah Hoch to Barbara Kruger." (See Felipe Jesus Consalvos article for cite.) Just because his his work is not widely known (yet) does not mean that he is not notable. Please read more about his work before reflexively removing him from the list. Within the last year, Consalvos' work appeared in an exhibition at Adam Baumgold Gallery, and was also featured alongside work by Joseph Cornell, Lenore Tawney, Jess, and Ray Johnson in the exhibition "Messages and Magic: 100 Years of Collage and Assemblage in American Art" at the John Michael Kohler Arts Center. His work is found in public collections, including the Kohler Arts Center and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Please reconsider the decision to remove him from the list. Klyber (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Impressive! Good find...Modernist (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditional technique[edit]

It isn't newsworthy to add that artists are still making collages with paper and paste...Modernist (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So that would dis-include Carle, then? Kathybramley (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)