Talk:Sculpture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Sculpture was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 12, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
 
WikiProject Public Art (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Public Art, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of public art 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.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Expansion[edit]

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

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

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

In our modernist gallery of 27 images there are 9 Americans, 10 counting Noguchi...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Minimalism and Postminimalism were American based movements, we include the pioneers...Modernist (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was horrified[edit]

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

It was me...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, my understanding was that Graham made it, if not I'll remove it. By the way Johnbod just created Modern sculpture last night by copying it from here...Modernist (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The theory is that modern sculpture can be made into a stand alone article...Modernist (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd take a second look at your understanding. Sculpture at the FDR memorial was done by Graham, Segal, Baskin Estern and maybe a few more. This particular section was not by Graham. Do we need references here? I like the separate article idea. Should I butt out while you shift thongs around?Carptrash (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your input...Modernist (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
(copied from the other page) Since this was set up as a straight copy of the section at Sculpture 24 hrs ago, nearly all the pics were then the same. Really additions should be here [ie Modern sculpture ] rather than there [ie here], as sculpture is around 131k bytes, and too long by most standards. "Modern" can be used as purely a matter of date, as distinguished from (and also including) Modernist, not to mention contemporary/Post-modern etc, & personally I'd take the article that way. At the moment a clear definition isn't made. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC) - see the previous section. I certainly hope you & Modernist take it on, as a lot needs doing there, & I'm not planning on doing much. So far I actually trimmed the text here quite a bit without actually cutting much at all, as there was a lot of repetition, but also many gaps even I could see. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I find this section[edit]

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

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

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

Africa vs Egypt[edit]

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

Somewhat more disturbing (to me) is that the first link in the article goes to African sculpture - which turns out to be, as far as I can tell, an exact copy of what is in the Sculpture article. Wikipedia discourages cut & paste editing, not just from external sources, but (I think) from internal ones as well. This link, which I am about to remove is tantamount to having a link to its self. I wonder if the pictures are all the same too? Carptrash (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is probably true even if Egypt is included, though not in terms of what has survived. Most Egyptian tomb statues were wooden, and much else. But Egypt has termites. I have gone round many of the "main" articles adding improved material from here, as most were & are very basic. In the case of African sculpture, which already shared some text which has been retained here (at the end) the texts have probably ended up as near-identical, including the pictures, as the other article was so poor. At the moment the link is therefore not much use, but what if someone expands the other article, as I hope they will? On the whole the link should be left. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What looked really ridiculous was your gallery in the middle of the lead, which is no doubt against all the guidelines, as one never sees such things. Opposite the TOC is an excellent place to have images, instead of just a big white space. The increasing diversity of devices and screen sizes is certainly making it difficult to suit all pieces of kit, something that our image advice, little changed in recent years, has failed to keep up with. Many editors now place most images to the right to help cope with different widths of screens, and 300px has emerged as the typical forced size for visual art articles - on most screens 220px is too small, perhaps especially for sculpture. It is a very common fault in WP page design to make a fetish of keeping images and the relevant text right next to each other; in a heavily illustrated article this may be impossible, especially on some screens. The subject is highly visual, and the text already very long, and the certainly heavy use of images is I think appropriate, and other editors put more in than I would. The article gets some 2500 views per day, & I don't think the current layout should be changed without more comments along these lines. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
If there is a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (or viewers have problems reading Wikipedia on their devices) this should really be a discussion for MOS:IMAGES, not here. Generally the default 220px should be sufficient for illustrating articles. Mind you, MOS:IMAGES suggests 300px width is allowable for 'lead images'. I'm not sure all five images are suitable/required for the lead section - for example the Assyrian gate is more of a frieze than a sculpture; the tiny Netsuke object is surely incongruously large at this size; the portrait style Michaelangelo sculpture is a whopping 450px high at this scale. Perhaps one key illustrative image should be retained at a larger size to introduce the article, while the remainder are reduced. After all, noone is going to suggest the dozens of other images throughout the article should also be massive! Sionk (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The gallery was not "in the middle of the lead". It was between the lead and the contents. Look in the history.
If readers don't like the big white space they can click "hide", that's what the button's for. Large white spaces will also get readers used to seeing what a typical art gallery looks like.
"Diversity of devices..." That is why there is a user option for thumbnail sizes. People who want 300px thumbnails can have that if they want, if weren't for their user choice being overridden.
"Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px")."( MOS:IMAGES ) First, note that they use a ratio of 1.35, this scales up the user's choice. For larger images this sort of scaling should be used rather than putting in a fixed value. Second, this is the maximum, and is based on the assumption of a single lead images. The MOS:IMAGES article is assuming that there will be one lead image not 5.
Just checked the most popular visual art, Film and both it and the MOS:IMAGES page itself both use a single default size thumbnail. Probably museum visual arts articles all have the same editors.
"common fault ... fetish" it's called consistent layout style. Readers will have no idea why the illustrations are there, and which art movement they are part of. It's just a random jumble and a mess.
There is not too much text. It could be broken up a lot more. There are no illustrations for the first section "Types of sculpture". The second "Purposes and subjects" only has 2 pictures, one of which is not even a sculpture, it's a coin.
QuentinUK (talk)
There is so much nonsense here I really can't go through it all. There may not be much text, but evidently too much for you to be bothered to read, or you would know that coins fall under sculpture. If the images are left as they are they will cover the first sections very nicely on most devices. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The images as they are now are fine as lede thumbs...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Working on a new layout, a bit of patience please[edit]

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

Specific problems here:

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

What I'd like to come out of this:

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

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

  • It would have been better to choose a smaller and less high-traffic article. Remember that images should face into the page. And that some of us have preferences set at 300px, where "upright 1.4" is just enormous. I never use the "scaling" parameters because they make no sense when there are other variables. The whole question of image size & placement has become much more complicated since the sizes of screens became so varied. I have to say that so far yours looks just awful to me. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer the way we had it. These articles aren't easy and IMO it worked - don't mess with it...Modernist (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Image in "Materials and techniques"[edit]

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

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

Arbitration Request[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Yes, he was correct to remove it. Does it really need explaining why? This is a very crowded article, and the work was obscure and by a relatively little-known atrtist. That does not mean it was vandalism to add it. I think the copyright status on the image file is incorrect also - the work is still in the copyright of the artist surely? Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • He was correct in removing it. There are thousands of sculptors whose work could be added to this article; we cannot add every artist...Modernist (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I do regret using the pre-written template warning as the wording is incorrect to this situation and I should have written a message in my own words. However, I do stand by my edit. Echopapa echoromeo has attempted three times to insert the image without explanation or an edit summary of any kind and three editors have removed the image. I explained in my edit summary that the image was not necessary and in an article spanning the history of sculpture, this particular piece is not appropriate. As Modernist has stated, we cannot add a representation of every artist so there needs to be a sound encyclopedic reason for including a particular image. You have provided none and in fact reverted other editors' edits without any sort of explanation. There are other articles that may be better suited for this image. An article such as this should only contain historically significant works. freshacconci talktalk 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

wrong image[edit]

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

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

I just removed this phrase[edit]

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

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

What it says? Figures 1 inch high tend not to be called sculptures, nor do figures in eg porcelain. Needs a bit of a rewrite though. Johnbod (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we can be pretty sure that any sentence that combines "often used mainly," " sometimes," either or both," and "or" could profit from a rewrite. A reference would be nice too. Carptrash (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)