Talk:Antony Gormley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Added article to Category:contemporary artists - Brunberg 17:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possible photo

Can anyone confirm whether this photo - de:Bild:Grindavik.jpg - of a sculpture in Grindavík, Iceland is of a work by Gormley? I've had a good root through the list of works on Gormley's website and can't find it, nor can I find a result from Google that says he has a sculpture in Iceland (several is Sweden and Norway though). However, the figure at least, does rather look like one of his. -- Solipsist 16:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversial?

I find it odd that the Angel of the North is described in the first para as "a controversial piece of public sculpture". Where's the controversy? If ever there was one, I am very unsure that it still exists now, though that is how the article reads. Are there sources for the use of "controversial" as a current description? If not, I think it should go. 138.37.199.199 06:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I should add that this is dealt with better on the Angel's own page, and indeed was discussed on its Talk page. The conclusion reached there appears to be that there is now current controversy and that there was very little at the time of its - ah - erection. 138.37.199.199 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Angel of the North - the largest?

As it happens I believe the Angel of the North is in fact not the largest sculpture in the UK, although this is a common mistake. Gormley himself has commented that his own Quantum Cloud is larger (certainly taller), and Anish Kapoor's Marsyas, exhibited in the turbine hall of the Tate Modern in 2002 claimed to be the largest sculture in the UK at the time. -- Solipsist 18:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Best known for?

The article (and the main page "featured picture" of Dec 6) says that he is best known for "Angel of the North", but I imagine that "best" may be hard to justify on POV grounds. Here in the States I think it might be "Field" or "Another Place" which are more well-known... for the "best" label to fit, you might see what work is most often pictured in "20th century art" books (none of the ones that I've looked through quickly have "Angle of the North"). What about just "known for" ? --NYArtsnWords 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blind Light

Would i be able to replicate a more detailed chronology from Gormley's home page, or would this be inappropriate due to copyright. T saston 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to replicate the entire list, as A) it is copyright, and B) we only want the most notable works. It would be great to update the list with some of his more recent works from the 2000s, however.

Close to Copyright violations

Some sections of this article come dangerously close to Gormley's "short personal bio" on his website here. For instance, it states:

“ Over the last 25 years Antony Gormley has revitalised the human image in sculpture through a radical investigation of the body as a place of memory and transformation, using his own body as subject, tool and material. Since 1990 he has expanded his concern with the human condition to explore the collective body and the relationship between self and other in large-scale installations like Allotment, Critical Mass, Another Place, Domain Field, and Inside Australia. ”

The article states:

“ Over the last three decades, Gormley has revitalised the human image in sculpture through a radical investigation of the body as a place of memory and transformation, using his own body as a subject, tool and material. Since 1990 he has expanded his concern with the human condition to explore the collective body and the relationship between self and other in large-scale installations like Allotment, Critical Mass, Another Place, Domain Field, Inside Australia and 'Blind Light. ”

These passages should be re-written to at least be paraphrases, rather than exact re-statements, of the original. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted the material was added by Antonygormleystudio (talk · contribs) on 12:27, 12 November 2007 [1]. The username suggests it might be by someone connected with Gormley. Still copvio is copyvio. --Salix (talk): 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

External Links

In keepink with WP:EL I've removed a number of links from this article. Links to pages promoting disabled artists however laudable are not appropriate links here. Four profile links largely repeating information given in the article are also inappropriate. If Beyondmyken you feel strongly to the contrary I suggest a further editorial view would be appropriate. Thanks Guthrun (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The profiles should be restored, at least. When I have a bit of time I'll review all the deleted links and restore those I think are appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added a new external link to a video of the artist in his studio. It is an interesting look into his works in process at that moment, and provides an insight into how the artist works on a day-to-day basis. T.Broch (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Birth Age?

The info box says that he was born aged 62. Mistake possibly due to death date being edited out? Anyway, fix recommended. Add death date maybe? Random Rookie 90.201.120.107 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Antony Gormley is still alive at time of posting(February 2013). I can see how the confusion arose,perhaps it should say 'aged 62 at present'. Diamond Miner (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Churchill Award

I cut the sentence "In 2015 he was a Churchill Awards winner in the category of art." while bulk cleaning up inappropraite edits from a COI editor. I carelessly said in my edit summary that the award was "non-notable" (on reflection I realised it might not be, and didn't use this term in the following reverts), so User:Beyond My Ken pointed out my error and put it back. Assuming that he'd misread the edit summary I took it back out, acknowledging my mistake and repeating the COI problem, and Ken put it back again telling me to consider it his edit now.

So, heigh ho: should this article mention an award given to Gormley by a retirement home company, with only a primary source? --McGeddon (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, we have an article on on the Churchill Awards, which makes them Wiki-notable. If you believe they're not, then AfD the article, and if the consensus is with you and it's deleted, then you can remove this and all other references to the awards. Until then, it's Wiki-notable and should stay, regardless of who inserted it. If it was a COI edit before, it isn't now, as I've taken responsibility for the edit. BMK (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking if the award is notable, I'm asking if it's appropriate to mention a minor commercial award in a short paragraph alongside knighthoods and Turner Prizes, a paragraph which already omits other awards that Gormley has received. The lack of secondary sources suggests perhaps not. --McGeddon (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And I'm saying that if we have an article, the award is notable and it's therefore perfectly legitimate to mention it. BMK (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

With all respect for BMK (hi there!), I'm with McGeddon on this. Regardless of the notability of the award or the outcome of the deletion discussion, there's no possible reason for us to publicise some damned property developer (who doesn't even have a WP article) here. It is indeed legitimate for the award to be mentioned in this page, but it surely isn't necessary. In the context of Gormley's reputation it is just completely trivial. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Then, with all due respect, AfD the article on the awards. Until that happens, the awards are ipso facto Wiki-notable, and should be in any articles they're applicable to. Deleting them from articles without deleting the article about them is absolutely backwards. BMK (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd already put the awards page up for AfD before starting this thread. In a world where articles are never finished, it's possible for us to give WP:UNDUE weight to an obscure award, particularly if the criteria for the most recent edit of that paragraph was not "let's write a good summary of the awards Gormley has won" but "Gormley has won my employer's award". A paragraph about awards won by Harriet Harman which only lists one minor award is actively worse than an article without that paragraph, and the same seems true to a lesser degree here. --McGeddon (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion after we see what happens to the awards article. BMK (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

No, the WP:ONUS is presently on you to show why it should be included: we have no secondary source for it, and the awards' notability is under question for its article's lack of secondary coverage. We should discuss inclusion if and when the AfD is closed as keep, or if you can provide secondary coverage of Gormley being given the award. We shouldn't keep a weakly-sourced award in a BLP article on the grounds that the main award article (which plainly fails WP:GNG at present) hasn't been deleted yet. --McGeddon (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that a good secondary source would be needed to establish notability of this award. "Let's continue this discussion after we see what happens to the awards article." There is no point adding it here (and in multiple other articles) if it's going to be deleted. That would look a bit like a slow edit war just for the sake if it, wouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The notability of the awards is currently established by the fact that we have an article on them. If the article is deleted, then a secondary source would be required, but I've already said that if the aritlce is deleted, I'll have no objection to the removal of the information, so let's please stop jumping the gun and wait to see what the result of the AfD is. BMK (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, jumping the gun. Currently 2-1 for a delete. The excitement mounts. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

...and it's since been speedily-deleted as G11. --McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Then's all right with the world. BMK (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)