Talk:Unconditional Surrender (sculpture)

merge tag inappropriate

A tag suggesting a merger with an article that concerns one edition of a statue appeared on this article shortly after creation. Do not see any discussion here, but that is not a relevant article for this to join.

This article is about a philosophical topic in aesthetics not the work (much less one version of the work), which is categorized as kitsch. There is a great deal of discussion among editors on this article being created at the discussion page of Kitsch, from which this was generated as a second article. Because of this, I am going to remove the tags for now. I am concerned that the topic will become muddled if the tags remain. ----83d40m (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

At the recent AfD discussion, the article was kept because it has multiple sources. These sources, though, are about the artwork, not aesthetics. I've renamed the article, but Unconditional Surrender (2005) already exists, which nobody seemed to spot this at the AfD. The two articles need to be merged.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Two? No, three articles (and counting). There's also "Unconditional Surrender (statue)". Actually I think that that is the better title. -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Tyrenius has kindly turned those other two articles into redirects to this one. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD discussion

The AfD itself is discussed (or not) here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

the great (or not) kitsch controversy of our time

Kitsch#Contemporary_kitsch_debate describes the great (?) controversy, pointing the reader to this article (by an earlier name) for detail.

I'd have thought that there were other, much bigger art/kitsch debates -- perhaps those that have drawn the attention of national magazines or newspapers. The fixation within en:WP on these statues seems perverse.

Anyway, the radical rewriting of this article that has already been started (and I think has some way to go) may affect what's written at Kitsch#Contemporary_kitsch_debate. -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Minutes of public meeting held on June 7, 2010, in the Sarasota city commission chambers"

These are cited. Where are they published? -- Hoary (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Material removed from the article until the source is provided. Ty 16:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

protest of butchering action

I protest the actions being taken with the article, Kitsch controversy in Sarasota, which was created by editors dealing with a section of Kitsch. The article deals with a kitsch controversy, not the statue to which you are attempting to move it. Perhaps you have failed to look at all of the discussion at Kitsch that led to the creation of Kitsch controversy in Sarasota. It is most confounding that no attempt was made to contact primary editors, nor to understand the topic before butchering an article built with consensus.

By the way, the minutes of the city meetings are published by the city (of course) where would one expect to find the minutes of a city government? ----83d40m (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

83d40m--First, I want to correct a few of your mistaken assumptions. One is that the "primary editors" have any special say or authority when it comes to an article. Building Wikipedia is a collaborative process--once you post something, you can and must expect that it will be changed. To think otherwise is to fall victim to WP:OWN. Thus, there is never any need to "contact primary editors." If you care about a page, then you should watchlist it, still knowing full well that changes can and will be made. Second, you're failing to understand the primary process by which change occurs at Wikipedia, which is often called WP:BRD, or Bold, Revert, Discuss. That means that a standard method of editing is to make a bold change to an article. Then, if others disagree, they are free to revert that change. At that point, all parties are expected to come to the talk page and discuss the issue. In this case, reverting is a little harder, because it's not as easy to "revert" a name change, but it's still possible. However, the difficulty is such that it would be better to get consensus on the name and overall structure first before trying to change it back.

Now, let's do what we're supposed to do, which is discuss. I have to say that, I agree with the move in part, although I believe editors have removed relevant material. It is generally not correct to have an article titled "X Controversy" unless there has been actual discussion of that controversy, using those words. If no reliable sources have used words like "Kitsch Controversy," then to call the article that is to engage in Original Research. If they have, we need to evaluate how notable the controversy is. Many editors (although not all), believe Wikipedia is better served by having fewer articles with more subsections, as this centralizes information, making it easier for people to find. Now, having a section title in this article that discusses the work in terms of kitsch is fine, assuming there are reliable sources that support this lens for viewing the sculpture. I haven't looked at this article in a long time, so I'm going to have to go back and look at it and the sources to see what can be saved. Looking at the article now, it does look like too much information was removed, but it's going to me some time to go back through the edit history and old versions to see what can/should be recovered. If editors disagree, we'll hash it out here on the talk page until we can reach consensus. Note that this process may well take time and effort, but in the end we'll get the article to where it should be.Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No attempt made to understand the topic? I think that I have a tolerably good understanding of the topic of kitsch. (For example, I've read Dorfles' old Studio Vista Kitsch: The World of Bad Taste.) I am also familiar with "appropriation art", for example this well known derivative of Eisenstaedt's photograph. I had never heard of Johnson's works till I read of them in Wikipedia (initially, in a bizarre hatchet job within "V–J day in Times Square"). I am well aware of the way in which one third of the "Kitsch" article was at one time devoted to the same hatchet job. I have read the cited sources, where these are available (some have disappeared, and technical troubles have affected others). Now, what reliably sourced, encyclopedic aspect of these statues (or of any "kitsch controversy") do I and others fail to understand? ¶ The article was created by you, 83d40m (though there may have been a consensus that no such essay should appear within "Kitsch"). ¶ You say: the minutes of the city meetings are published by the city (my emphasis). Good. Perhaps you can link to the web page on which they appear. -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Okay, my initial review suggests that the previous title was completely wrong (and, as a side note, by implication, the Kitsch article needs to be trimmed). Looking through the sources connected to this statue, the word kitsch is very rarely used, and when it is, it is generally used in a sentence where somebody says something like(I'm paraphrasing, here) "This statue is nothing but the worst kind of kitsch." No reference that you had in the previous incarnation of the article talks about a "kitsch controversy." Did I miss one? Or is it in one of the External Links (and thus should be transformed into a reference)? If there isn't, then to call this a "kitsch controversy" is strictly OR and can't be in the encyclopedia. In fact, the sources I see tended to object to the article on patriotic grounds ([1]--btw, we can't use this as a reference because it's just a letter to the editor), or on the grounds that it could cost the city because of copyright issues.

That last thing, by the way, is the one thing I think should be re-added to the article. The article as written now doesn't really acknowledge that there was a significant (local, but still significant) fight over the placement of this statue, revolving on whether or not this was "good" art, whether or not it was suitably patriotic, and whether or not the city would be liable for displaying the statue if Life/Getty Images sued the city on the grounds of copyright infringement of the Eisenstaedt photo. Per WP:BRD, I have reverted back about 5 versions, as I think that there is relevant information here. Some of it may need new citations, if we can find them. It's possible some of that info will go eventually, but I think the changes all happened so fast that we need to now go back and re-examine whether or not they should all have been made, whether the sources that were removed are unreliable as claimed, and whether or not we can add new sources to support what is there. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

One final thing in response to hoary's comment I ec'd with: Please note that we can cite the minutes even though we don't have access to them--we have to assume good faith on the part of the person adding the materials, knowing that offline sources are equally valid to online sources. There is no requirement that there be a website access. While obviously it's preferable that there be an online link, if we don't have it, and the claims aren't extraordinary, we must take 83d40m on good faith that he is accurately portraying what the printed minutes say. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I already had to chide 83d40m on BRD...Hoary, at this point, it's actually your responsibility to justify your deletions, as you were the one who was "bold" and made changes....but when I have time I'll try to go back in and do them one at a time with sources for discussion. For right now, I am going to only re-add the section that relied on the minutes of the meeting, and I even trimmed that a little. While we prefer secondary sources, primary sources can be used in some cases (so long as an article does not rely mainly on them). This use follows exactly under the guidelines shown in WP:PRIMARY--there is no interpretation (we're strictly reporting on what was said), it's not analytic, synthetic, interpretive, etc. I'm assuming 83d40m has a copy of the minutes, and can provide us with relevant quotes so that we can verify the accuracy of the claims. But we cannot reject the info solely because it's a primary source, nor can we reject the info solely because it's offline. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look again at the article history. The editor who removed this material (the first time) was not me but Tyrenius, and he did so with good reason. ¶ Yes, offline sources are acceptable. 83d40m has said that the minutes are published. Are they published, or aren't they? If they are published, where are they published? ¶ You demand that we assume good faith. I assume good faith in an unknown editor and I try to continue to do so thereafter. However, 83d40m's pattern of blowing up the most minor or peripheral evidence for a "kitsch controversy" in Sarasota involving Johnson's opuscule(s) prevent me from assuming good faith here. 83d40m is not a dispassionate editor but one with an axe to grind. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake on who made what edit. Since we don't yet know exactly what the minutes say, let me ask a question--if the minutes do confirm that the information is correct (or that it can be modified to be correct), do you believe that info should stay in the article? I will say that if 83d40m doesn't have the minutes, then we're probably better off leaving the info out until we can get a reliable source to support them. We don't necessarily have to--stuff stays in Wikipedia for years without sources, as long as it's not particularly controversial. But I do agree that it's usually (although not always) better practice to leave things out until they can be sourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the text for which these mysterious minutes are given as the source: The city attorney voiced his concerns about a copyright suit that he thought had merit. At public meetings, one of the two commissioners opposing the acceptance of the gift had cautioned that a similar case in another city against an artist, resulted in the loss of millions of dollars paid to the copyright holder. Members of the community also testified their objections on the legal grounds as well, stating that agreeing to accept ownership of the statue risked a financial loss that would become the burden of the taxpayers. Boring. (And loaded, too. How do "members of the community" differ from "local residents"?) Such goings-on within meetings are unimportant unless perhaps something remarkable happens (a speaker is observed receiving a fat envelope, the judge starts "speaking in tongues", somebody pulls a gun on somebody else, etc). We may need to know what was decided; we don't need to know who said what on the way to that decision. (Or is this Obsessopedia?) All right, conceivably we do need to know some of it, but then this will surely be written up in the local newspaper (the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, amply available online). -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) There are issues with WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR and also WP:BLP. I removed unreferenced information, which any editor is permitted to do per WP:V. It can be reinserted if it is verified. It is better to start with sound material (assuming it is sound) and build up from there. Ty 05:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely concur, although the minutes are an acceptable form of sourcing. Hoary raises a good point above, though, in that the information we get from them may not be worth keeping. I want to hear what the minutes actually say before deciding what to do with that info, to see if any of it is worth keeping. If we don't hear what's in the minutes in the next few days, we can take it out. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am and established editor here. I have no expectations of "ownership" and I have no problem with evolution, just with devolution. Improvements are to be sought, cowboys marching off to change things without taking the time to understand them, usually results in chaos, and that is how I see what has played out.

Recently the article was turned into a discussion of one version of a statue, not of it as an aspect of a kitsch debate in contemporary culture in a city well known for its status in fine arts, as intended. The current article also has become disjointed and now even is launching off into discussions of other versions in other states and no understanding of the numbers in the series is evident.

The current topic does not seem worthy of an article, being fully covered at the Johnson page.

This statue is a perfect example of kitsch and its dynamics, the copyright infringement issue that may result from empirical evidence (which is the basis of copyright law), and a consistently-panned, minor artist "pushing the envelope" to gain acceptance. Reading some Robert Hughes reviews of Johnson such as, this sampling of articles on Johnson's work by Hughes that might be insightful --Robert Hughes - chocolate box of rubbish http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Robert+Hughes+-+seward+Johnson&aq=f&oq=Robert+Hughes+-+chocolate+box+of+rubbish&aqi=&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=O7FXPb8FcKE. According him, the art critic of the New York Times, and numerous other art critics this is not a work art. Kitsch is considered an opposite of "art" and that was the topic of the article that has been redirected totally. That topic was considered worthy of an article in the minds of several editors. That topic has not survived. I recommend deletion of what has resulted, because of redundancy. ----83d40m (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Three things:

1. You didn't address the problem of WP:OR. I am perfectly willing to agree to the idea that this statue and the Sarasota incident are a perfect example of the kitsch debate. However, as far as WP is concerned, neither my nor your opinion have any relevance. We may only include things that other people have already said in reliable, secondary sources. When I was first editing this article and the Kitsch page with you, I was not nearly as well-versed in the process for including information in Wikipedia. Now that I am, and after I re-looked at the sources, I don't see any way that this material can stand. Do you have any reliable, secondary sources that site the events surrounding this statue as being part of a "kitsch controversy?"
2. You are perfectly welcome to prod the article or make an AfD on the grounds that this is overlapping material, and we can worry about that problem at that time. My feeling is that this one statue is notable by itself and deserving of its own article because it has a special (legal) history. Now, it may be possible that this info should be merged, but let's worry about that at a later point.
3. You didn't provide any info about he minutes. I can guess why you did so, but that's just my guess. I am correct in assuming that you either don't have them or don't feel the need to share them?Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's Hughes: Comparing the careers of J. Seward Johnson Jr. and Jeff Koons, he once said, was like debating the merits of dog excrement versus cat excrement -- although Mr. Hughes would never use a word as flat and unevocative as excrement. I don't know quite enough about Johnson to judge half of that, but he's certainly right about Koons. (And it again reminds me why I love Hughes' writing.) But did Hughes comment on Unconditional Surrender? Google doesn't suggest so. ¶ Yes, this article was one that purported to be about a kitsch controversy in Sarasota. It had minimal evidence for any such controversy, instead presenting evidence for a kitsch controversy in San Diego and a copyright/money controversy in Sarasota. ¶ You now say: According [to Robert Hughes] and numerous other art critics this is not a work [of] art. Exact citations, please. The article now cites one Robert L. Pincus as saying this, I'd be delighted to have it also cite Hughes as saying much the same thing, more pungently. ¶ You recommend deletion of what has resulted. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the place to go, but only if (like Ethicoaestheticist and myself) you are unable to get much rational comment from User:Stifle. -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I happen to concur with Stifle's judgment, but the article was not kept. It was renamed, merged, redirected, and thoroughly muddled -- no vestige of its original intent persists. That is not a keep. The current article is redundant and now—is—worthy of nomination for deletion. Article deletion is not my forté, your inclination toward that led to what is at hand. I shall leave that up to you.

I have made part of my previous discussion bold so that it may be read again for better comprehension.

I certainly would continue to contribute to the article if it had continued to be an article whose existence I could justify. It no longer is. Preferring trusting collaboration to achieve mutually-desired objectives (even through minor differences that may be worked out), and again concurring with Stifle, I find futile talk page dramahz such as these rather tedious, so I'm not inclined to read for a role. I have no interest in your objective. Thank you for the invitation, but I prefer editing something I consider worthwhile and will move on—time is short. If you need another vote to support deletion, give me a shout. ----83d40m (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

83d40m is upset that what was previously an article about a "kitsch controversy" about a statue in Sarasota is now an article about that statue, whether in Sarasota or elsewhere. ¶ The bit above that he's newly bolded is that within "this sampling of articles on Johnson's work by Hughes". ¶ If Hughes has (a) written specifically about this statue or (b) contributed to (or written about) any kitsch controversy in Sarasota, then I don't notice either among the Google hits that 83d40m presents in bold. I therefore don't know what 83d40m is on about. -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So, I get that he's saying that he no longer wants anything to do with this article, because it's not what he's interested in. That's fine--every editor is free to work on whatever they want. However, as per my prior statements, I'm now willing to go in and remove the part that relies on the Community meeting minutes, since no one here, I assume, has access to them or interest in gaining access. I'll make that edit now. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wild, Wacky World of Art (part 4973)

This tells us that "SCULPTURE FOUNDATION and SEWARD JOHNSON are trademarks of The Sculpture Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved." Should we be writing "Seward Johnson™"? -- HOARY™ 15:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty certain that either 1) you can't actually trademark a person's name or 2) using it in this context qualifies as fair use. Do you think someone could trademark their name, then, say, go to the DMV and claim the government violated trademark by using the name on his driver's license? Also, I checked the Seward Johnson website (http://www.sewardjohnson.com/site/index.html), and even they're not using the name that way. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is that any company that goes to the trouble of getting a TM registered is going to say so, and a "trademark" means squat (I'd have thought) till registered. But if you're interested, The website of Dan Bricklin tells us that "Dan Bricklin's" is a registered trademark of Daniel S. Bricklin. (As for dead people, its website tells us that "JOHNNIE WALKER®" (so capitalized) is a trademark.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Graves' letter

I just noticed that Hoary edited the reference description to the Graves letter. However, my opinion is that that letter shouldn't even be there. Letters to the Editor don't even begin to qualify as a reliable source, as there is no fact checking or other oversight by a reliable editor to ensure the info included is accurate. Letters are edited for space and content, but they aren't fact checked. The "facts" that Graves states about Life magazine and veteran's organization are inherently unreliable. Shouldn't we remove this source? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable question, but let's put it on hold until we've worked out just what it is that the letter is cited for. The sentence immediately preceding the note reads The commissioners sent the new initiative supporter back to the review board for public art. I don't know what this means; do you -- Hoary (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The writer seems to be the notable, Ralph Graves (writer), so I say give a quote with a wikilink. Not to support a fact, but to support the personal opinion of a credible critic.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's implied that the personal opinion is Public debate ensued as permanent placement in the community became feasible. The commissioners sent the new initiative supporter back to the review board for public art. But that isn't personal opinion. I suppose Graves is cited as evidence for the assertion that there was "public debate", and fair enough. Meanwhile, how about the rest? I suppose that "in the community" and "feasible" are mushy ways of saying "in a public place" and "likely" respectively, but who was this new initiative supporter? (Or aren't we supposed to worry about such things?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence about public debate needs to go. And the next one. The only 'fact' that the SNN report supports is that someone called Richard Swier (whose father is the head of the local veteran's association) obtained 3,500 signatures in a petition to keep the scuplture. That's the event being reported - all the rest is vox-pop filler. I actually think Ralph Graves' letter is a reliable source, but only for the opinion of Ralph Graves. So the text should read something like: "Richard Swier obtained 3,500 signatures in an online petition to keep the work. Ralph Graves, ex-Life Magazine staffer and friend of Eisenstaedt, opposed it."--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead! -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that Letters to the Editor are not at all fact checked, why should we rely upon Graves' word that he was a friend of Eisenstaedt or worked at Life magazine? Wouldn't you say that letters to the editor are only one half a step above a personal blog? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: What I mean is, the editorial is reliable in that it reports on the opinion of on Ralph Graves. It's not reliable with regards to facts, which are the history of said Ralph Graves and thus the implied claim that, based on his history, his opinion is somehow more "important" or carries more weight because of his prior associations with the phot. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the SNN report and Graves' letter to external links.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

New York City

An article in NYTimes.com briefly documents a five-day installation of Unconditional Surrender in Times Square: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/arts/design/27outdoor.html

Perhaps this New York City installation should be listed on the Unconditional Surrender page.

Also of note are the reviewer's sentiments about the piece: "a thing of great ugliness, not only because of its flat-footed, crudely simplified realism, grotesque scale and stunningly insensitive title, but because of its appeal to a cheap form of patriotic nostalgia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Kaminski (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unconditional Surrender (sculpture). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sarasotaseasonofsculpture.org/GallerySpecs.cfm?id=407

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Source

• http://oaklandcounty115.com/2016/06/18/royal-oaks-25-ft-unconditional-surrender-statue-has-arrived/ ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've added this to the article, but why didn't you do it yourself? Why are you expecting other editors to do the work instead of doing it yourself? BMK (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Unconditional Surrender.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see deletion request as well. Probably a fair-use image will have to be uploaded locally. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)