Talk:Metropolitan Museum of Art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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 project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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 project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Museums (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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 project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Museum's architectural style[edit]

It is quite alarming to see in the History section that the building is listed as Gothic in style in the caption on the right side of the page - this may refer to the original Met Museum by Calvert Vaux, which was actually renaissance revival, but the facade you see today is clearly not gothic (it's beaux-arts). This is made even more confusing when you see the elevation above that caption, which is of RM Hunt's facade. Maybe we could expand on the architectural history of the museum, since it has seen so many additions over time. If anyone has a copy of NY: 2000, there is a section on the Met where they talk about the Sackler Wing, etc. And McKim Mead and White did the projecting wings along Fifth Avenue, but the article doesn't mention those. They have a Tuscan (Roman) order, while Hunt's facade has Greek columns instead, which would have been quite apparent in the early 20th century. 216.165.55.84 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on above, it looks like the summary box on the right has been changed to show a Beaux-Arts style -- which reflects the drawing and reflects what is currently visible from the front. However, this conflicts with the date (1874) and the architects (Calvert Vaux; Jacob Wrey Mould), both of which refer to the original Gothic building. These four elements need to describe the same thing -- or at least tell what they are describing. Here's one thought:

Built: "1874, plus later additions" or "1874 (original building)".

Architects: "Calvert Vaux; Jacob Wrey Mould (for original building)" -- or omit Architects here altogether and discuss in the narrative under Archtecture.

Architectural Style -- omit here, because it's way too complicated, and discuss the various styles in the narrative under Architecture.

I agree with above poster that the Architecture section of the Article is sketchy and needs some more information. It deserves to be mentioned somehwere that, while the original Gothic building is iondeed completely enclosed, it is quite visible from at least three locations: the European Sculpture Courtyard, the Lehman Wing, and a cut-out display from the main 2nd floor corridor.

Sure. Why not find a reliable source and add it? DonIago (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding images for departments?[edit]

I'm considering using images from Wikimedia Commons as "header" images for each department -- hopefully, it'll add a bit of flavor to the current "block after block" of text. Does anyone have a particular favorite piece from the Met's collections that they'd like me to consider adding? Otherwise, I'll just put up my own favorites. ;) Docether 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your great recent expansion of the text; of course I have my own favorites, but with your obvious love and appreciation of the institution, I'm sure I trust your taste.--Pharos 15:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, though Wikimedia Commons has a fair number of images of works from the Met, they're heavily concentrated in European and American painting, and pretty sparse for the other departments. I'll put this off until I can take an afternoon at the Met and upload photos for all the departments. Docether 19:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Breaking out subarticles[edit]

Hello all. This page has hit the magic 30k warning limit, so it may be time to break out some of the text into sub-articles. I'm not experienced in this, so if anyone has any suggestions, I'd be glad to hear 'em. -- Docether 14:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Leonardo Da Vinci in the Robert Lehman Collection[edit]

Though Leonardo da Vinci is represented in the Robert Lehman Collection, he's really not "featured," considering that the collection only contains a single minor work by him (a sketch of a bear). Though I like the sketch, I've removed the mention in the spirit of keeping long lists of artists from clogging each department's writeup. Best, Docether 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Arm & Armor[edit]

"The Met's Department of Arms and Armor, the only one of its kind in the United States..."? What about the collection at the Philadelphia Museum of Art [1]?

The museum's website[2] says "The Metropolitan Museum of Art received its first examples of arms and armor in 1881 ... (t)he Museum's collection quickly achieved international recognition. This led to the establishment of a separate Department of Arms and Armor in 1912, which remains the only one of its kind in the United States." I suspect the claim of uniqueness is meant to apply to the existence of a separate curatorial department dedicated to arms and armor, rather than the existence of the collection itself. Still, this seems to be a somewhat dubious claim, as there are several collections of arms and armor in the Unites States which have dedicated curatorial staffs and extensive research facilities rivalling that of the Met (the Higgins Armory, preeminent among these, almost certainly exceeds the Met's Arms and Armor department). I'll amend this line -- thanks for keeping an eye out. -- Docether 19:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

There is no categories session here.--Gkklein 15:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Categories session"? Did I miss something?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

UNREFERENCE ARTICLE[edit]

Hi, the departments section lays many claims and though is prosed well, it is almost entirely unsourced. Surely those who have written and edited it used the information from websites, books etc - this needs to be referenced in the article. --ImperialCollegeGrad 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad that you enjoy the departments section. I'd like to reference it well, but unfortunately putting inline references to each piece of information will be unwieldy and ugly. I've tried to demonstrate this -- if you look at my demonstration edit, you'll see that even a minimal amount of footnoting is pretty rough inline. How about I add the source books to the References section, without (multiple) individual inline refs for each? Then you can point out the items that "(are) challenged or likely to be challenged," and per WP:V, I can provide inline refs for each contest(ed/able) item. Best, -- Docether 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've found that although the first reference is ungainly, if you name and reuse them, the second ref ie: <ref name="abcd"/> isn't so bad dm 17:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly Great![edit]

True, the Met is huge, but honestly, is it really that great? Compared to other museums the Met is only good.

Major Museums;

  • 13 million - British Museum, London {Note 7m artifacts + 6m prehistory)
  • 4 million - V&A
  • 3 million - Hermitage Museum
  • 2 million - Vatican Museum
  • 2 million - The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
  • 500,000 - Musee du Louvre
  • 500,000 - Royal Collection

In Western European Paintings, the Musée du Louvre, Museo del Prado, Royal Collection, Hermitage Museum, National Gallery London, Uffizi, Musée d'Orsay are miles ahead.

With archaeology, the British Museum, Pergamon Museum, Musée du Louvre and the Hermitage, are the only global museums. The Egyptian, Ancient Near East, Greece & Roman Collections at the Met are good but alone the British Museum and Louvre are encyclopedic in quality, scope, size and range, the Met is a mere speck.

In Ethnography, Musée du quai Branly, Pitt Rivers Museum, British Museum are head and shoulders above.

Only with the Asian collection can I say the Met is great, yet its contemporaries include the V&A, British Museum and Musee Guimet.

Prints and Drawings, bar a few great artist names, European Museums are in a league of their own.

Finally, Decorative Arts & Sculpture, the V&A holds the greatest collection of post-classical sculpture in the world, with the Musée du Louvre and Musée d'Orsay its only rivals. The collection of 18th Century French decorative arts & furniture at the Met is excellent but does not comes close to those at the Musée du Louvre, Wallace Collection, Waddesdon Manor and the Musée des Arts Décoratifs.

On that note I would like to say, the Met is good, but not great.

Thanks ImperialCollegeGrad 17:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting you go section by section and identify museums which might be better or worse. You neglected the entire American Art wing and the Modern Art wing which none of the museums you listed cover in any significant way, if they do at all. The Musée du Louvre and the British museum come up quite often in your list which I guess makes sense since they are often compared to each other. However, none of the rest attempt to be as encyclopedic as the Met. So while no one says the Met is the absolute best in the world, I dont think it's too far off to say it's one of the top three or perhaps four. They are each attempting to do slightly different things and different people will find one more appealing than the next
In any case this is all opinion, so I'll say the Met is as great as the Louvre and the British Museum, if not better.dm 17:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, don't get me wrong the Met is encyclopedic and has areas that European Museum lag behind on. Since I've been to all of the above list, and it is generally agreed, that the the Met has a good collection but hardly mind blowing. There is so much in the vaults of the British Museum, V&A, Hermitage, Louvre, Vatican Museum and other in Europe that the Met will never be able to compete on their level. ImperialCollegeGrad 12:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose we should only consider what is publicly viewable. I have not been to the Hermitage, nor the Royal Collection, so can't offer commentary on that. I suspect in the end, we'll have to agree to disagree. In any case, you may find this paper on how to measure museums interesting. dm 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, excellent paper...I quote..."relative ranking seems intuitively in line with the girth of each museum’s reputation". Going by the article by curatorial prowess, size of the facility, quality of the objects on display and volume of visitors, the Met is a great museum. Where perhaps many European Museums have larger and finer collection, they don't necessarily excel in the presentation of them. ImperialCollegeGrad 19:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say that I think the dropdown rankings on this page are entirely useless, and reflect a rather uninformed view of how the quality of museums is generally understood. Anyone who has studied the museum collections used in these lists knows that the huge numbers cited for many of them--often to the purpose of an agenda, I suspect, of attempting to prove the superiority of European, and especially British, institutions--reflect large numbers of secondary and tertiary objects in so-called "study collections" rather than truly noteworthy objects of larger interest. In other words, most of the 10's of thousands of objects located at these museums are secondary or even tertiary pieces with little artistic or even historical value, including pottery sherds and fragments. It is clearly unfair to rank museums in this way precisely because museums do not claim to offer quantitative experiences but rather qualitative kinds. Aesthetic experience iis their paramount value. A small museum, therefore, can often rank much higher in the estimation of art historians and art lovers than a very large one. One example is the Frick Collection in New York, which though containing about only 100 old masters, might be considered a very vital venue for all who love such paintings.

This is obviously not to say that the Metropolitan Museum is the greatest museum in the world. Indeed, some of its collections definitely do not match those of older European rivals. But to see magnitudes of difference between the Metropolitan and certain European rivals on the basis of these numbers is extremely misleading.

Indeed, I would argue that the rankings on this page ought to be removed as naive and unworthy of this site.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.113.139 (talk) 14:09, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 

p.s. Note that the creator(s) of the rankings do not include numerous important non-European artistic institutions, especially in North America, that are comparable in scope and quality to collections mentioned. This is a fatal flaw in several cases.

p.s.s. The omission of lists relating to areas of tremendous strength, as discussed above, is a real weakness of these rankings too. Where is American art, Modern art, Medieval art, and other areas in which the Metropolitan's collections would presumably rank quite highly, if not claim dominance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.113.139 (talk) 14:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Given the preceding discussion and criticism, I'm going to act boldly and remove these inline template items.
As the previous discussion has brought to light, a certain amount of detailed discussion about museum collections (how stated numbers are constructed, what percentages of items are on display, the potsherd-vs-chariot problem, a number of additional museum collections, etc) must be included with these numbers to make them meaningful to the reader ... we're starting to see this with the lengthy caveats attached to each template's data. These templates are too short to include all the information needed, and (will be) too long once all that information is included. This information should properly be broken out into a new article(s) or used to elaborate on an existing article(s), if one can be located. Further discussion on the data's completeness, neutrality, verifiability, and suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia can be conducted on the appropriate talk page. These pages, new or existing, should probably be also marked with the {{expert-subject|Culture}} tag, so we can get expert help from people involved in the study and history of museum collections and collecting.
From a copyediting perspective, it must seem odd to the casual reader that only some of the Met's collections have associated data dropdowns, leading perhaps to the mistaken impression -- as a previous editor noted -- that the untemplated departments aren't significant collections. Additionally, wikilinking of in-article terms or use of the "See Also" section at the end of the article is a vastly more common way to call out items of interest from an article; these templates are foreign to the casual reader (and, no doubt, to many experienced editors) and break up the article in a nonstandard way.
A previous editor on this page has raised some questions about the inclusion of these templates as a possible WP:POINT or WP:NPOV issue, considering the edit history and expressed opinions of the editors involved in their creation. I'm not terribly concerned about that for the moment; the issues I've identified above, in my opinion, justify the removal of these inline templates; whether they've been created or included to make a point is not necessary to consider. Best, -- Docether 15:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to refute some of the comments made above as erroneous. It is not at all clear that the qualitative distinctions of the original author are true. To take a single example, the comparisons drawn between the Royal Collection, which has a significant but hardly first-tier collection of old masters, and the Metropolitan is absurd. Moreover, places like the Pitt Rivers hardly contain numerous works of outstanding aesthetic interest, making direct comparisons of the kind mentioned above ridiculous. The Met truly holds its own against the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.113.139 (talk) 15:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I unintentionally misrepresented any editor's position ... I wholeheartedly agree that the templates' text should be evaluated and reviewed to the highest standards of neutrality, verifiability, and encyclopedic content, just like any other article. At the moment, I'm strictly concerned with how this data is being presented -- ie, in an incomplete or fragmented fashion. The templates aren't tied together in any logical way, as far as I can tell ... after all, that's why we're having this discussion on the Metropolitan Museum of Art talk page. Once the data is integrated into a more suitable format(probably a single article page), then we'll have a central venue to discuss whether the data is complete, verifiable, neutral, or even suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at all. As it is, I'd rather not run down this discussion on every template's talk page.
If you do want to deal with the templates directly, I encourage you to add these templates to the templates for deletion list, if you feel they meet that criteria. This will guarantee discussion on their merits, though you'll have to address each template separately, since they don't seem to be linked by any hierarchy.
Just offhand, it might be useful to create a userID for yourself. It's not necessary to post any personal information, and it does make tracking edits and discussions a bit easier. Best, -- Docether 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Near Eastern Art[edit]

Though the Met's website states that the Ancient Near Eastern collection contains items "from 8000 B.C. (the Neolithic period) to the Arab conquest and rise of Islam beginning in A.D. 651",[3] the Ancient Near Eastern collection holds items which date from at least as recently as the 8th century AD. I assume, from the context, that the conquest of the Sassanid Empire and the rise of the first Islamic empire in 651 AD is being used to differentiate Ancient Near Eastern art from Islamic art in the same regions. Since Islamic art and Ancient Near Eastern art are represented by 2 separate collections at the Met, this point of demarcation seems to be used as a shorthand for the division between the collections.

However, there is a certain amount of overlap in periods represented by the collections, as non-Islamic pieces dating from post-conquest periods seem to be included in the Ancient Near Eastern collection. Thus, the Ancient Near Eastern collection contains pieces through the conquest of the Sassanid Empire, not "through to" that event (which would imply that the collection reaches to -- ie, terminates at -- 651 AD). I hope this assessment, and my copyediting, will clarify the article's treatment of the Ancient Near Eastern collection's contents. While assuming good faith, I'll also hope I'm not encouraging or participating in nitpickery. Best, -- Docether 16:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Asian Art[edit]

Hi,

Unfortunately, I have to question the term 'arguably' in the line, 'The Met's Asian department holds a collection of Asian art that is arguably the most comprehensive in the West'.

Clearly from looking at the Asian holdings below from past Colonial Powers, there are larger collections. I know what your thinking, comprehensive is not the same as largest, well I'm afraid the V&A definately is the largest however alongside the Musee Guimet and Met it is also one of the most comprehensive.

The Met definately has a great asian collection, but compared to the V&A and perhaps Musee Guimet, I would hardly argue it is 'the most comprehensive'.

Unless there are any issues, I will replace 'arguably' with 'one' of the most comprehensive.

Aside, taking the Met's own website's claim as being gospel is clearly biasing towards something that should be verified by way of an encyclopedia.

Thanks ImperialCollegeGrad 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The only "arguable" notion here is the idea that this list, reflecting purely qualitative values, is a key to understanding the quality of collections. Thanks, Christian Kleinbub

german wikipedia extract[edit]

it would be nice to include this in english


Objekte aus illegalen Grabungen[edit]

Kritiker wie der Met-Kurator Oscar White Muscarella werfen dem Metropolitan Museum of Art vor, weltweit eine der größten Sammlungen von Exponaten aus illegalen Grabungen auszustellen. [1] Erst die Bereitschaft zum Ankauf illegaler Objekte mache Raubgrabungen finanziell interessant.[2] Leihgaben von vermögenden Kunstsammlern an Museen erhöhen den Sammlerwert und die Museumskuratoren fragen nicht nach der Herkunft der Objekte, um auch weiterhin Exponate erhalten zu können. Dieser Vorwurf wird gestützt durch den Kunsthandelslobbyisten Ashton Hawkins, der 32 Jahre als Rechtsanwalt und schließlich als Vizepräsident für das „Met“ tätig war. Hawkins ist Mitbegründer des ACCP (American Council for Cultural Policy), einer Organisation von Kunstsammlern und Museumsdirektoren, die sich u.a. während des dritten Irakkrieges für eine Aufhebung des Exportverbotes der irakischen Kunstschätze einsetzte.

  1. ^ Stefan Koldehoff: „Museen vernichten die Geschichte unserer Erde“, Welt am Sonntag, Sonntag, 29. Januar 2006 (Interview mit Met-Kurator Oscar W. Muscarella)
  2. ^ Jörg Häntzschel: „Archäologie des Bulldozers. Sammler und Museen im Westen finanzieren die Zerstörung der antiken Welt.“ In: Süddeutsche Zeitung, Mittwoch, 3. September 2003, Nr. 202, S. 13


As to the above: I suppose we should not simply consider this a problem relevant only to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In fact, an objective observer might readily see that unscientifically excavated artifacts compose the vast majority of works on display in most museums in both Europe and North America, including such distinguished collections as the British Museum and the Louvre. In sum, I wonder whether this issue is of specific importance to the Metropolitan Museum, when it might be equally discussed in the context of nearly every museum of its kind, including the great museums of Berlin and Munich.

Hardly Great? How about Removing Inaccurate Drop-Down Museum Rankings of Departments?[edit]

As I have stated above, I think these rankings are highly misleading and should be removed. They are fatally flawed for at least two reasons: (1) They assume that museums, whose quality is often judged according to the excellence of individual works of art, can be judged in purely quantitative terms; (2) They overlook numerous non-European institutions of fame and note, especially North American, and thus are incomplete.

I should add that there seems to be a pro-European agenda at work in them, reflected in much of the intentionally pointed commentary associated with the author(s) in these pages, including the "Hardly Great!" headline above. I submit that the author(s) of these rankings must move to justify them either by citation of serious, scholarly opinion found in credible published sources, such as journals of art history or museology, or have them removed by the overseer of this site. My suspicion is that "accurate" rankings--if such a thing is even possible--would be quite different than those on display here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.113.139 (talk) 15:14, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've read through the discussions above and understand why the 'pro-European' connection is viewed. Firstly, as one of the creators of the templates I would VERY MUCH like to differ that I or anyone else, with an opinion backed by references, can be admonished for creating such indexes. The creation of these templates was not in any way untoward, and I, amongst others, will not entertain deletion as an option. The templates were created precisely because articles such as the Met stake claims, not backed by references, and when those references are requested no one comes forward.
Clearly it can be seen there is much personal bias in the discussion above, just because the evidence within the templates does not place the Met as No.1 in every field, this is not taken kind to, thus leaving many POV 'sucker punch' claims throughout the article which are totally unreferenced and unchallenged. Earlier this year, referencing on this article was requested and it wasn't given, so why should the wiki community accept the claims in this article that only serve to 'market' the Met to tourists?. The whole point of wikipedia is to represent an unbiased view on a subject. I ask, if the Met was No.1 in every field - this discussion wouldn't even take place!. Secondly, what is acknowledged is the templates are not comprehensive, and reflect only PERMANENT COLLECTION SIZE/HOLDINGS, as was shown in the headings, and not reflecting scholarly agreement towards comprehension, and it doesn't need to either since the aim isn't that.
The Met is one of the world's finest museums, known for its size, scale, scope and quality of its collections. The history of patronage, bequests and acquisition, mostly during the 20th Century is perhaps unequaled by any other institution in the world. The breadth of the items on display are amongst the most representative and well defined and the contribution to museology is well understood.
Museums across the USA and Europe stake claims to comprehension and scope, and there are opportunities to check collections against one another. It is also true that many European museum do hold more items, and are perhaps collectively far superior in quality than similar institutions outside Europe for the simple fact that they're European and local history often reflects in the scope of the collection. Would anyone say that the Hermitage has a finer Roman collection than Rome itself?, or the British Museum has a finer Assyrian collection than the lands between the Tigris and Euphrates itself? of course not!
The listing is wholly referenced, to argue a 'scholarly interpretation' is required is rubbish, since the template shows nothing but the permanent collection of the museum itself. In fact the references are mainly from the museums themselves!, thereby mitigating any harbored personal ambitions.
To say there is a European agenda is laughable! clearly European Museums have larger collections, formed mainly through princely bequests, also can one argue that the Louvre or the Prado or the Hermitage can't accede to greatness in their respective collections? It was suggested that many US museums do not appear on the list, if one looks at the listing, there are more US museums than from any other nation!. Also, if US museums do not have large holdings, that does not imply a lack of being comprehensive, CLEARLY they won't appear on the listings. AND WHY IS THE LISTING BEING PERCEIVED AS A RANKING? It is only a chart displaying the size of collections, it doesn't in anyway suggest that US museums are inferior? What about German Museums? or Italian Museums? or Portuguese Museums? or Canadian Museums that aren't displayed due to lack of collection size.
There's no point in getting bitter over spilt milk, the US has some excellent museums, for example the Frick has one of the finest holdings of European Western Art in the world be it that its holdings are small. Its just a fact of life that US museums have smaller holdings than their European counterparts, and there's nothing that I, you or the guy next door can do about that.
Apologies if the templates caused patriotic nationalism tendencies to emerge, it wasn't the intent. The templates are meant to indicate major holdings of works of art, by way of checking unreferenced 'arguable' claims, where holdings imply collection size, not comprehension. AssyrianWings 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


But I think we're missing the point here. Size is not of absolute relevance, and clearly one constantly asserted agenda of the "lists"--whether revealing European bias or not--is to show that certain museums are less important than others based on the number of objects possessed by said institution. Only statisticians would have use for them otherwise. This is not how professionals in the museum or art historical worlds consider museums, and thus the lists are perhaps of only the most dubious interest.

New pictures[edit]

Hello, I have uploaded two pictures that may be incorporated into this article. Since I was not involved in writing this article I am not doing this myself. This is Number 1, and this is Number 2. Thanks. Ronen Perry 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the picture of the Temple of Dendur, myself ... it gives a better sense of the structure than the current picture does. Is there any way to edit the photo so that it's a bit more horizontally oriented? It looks a bit "lean-y" now. Best, -- Docether 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay... Anyone is permitted to edit the picture. I intend to go to the Met again in early-March 2008. So I can take a few more pictures. Any requests? Ronen Perry (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be great to have photos of representative objects from each department at the Met. Then, we could attach one to each department's section in the article ... might be a fun afternoon project. Best, -- Docether (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I will do my best. Afternoon? I am thinking about a fun week. Ronen Perry (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The new Roman installation

With the current "fotostrip" layout edge to edge down the right side like an illustrated deli menu, there's no way to integrate the view at the right, which gives information on what the Metropolitan is like. --Wetman (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I've rearranged the images to remove the "deli menu" feel. --Gimme danger (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for an interesting article and for putting up with a lot of small edits. Best I could do to figure it out with free images and what Gimme danger started with left-right. OK with me if anyone wants to revert my changes. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks a lot better! I would prefer in the future to have images accompany all of the departments, but at this point there's not enough text to put in so many images without overwhelming the article. Thoughts on that? Gimme danger (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hugely better! Staggering photos left and right even permits more illustrations to be used. It seems that "fotostrip" look is actually prefered by the kind of editors who invent those "infoboxes". Incomprehensible, especially in an article related to visual arts. --Wetman (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Eakins's The Gross Clinic, since it's not actually part of the Met's collection (it's in Philadephia), and have replaced it with Leutze's Washington Crossing the Delaware, which is part of the Met's American paintings collection. -- Docether (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also : I agree with the idea of using good-quality photos of the galleries in the sections on their respective departments. Where these are not available or are of poor quality, using a single painting or object from the department is still a nice way to illustrate the sorts of works in the department ... with the staggered right-left layout, we seem to have more room for these thumbnails without breaking up the text too badly. -- Docether (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Eakins fix! Many visitor photos are probably non-free (Met doesn't allow non-commerical use as I understand it) but very luckily a lot of the Met's collections are part of the The Yorck Project. -Susanlesch (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point; I hadn't really thought about that. According to the Met's photography policy: Still photography is permitted for private, noncommercial use only in the Museum's galleries devoted to the permanent collection. Photographs cannot be published, sold, reproduced, transferred, distributed, or otherwise commercially exploited in any manner whatsoever.
They do, however, encourage contacting the Met's Image Library for photos of works of art, etc. both for commercial and noncommercial use. Might be worth a followup. -- Docether (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation Vandalism - Require Assistance[edit]

I noticed there is vandalism in the first citation but I have no idea how to remove it. Can anybody post help on my talk page?

The DarkArcher was here (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for added section(s)[edit]

I don't have the knowledge, BUT I think this entry needs to have a little 'business' information. EG a list of the "8 Directors in its history", with dates, number of employees, budget, number of art objects owned (ideally by department) etc.

Can anyone provide this, please .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.87.46 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but I would suggest reading the annual reports. Those usually provide stats, past directors, and the like. Ando228 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art[edit]

Please note this museum is participating in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/Metropolitan Museum of Art rules). All interested editors are invited to participate in this project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art museum photo weekend[edit]

Wikimedia New York City logo.svg New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza


Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum
Last: 01//2008
This box: view  talk  edit

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.--Pharos (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cornelius Vanderbilt and drawings department[edit]

The "Drawings and Prints" section states that "The collection has been steadily growing ever since the first bequest of 670 drawings donated to the museum by Cornelius Vanderbilt in 1880." But the famous Cornelius Vanderbilt, who is wikilinked here, died already in 1877. Was this some posthumous donation or was the donor another member of the family with the same or similar name? -- HBook (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material[edit]

Below information was tagged for needing sources for at least several months. Please feel free to reincorporate into the article with appropriate citations. Doniago (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Admission Cost[edit]

Isn't the met charging everyone now for admission? Thriley (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)



Metropolitan Museum of ArtThe Metropolitan Museum of Art – The definite article "The" is part of the official name of the museum and should be capitalized in running text and should be included in the Wikipedia article title per WP:THE. See the museum's web page, or numerous books published by the museum in which, on the title page and on the copyright page, "The" is included in the name of the institution, e.g., "Published by The Metropolitan Museum of Art". Robert.Allen (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. For instance, this search at The New York Times website seems to show that they either omit "The" altogether, or do not capitalize it in running text. Seemed like the right thing when I proposed it, but maybe I should have looked a little further. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Official name or not, it is frequently not capitalised in running text. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

European paintings[edit]

Interesting but unsourced material about The Met's purchasing policy was removed from the European paintings section on 28 March 2012. As a European, I'd say The Met is worth a visit just for its fine collection of European paintings alone, and it would be rather a shame if there were only half a grudging sentence about it. I have rounded off the half sentence with a stopgap reference to the gallery in the article, but the section would benefit from some expert input.

Frans Fowler (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)