Talk:Metropolitan Museum of Art

---

Adding images for departments?

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

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

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

"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

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

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!

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.

Christian Kleinbub —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. Christian Kleinbub. —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

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

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.

• 160,000 pieces - The V&A, http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/asia/about/index.html
• 60,000 pieces - The Met Museum, http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/introduction.asp?dep=6
• 58,000 pieces - The Musée du quai Branly, http://www.quaibranly.fr/en/collections/permanent-collections/asia/index.html
• ~50,000 pieces - The Musee Guimet, http://www.museeguimet.fr/-Collections-
• 20,000 pieces - Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin, http://www.smb.museum/smb/kalender/details.php?objID=13313&lang=en&typeId=10

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

it would be nice to include this in english

Objekte aus illegalen Grabungen

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. Erst die Bereitschaft zum Ankauf illegaler Objekte mache Raubgrabungen finanziell interessant. 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.

     I suppose we should not simply consider this as a problem relevant only to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In fact, an objective observer might 

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

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.

Sincerely, Christian Kleinbub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.113.139 (talk) 15:14, August 30, 2007 (UTC)