Talk:Art Deco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Art Deco was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 3, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
November 18, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
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 Architecture (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.
 

Non-Notability or Anglocentric Parochialism?[edit]

I am again painfully reminded of why I once gave up on contributing to Wikipedia :-( It is so demotivating that it takes almost no time and resources to destroy content that may have taken other, well-meaning contributors hours of patient work to collect and assemble. But the accusation of non-notability rings particularly sour in this case, since the buildings in question are quite clearly mentioned and/or displayed in Wikipedia articles in several other languages: Dutch (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeentehuis_van_Vorst, and https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sint-Augustinuskerk_(Vorst), incidentally disproving Coldcreation's facile claim that such articles do not exist), French (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_(Bruxelles), with image), German (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest/Vorst, with images), Esperanto (https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorst_(Belgio), with "non-notable" building as the only image!) and even the English language Wikipedia is not as devoid of reference (including images) as claimed! As for the tacit implication that the number of images in the gallery is excessive, it was partly to make the gallery more balanced and representative that I added them in the first place. Nude Amazon (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Art Deco or proto-Deco? What is this article about?[edit]

The discussion about the origins of the style—and images related thereto—have taken over this article. We have paragraph after paragraph (and illustrations to accompany) about proto-Deco developments in the 'teens and discourse and photos about Cubism, yet not a single mention of Raymond Loewy or Norman Bel Geddes nor an examination of the impact of Art Deco on industrial design, cinema set design or graphic arts.

Can we give a rest to Cubism for the benefit of readers who are looking for actual Art Deco? I think the discussion of origins is valuable—and interesting—but the article needs some balance between prologue and main course. 96.245.109.133 (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Every article about art movements or styles has a section relating to origins. An article would be incomplete without. In this article the Origins section is but one section amongst others, and an essential one at that. It has not taken over the article as you claim. Recall, La Maison Cubiste was exhibited in Art Décoratif section of the 1912 Salon d'Automne. The design is certainly art deco in character. So too the Théâtre des Champs-Élysées with its bas-reliefs by Antoine Bourdelle. Feel free, however (since you insist on exhibiting your Parker pen), to elaborate on topics such as the impact of Art Deco on industrial design, cinema set design or graphic arts. Clearly, sections entitled Attributes and Influence are lacking. As it stand now, the Parker pen seems out of place in this article, and I would suggest removing it until a suitable section is developed around industrial design (even then, better examples of art deco design will surely be found).Coldcreation (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Attributes and Influence sections are lacking — I'm not knowledgeable enough and I'm too undersourced to do the job right. I wonder if we don't also need better sections on the evolution of art deco from the early Aztec– and Egyptian–influenced stuff to the later streamlined stuff. Do you agree that the images roster is architecture–heavy? 96.245.109.133 (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, aside from sculpture and architecture (the two main fields in which deco excelled most), Art Deco was primarily felt (and still is) in furniture and interior design. While interior design elements and environs are depicted in this article, albeit weakly, furniture is quasi absent from the text, and entirely absent in image. Part of the reason for that is likely copyright related. There are certainly many buildings depicted. Of all of them I would remove "Century Theatre, modern building in historic downtown, Ventura, California, 1998". This theater was apparently constructed in 1998. There are probably thousands of theaters and diners built across the U.S. in the deco style but would serve no purpose in this article, which should be limited to works extending through the 1930s. As far as being 'undersourced' for the job, there are some good references in the Origins section (e.g., sources [15]-[20]) upon which you could base your text for the Attributes and Influence sections. Give it a shot. Be bold. The pen might just fit in then... Coldcreation (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallery with less bias[edit]

Suggestion: order by year desc. If same year, order by title (of name/link). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.108.196 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Neo Art Deco[edit]

Hi, I think we should include a section on contemporary buildings that share axioms with the original Art Deco style or even create revivals and are directly inspired by the style. Something like Parkview Square, 220 Central Park South by Robert A. M. Stern and others come to my mind. -- Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Any stance on this? :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile to reference contemporary works inspired by Art Deco (Christ_the_King_(Świebodzin) also springs to mind) but I think it would be essential to clearly differentiate them from the original creations, perhaps by creating a dedicated section of the article, or incorporating them in the Influence section.Nude Amazon (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Interior Lounge Image[edit]

The article is heavy with exterior, architectural images and lacking extant interiors and furnishing. That's why the Weil-Worgelt Study is important and because it is publically accessible. It can be moved to the gallery if that is a better fit.Janbat (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Too architecture heavy?[edit]

In the intro it says Art Deco is a visual arts design style, but from the photos in the article you'd think it was almost exclusively an architectural style. I'm surprised in particular that there is no Art Deco jewellery shown, when there are so many examples that show Deco style at its purest (simplicity of form, geometric shapes, two contrasting colour schemes). Also no furniture? Very few pieces of interior decor/small objects, no graphic arts? (Think of all the fab Deco travel posters, for a start...). Very disappointing and biased. 86.170.15.233 (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So... fix it, as per WP:BEBOLD. I, for one, would welcome pictures of these wonderful Art Deco objects to be added. Just make sure the resulting article makes sense and all the images are public domain. Fool4jesus (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Influential[edit]

For the record, Idenitor has gone on a rampage, removing the word "influential" from a large number of leads (at least 60) on various topics, including Art Deco. He/she views this word as WP:PEACOCK: to "promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." However, in this particular case, it is shown as a provable proclamation about a subject's importance, using facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance within the body of text. The word is used on at least 10 occasions, and there is a section titled Influence. So while it may be a peacock word in some of the articles Idenitor deleted it from, it is certainly not here. Coldcreation (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with you. In this topic (and many others) "influential" is a precise and valid term. It's easily verifiable in this case, since the style spread around the world. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I too agree. Influential can mean exactly what it says. Awien (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I too totally agree that "influential" should remain. David J Johnson (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Every subject on here is influential to some degree. It's a pov word for the first sentence. And you talk about how the word is used elsewhere in the article, that means including "influential" in the intro sentence is redundant. The point is made clear. No FA starts like that. Most other art movements don't have intro sentences start like that, it explains in simple, npov terms what it is. Let the reader decide if it's influential before stating it as a fact. If you want this article to be above C-class, the term must be removed in the intro sentence. Idenitor (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
These arguments may justify your compelling obsession to rid Wikipedia of peacock words from some of the articles that fall victim to your rampage. However, the fact that Art Deco spread across the world (to just about every country) is grounds to mention it's influence in the lead; written in a neutral point of view. It is an overview of the movement, establishes context, explains why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points on the influence of the movement worldwide, per MOS:LEAD. Editors involved with this topic for the past four years have deemed the word useful for the lead. And those that have expressed their views in this discussion disagree with you. Stop WP:EDITWARing. Coldcreation (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not "edit warriing", I do not have an "obsession" and I don't appreciate my valid edits that improve articles being called a "rampage". This is about the first sentence. It's fine to mention something about influence in the lead section. But the first sentence just needs to say what the subject is in simplest, npov terms. Just because a few editors (who have a vested interest in the article/subject) post some brief agreement comments doesn't mean it should stay. It's a C-level article, to upgrade it, it is a necessary change. Every subject on here is influential in a way. If even just one person is influenced by it, then it could be "influential". It's nothing unique. I stand by my edit, as it does improve the article. Idenitor (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Your edit does nothing to improve the article. Your claim that editors have a "vested interest" in the article/subject is unfounded. No matter how brief, these editors have voiced their opinion that the word "influence" in this case is neither POV or peacock. Coldcreation (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


I have restored the term 'influential' unfortunately deleted once again by Identitor. Repeatedly deleting text supported by multiple editors and insulting those editors is not the best way t edit articles. A style of design that is picked up quickly and used around the world in everything from skyscrapers to movie theaters and cars and ocean liners can certainly be described as influential. There were many regional styles during the same period that had no influence at all outside of their own countries. What would you call it? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"unfortunately deleted", that's not the case. We're talking about only the first sentence here. A first sentence is to explain things in a simple definition. Whether something is influential is opinion, it's not absolute fact. What is influential to one may not be to another. Anything and anyone can be considered influential. If someone influences one person, they are influential. The influence is already explained in the lead section. It's a needless word for the intro sentence. Every art movement on here was influential to some degree. But does it say that in the very first sentence in a vast majority of articles? No. If this article goes through a GA or FA review, the first thing that will be suggested is to remove the word from the intro sentence. Just saving you trouble and improving the article. I hope that we can have neutral parties who are not invested in the article discuss this. Idenitor (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Idenitor. It is promotional and endorsing to define the design style in the first sentence as influential. This isn't what it is. This is further commentary on what it is. Where the design principles intended to influence? Probably not. Its success led to influence. In its essence it is not influential. That is a knock-on effect. I think there is a good argument for keeping a term such as influential out of the first sentence of the lead. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


I don't think we have to worry that calling art deco "influential" is "promotional" and endorsing it; it's been out of style for a very long time. and isn't likely to make a comeback. I said that it was "unfortunately deleted" because we seemed to be on the brink of an edit war, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. I think the best way to avoid an edit war is to compromise and start over with a new lead, which doesn't call it an influential style, but which notes that these style has had a very great influence in many different areas. I also note in the lead that the style is not limited to architecture and visual arts, but also includes furniture, architecture, even automotive and ship design, and that it was the first really international architectural style (the great majority of the article is about art deco architecture around the world). The lead is supposed to summarize the key points of the article, and I hope this moves in that direction. Comments and suggestions are welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

B-class[edit]

On 19 October 2014‎ Melody Lavender demoted the article from B to C class because the article was "basically a list of examples of the style, the sections attributes and influence missing". Since then much work has been done to improve the article, especially with regards to the origins, attributes and influences of the style. For this and other reasons, the article is now once again promoted to B-class on the quality scale. Any suggestions on how to raise the bar even higher are welcome. Coldcreation (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Its much improved, and thanks, but still a listy in places, eg one or two sentence paras, and sects like "Surviving examples" could be spun out. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Ceoil. SiefkinDR is working diligently to try and fix up the structure of the article. I will shortly too. Lots of things still needs to be done (hint hint, when your done with Van Gogh, where btw, you're doing a excellent job). Coldcreation (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Galleries, new sections, questions[edit]

Dear fellow Art Deco editors:

-I really think we need to restore packed galleries in the sections on architecture and sculpture. On my screen at least, the images are now all different sizes and shapes, and spill into the following section. The sizes can be made smaller, and the captions can be shortened, but I think there's a great advantage to having the images side by side so you can see the evolution of the style. Also, in articles on the visual arts, I think more people look at the images than the text, and good captions (always with dates) are essential.

-I've added a new section on Streamline Moderne with a link to the article on that topic. I think it also would be a good idea to have a section on Art Deco at World's Fairs; there were several major exposition in the period, and they had a big influence.

-As to the extremely long section of examples of Art Deco around the world, I would really like to move that out into separate articles. It has no consistency. I love the section on Greece, which argues that Greece has no Art Deco buildings, because all architecture of all periods is Greek. I would propose separate articles on Art Deco in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and Africa. What do you think?

-Finally, I have a number of problems with the first section on painting and fashion. It seems to me to be almost entirely about Cubism. The articles about the artists mentioned make no mention at all of Art Deco, with the exception of Lempicka, who seems to be the only real art deco artist. The article on Cubism makes no mention at all of Art Deco; why should the article on Art Deco devote so much attention to Cubism? Also, fashion designers mentioned seem to have little or no connection with Art Deco. The cubist house was described was not a real house; its exterior was not at all in the Art Deco style. The architects who created Art Deco, Sauvage and Perret, were both out of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and Art Nouveau, and had nothing at all to do with cubism. Can we reduce the amount of discussion of cubism? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

(1) If editors agree to use packed-mode for galleries I think we should use the default version (without increasing image size). I prefer galleries when not packed, as upright images and longer captions fair better in the standard/traditional mode. Archived discussion on gallery modes. Images still need to appear within the body of text (e.g., the Lempicka and Csaky). (2) I don't see Art Deco in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and Africa as separate topics, so I would not favor a separate article, though a separate List of Art Deco objects around the world might be interesting. (3) Art Deco evolved from Cubism (thus formerly discussed in the Origins section). Fashion was inextricably linked to both. See for example Alice Mackrell, Art and Fashion, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 2005, ISBN 0713488735. Much literature exists on the topic. I will modify the relevant articles, such as Cubism, to include the relation between this movement and its evolution towards art deco. And since I added the text on Cubism I would like to be the editor that reduces the section, keeping of course the most important information. The Cubist House, by the way, was a pivotal precursor in the development of architectural art deco design that followed its exhibition at the 1912 Salon d'Automne and 1913 Armory Show in New York. I will most certainly briefly include this in a relevant section. Coldcreation (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Coldcreation—you say "a separate List of Art Deco objects around the world might be interesting." Perhaps that is a good idea. I see we have List of Googie architecture structures. Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Excellent example Bus stop. This one could also serve as a guide for a List of Art Deco objects around the world: List of architectural styles. Coldcreation (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I think art deco and art nouveau exist primarily outside the fine arts. Art deco and art nouveau are primarily architectural and fashion phenomena. Paintings, by contrast, would less frequently be called examples of art deco and art nouveau. I don't have sources for this. But if sources exist, and if it is agreed that this is the case, perhaps this is a point our article could make. Bus stop (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I realize there are prominent exceptions to this such as the work of Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele, etc. Bus stop (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Funny Bus stop. I've never heard that before. Art Deco spilled over from the fine arts into other sectors, while remaining, too, within the fine arts. Best to go by what is expressed in the sources. See for example the Art Deco section of the Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, and "French Art Deco", Metropolitan Museum of Art. Coldcreation (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I basically agree with Funny Bus stop on this. Art Deco is primarily about decorative arts (which is why it's called that). It's most famous for architecture, furniture, industrial design, and decorative objects. Painting and sculpture is important, but not the predominant aspect of the style. If you ask anyone for examples of Art Deco, they're mostly likely to cite skyscrapers or movie theaters. The first major architects of Art Deco were Perret and Sauvage,, who were both Beaux-Arts trained architects who had been working in Art Nouveau. They did their buildings before the Cubist House. There's some influence of cubism in later Art Deco architecture, as the article says, but there were a lot of other influences as well. As the citation says, the style is basically about uniting modern aesthetics with fine craftsmanship. It was a luxury art, very different than what Corbusier, Picasso and Braque were doing. That's why Corbusier didn't like it, and also why it didn't last very long. CordiallySiefkinDR (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This would have been true, had there been no (or few) artists involved not just as precursors but as artists whose works are considered by art historians as exemplary of Art Deco: Examples are the sculptors Joseph Csaky, Jacques Lipchitz, Chana Orloff, Gustave Miklos, Jean Lambert-Rucki, Jan et Joël Martel, Antoine Bourdelle, Pablo Gargallo and Paul Landowski, to name just a few of the more notable ones. Examples too include works by the painters Albert Gleizes, Robert Delaunay, Sonia Delaunay, Auguste Herbin, Fernand Léger, Léopold Survage, Tamara de Lempicka, Jean Dupas, again Jean Lambert-Rucki, and many others. This 'movement' of various styles was extensive, both in scope (as in diversity of styles, artists, designers, architects etc.), and extent (as in range of influence across international borders, i.e., throughout the world). There is no clearly defined limit as to where Art Deco begins or ends, either in time or in stylistic terms. To limit Art Deco to the unification of modern aesthetics and fine craftsmanship, is to limit the scope or extent to which it burgeoned, evolved, flourished and matured world-wide. Coldcreation (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
We don't find the term "art deco" in some of the articles above, especially those of the painters. Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This is true Bus stop. It should be added to some of those articles. Others in list of avant-garde sculptors and painters who played an important role in the development of the deco style are not necessarily labeled as such, and would probably have refused to be. Note: the article about Cassandre mentions nothing about Art déco either, and yet... Coldcreation (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Graphic Arts[edit]

The following images added to the Graphic Arts section recently are more representative of Art Nouveau than Art Deco, both in the graphic type style design and illustration design. Note too that in 1910, at the time two of these posters were produced, the style that would soon coalesce with others to form what would later be called Art Deco was Cubist in structure. These images clash with the articles description of Deco: "Unlike the preceding Art Nouveau style, Art Deco features geometric shapes, clear and precise lines"... "bold geometric shapes"... These images should be replaced by designs deemed Art Deco by relevant historians. Coldcreation (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you on this. Alastair Duncan in "Art Deco" (Thames and Hudson, 1988) describes these two artists as important early figures of Art Deco. He dates Art Deco graphics as beginning between 1910 and 1914 (the same period that the first Art Deco building, the Theatre des Champs Elysees, was built) and cites the examples of Bakst, Barbier, Lepape, and others as early art deco artists. He says the style was then called 'A la Bakst'. even before the term Art Deco was invented. He cites Hohlwein as the first and most important of the German art deco artists, whose works continued through the 1920s Not all Art Deco graphic art is cubist in structure or origin; see the work of Georges Barbier for instance. Art Deco was a big tent with a lot of variety. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Neither seem to be good examples of art deco. The artists could have been transitional. These may be examples of earlier work. I think we should require sources saying the specific works are art deco. In these two instances I don't think we can rely on general statements about the artists. The support that is called for is sourcing relating to the works of art. Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Can I suggest the image below by Winold Reiss for inclusion in the graphic arts section? Eartha78 (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Bus Stop, I'm afraid I disagree with you about the Bakst and Hohlwein. I used these images to illustrate the evolution of Art Deco graphics from the beginning to the 1930s. Bakst is not considered art nouveau, but the beginning of Art Deco. As Alastair Duncan writes in Art Deco, He did the sets and costumes for the Ballets Russes performances at the first Art Deco building, the Theater des Champs Elysees, in Paris, and the style was sometimes called "A La Bakst" before it was called Art Deco. As to Hohlwein, he was the most important German Art Deco graphic artist of the 1920s and 1930s; he did the famous posters for the 1936 Berlin Olympics, as well as German postage stamps and posters for the Nazi government. Do a Google search for Hohlwein and you'll see a big selection. I'm trying to find some examples of his later posters that are copyright free; the Library of Congress has a large Collection.

Dear Eartha78: Yes, I think we can include the Winold Reiss poster; it's a nice example of the style from the earlier period. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps art deco grew directly out of art nouveau. I don't know. I would defer to others as well as to the best of sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It is OK to disagree, SiefkinDR. Bakst is a person. You can say that Bakst is not considered art nouveau. That is a manner of speaking. Bakst could have produced work in both styles. I must admit to finding it difficult to detect one style or the other in many of the works presented on this page. I don't know why the polar bear by Francois Pompon, now in the Musee d'Orsay, is art deco. I'm not arguing that it is not. I would defer to sources. If sources tell me it is art deco, I will redefine my thinking as to the identity of art deco. Bus stop (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
According to Alastair Duncan, Bakst was one of the founders of Art Deco graphical his style is much bolder than Art Nouveau, with lots of movement; it's similar to the murals from the 1930s. I put a Pompon sculpture in the gallery because Duncan devotes half a page to him; he was a pupil of Rodin, and won the top prize in the 1922 Salon d'Automn. Duncan describes his sculpture as "aerodynamic forms with highly polished surfaces that remarkably capture the light." This particular piece has a prominent place in the Musee d'Orsay. There's a great deal of variety in Art Deco; the chief uniting feature is that it's decorative, not functional or abstract. It's the stage between Art Nouveau and Modernism, which is totally lacking decoration.
Not sure what you mean by "the stage between Art Nouveau and Modernism". Coldcreation (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
If sources unambiguously identify a work as an example of art deco I have no objection to its inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree image captions style?[edit]

Hi all, really excited to partipcate in improving this article. Could we agree on some consistency in the captions for the image?
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts

I prefer:

  • visual art: Artist's name, Title of work, medium or format (year)
  • buildings: Building name in City, Country (year)
  • or if the name of the architect is relevant: Building name, by Architect's Name, in City, Country (year)

thanks!Eartha78 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would agree, though prefer to see the date of the work prior to the title, i.e., Artist's name, year, Title of work, medium, dimensions, location. Coldcreation (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion the more detailed style of caption, which includes dimensions and location, would be appropriate if the article was focussed on painting. But Art Deco is primarily a design style and we need to find a style of caption that works across painting, sculpture, architecture and, the applied arts and design. We should do our best to ensure that information about dimensions and repository etc are available on the clickthrough link. Eartha78 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason that I'm aware of that we "need to find a style of caption that works across painting, sculpture, architecture and, the applied arts and design." Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, did I say something wrong? Eartha78 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
No sir you did not say something wrong, not in my opinion, anyway. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Bus Stop. For visual arts (sculpture, painting) the caption should list at the very least: Artist's name, year, Title of work, location. Details such as medium and dimensions can be left out or included if relevant. Coldcreation (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the details of medium and dimensions, for sculpture and painting, are virtually always relevant. Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The importance of captions accompanying images can't be overstated. The information under consideration, unlike much else that can be said about artworks or art styles is incontrovertible. We can argue over whether something is art nouveau for instance or art deco, but we generally can't argue over the dimensions of an artwork, or the materials of which it's made (its medium), or what the title is, the name of the artist, the year completed or its present location (if known). Brief educational commentary in captions is also very welcome in my opinion. Thus I like commentary such as "A telephone made of bakelite, an early kind of plastic (1931)" accompanying this image. I think this image is good because it shows a real-life setting for architecture and I think the caption contributes educationally to the image. Bus stop (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Once again, I agree with Bus stop, details of medium and dimensions, for sculpture and painting, are always relevant. Coldcreation (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
My only concern is that some of the captions may be very long. Some of the skyscrapers, for example, have multiple architects, and with a narrow picture, the caption may be as large as the image. We'll have to see how it looks. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Exposition Internationale[edit]

"Exhibition" is a more accurate rendering into English of French "Exposition" than "Exposition" - it's a bit of a faux ami. If in doubt, see Harraps, p. E : 42 or Collins Robert p. 362. With the precedent that this is also the way the Met has gone,[1] I propose to change Exposition to Exhibition throughout. Cheers, Awien (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it. Awien (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Symmetry[edit]

I would like to change, in the lede:

"Unlike the preceding Art Nouveau style, Art Deco features geometric shapes, clear and precise lines, and decoration which is attached to the structure, often in the form of metal or ceramic sculptures."

to:

"Unlike the preceding Art Nouveau style, Art Deco features geometric shapes, clear and precise lines, a tendency towards symmetry, and decoration which is attached to the structure, often in the form of metal or ceramic sculptures."

I think the tendency towards symmetry distinguishes it from art nouveau. I find for instance here "The central theme of Art Deco is its geometry and symmetry." Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea. I'm quite sure many designers incorporated symmetry into their works. The problem is, there are many examples of Art Nouveau designs that are symmetrical, and plenty of Art Deco designs that are not. Recall, Art Deco, more than just a style was divers grouping of many styles. Clearly, however, and generally, there was a tendency towards symmetry as opposed to asymmetry, and rectilinearity as opposed to curvilinearity, while simultaneously responding to the machine age, new materials, and the component of mass production. Coldcreation (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me; the cited texts I've seen mention symmetry as a characteristic of Art Deco. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Awien (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I think asymmetry is important in art nouveau. It is unimportant in art deco. In art deco, asymmetry is incidental. In images such as this and this we can see asymmetry operating powerfully to define the style of art nouveau. I don't think we see asymmetry powerfully defining the style of art deco. There are certainly powerful examples of art nouveau that are perfectly symmetrical, at least left to right, such as this. But I think that marginally we would have to consider asymmetry more an operating factor in art nouveau than in art deco. Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Art Deco Architecture around the World[edit]

Dear fellow Art Deco editors: The section on Art Deco Architecture around the world is by far the longest section in the article, and in my opinion the least useful and most cluttered. It is extremely, as one editor nicely put it, "listy". I propose redoing it entirely, and making it much shorter, There exists already an excellent article List of Art Deco architecture organized by continent, country and state. I propose breaking section into five subsections, one for each continent, with a very brief overview of the most prominent buildings on that continent and a small gallery of photos and a link to the list of buildings in that continent, by country, For the section on North America, it will also link to the article Art Deco in the United States. I hope in the future that there will be some other articles by country.

Comments and suggestions on this idea are welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


Renovation of Article (1)[edit]

The renovation of the article seems to be coming along pretty well; the very long section on Art Deco around the world has been shortened considerably by linking to lists of the buildings by country. There are a few other things I think need to be done,

-I propose we eliminate the long gallery at the end. It seems to be just a random selection of images, without any context or explanation. -I would like to create a separate section for furniture. it's a distinct subject, and at the moment it's lost in the discussion in the section on interior design. -I think we need to restore a gallery in the section on interior design; the images are all over the place, and push into the following article. Any thoughts or comments on this? Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, and per this archived discussion on packed gallery mode, I will be removing (for the second time now) upright images with lengthy captions from the gallery section(s), and placing them within the main body of text. Coldcreation (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we should endeavor to enrich captions. The downside of "lengthy" captions is that they introduce odd distortions of space within the article. But the information potentially provided by image captions can't be overestimated. Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Restored Gallery[edit]

While it's nice to have sections with their own specific gallery images, the main gallery has been one of the pinacles of this article for many years, and maintained by consensus to a limited number of images. I have restored back to its original splendor. Coldcreation (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Splendor? It's a mess. this article will never get good article status if it looks like this. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, could you move the second Doucet image up a bit? It comes down into the furniture section, and throws the images there out of line. Thanks very much. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The article structure was indeed a mess. The gallery itself is not. Nor is it a random selection of images. It's a good idea to have a gallery section because it permits images of Art Deco objects to be placed in the article that may not fall into a specific category. Sure, that second Doucet image can be moved up. Coldcreation (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Many of the pictures in the gallery are also found in the article on Art Deco in the United States, which gives them some context and history. Maybe the captions can contain a link to that article. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Art Deco in the United States is already linked twice in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Le Corbusier[edit]

In the article it is written:

The term "Arts Deco" or "Art Deco" was used by the architect Le Corbusier, who wrote a series of articles attacking the style; Le Corbusier opposed any ornament on buildings, and famously called a house "a machine to live in".

This needs a source (or two). Where and when were these articles published? Also, opposing ornaments on buildings, or calling a house "a machine to live in", is not necessarily an attack on Art Deco. (i.e., it is not specifically in contradiction with Art Deco). Coldcreation (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

---Here's one source, in Bio.com, on Corbusier's view on art deco, and the quote about the house being a machine for living in. There are a number of others..

"...Then, in 1918, Le Corbusier met Cubist painter Amédée Ozenfant, who encouraged Le Corbusier to paint. Kindred spirits, the two began a period of collaboration in which they rejected cubism, an art form finding its peak at the time, as irrational and romantic.

"With these thoughts in mind, the pair published the book Après le cubisme (After Cubism), an anti-cubism manifesto, and established a new artistic movement called purism. In 1920, the pair, along with poet Paul Dermée, established the purist journal L’Esprit Nouveau (The New Spirit), an avant-garde review.

"In the first issue of the new publication, Charles-Edouard Jeanneret took on the pseudonym Le Corbusier, an alteration of his grandfather’s last name, to reflect his belief that anyone could reinvent himself. Also, adopting a single name to represent oneself artistically was particularly en vogue at the time, especially in Paris, and Le Corbusier wanted to create a persona that could keep separate his critical writing from his work as a painter and architect.

"In the pages of L’Esprit Nouveau, the three men railed against past artistic and architectural movements, such as those embracing elaborate nonstructural (that is, nonfunctional) decoration, and defended Le Corbusier’s new style of functionalism.

"In 1923, Le Corbusier published Vers une Architecture (Toward a New Architecture), which collected his polemical writing from L’Esprit Nouveau. In the book are such famous Le Corbusier declarations as “a house is a machine for living in” and “a curved street is a donkey track; a straight street, a road for men.”

I can add this as reference, but there are others to the quote. I should be more specific and cite that he opposed non-structural, non-functional decoration, not all decoration. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but in which article does Le Corbusier specifically enunciate the term "Art Deco" (or "Arts Deco")? In which article does he attack Art Deco? What you quote above is not a source if Art Deco is neither mentioned nor attacked. I would like to verify the claim. Please site a source such as:
Dear Cold Creation,

Here's a quote from an essay on the history of design on the Home Page of the Metropolitan Museum in New York.

"::One of the strongest and most influential reactions against the Art Deco movement came from the Swiss architect Le Corbusier. His Pavilion de l’Esprit Nouveau at the 1925 Exposition was a forceful rejection of the use of expensive, exotic materials in the extravagant, one-of-a-kind objects that typified Art Deco. He defined the house as a “machine for living in,” while furniture was “domestic equipment.” The pavilion itself was a prototype for standardized housing, conspicuously furnished with commonly available items such as leather club chairs. Like members of the Bauhaus, Le Corbusier advocated furniture that was rationally designed along industrial principles to reflect function and utility in its purist forms, with a strict rejection of applied ornament. Other important movements positing avant-garde theories of design and architecture included De Stijl in Holland, which advocated a seamless unity of art and architecture, and Russian Constructivism, whose utopian projects embraced a combination of machine forms and abstract art."

I'll give you the link if you'd like to read the whole thing. I don't quite understand what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that Corbusier was not a critic of Art Deco? Everything I've read since I was in college about this period is that Corbu hated Art Deco, and was the principal architect of its downfall.SiefkinDR (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dsgn2/hd_dsgn2.htm

Thanks for the link. Question: In which article does Le Corbusier specifically use the term "Art Deco" (or "Arts Deco")? This is important because numerous sources write "The term Art Deco did not come into use until 1966", e.g., Objects, Audiences, and Literatures: Alternative Narratives in the History of Design. And Graphic Design and Architecture, A 20th Century History. Coldcreation (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Coldcreation. I don't know if he used the term Art Deco in the article (I haven't read the original) but it certainly sounds from his description that he's talking about Art Deco, and that's clearly the understanding of the author of the Metropolitan Museum essay. At the time what we call Art Deco was called the "Style Moderne". If he's not talking about Art Deco, what style do you think he's talking about? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Coldcreation: Maybe you've already seen this, but this is a very nice summary of the origins of the style and the split between the traditionalists and the modernists after 1925, from LaRousse:

"Dès ses débuts, le style Art déco rencontre un grand succès, mais il reste le fait de créateurs isolés : ceux-ci se méfient des théories et ne publient ni manifeste ni programme. En 1910, à l'occasion du Salon d'automne et de la présentation des réalisations du Deutscher Werkbund (Ateliers allemands), les artistes français prennent conscience de la nécessité d'un renouveau stylistique, dont le précurseur sera un grand couturier : Paul Poiret, ébloui, lors d'un voyage à Vienne en 1911, par les Wiener Werkstätte (Ateliers viennois) de Koloman Moser et Joseph Hoffmann, et admirateur des Ballets russes de Diaghilev. Il transpose dans la mode et les tissus d'ameublement la féerie colorée d'un Orient mythique. L'Atelier français, créé en 1911 par l'architecte et décorateur Louis Süe, affiche les mêmes partis pris esthétiques. Il regroupe les décorateurs et peintres André Mare, Roger de La Fresnaye, Paul Véra, Gustave Jaulmes et André Groult. Ceux-ci, désireux de rompre avec les arabesques de l'Art nouveau, renouent avec la tradition française du style Louis XV et, surtout, Louis-Philippe. André Véra, frère de Paul et chantre de l'Art déco, écrit en 1912 : « La corbeille et la guirlande de fleurs et de fruits viendront constituer la marque du nouveau style. » Mais, en 1919, le Salon d'automne affiche une nouvelle esthétique, qualifiée de « rappel à l'ordre » : les volumes rectilignes et les formes orthogonales puisent leurs sources directes dans le cubisme, l'art de l'Afrique noire, de l'Orient et de l'ancienne Égypte. Les dessins s'ornent de chevrons et de frises zigzagantes.

Salon de style Art décoSalon de style Art déco


Lors de l'Exposition internationale des arts décoratifs et industriels modernes de 1925, deux tendances fondamentales coexistent, et s'affrontent parfois. Les artistes dits « contemporains », les plus nombreux, s'appuient ouvertement sur le passé pour renouer avec la tradition. L'hôtel d'un riche collectionneur, un des pavillons les plus remarqués, doit sa décoration et son mobilier à Jacques Émile Ruhlmann, ses peintures à Jean Dupas, ses laques au Suisse Jean Dunand, ses bas-reliefs à Antoine Bourdelle, ses ferronneries à Edgar Brandt. Le musée d'Art contemporain est investi par la Compagnie des arts français de Süe et Mare. Pont Alexandre-III sont amarrées Amours, Délices et Orgues, les trois spectaculaires péniches de Poiret. Parmi les « modernes » – influencés par l'industrie et la technologie et tournés vers l'avenir – se remarquent particulièrement Pierre Chareau, l'Irlandaise Eileen Gray, Pierre Legrain, Francis Jourdain et surtout Robert Mallet-Stevens, dont le pavillon du tourisme met en scène une asymétrie provocante. Sa tour-manifeste en béton armé est aussi audacieuse que le pavillon de l'Esprit nouveau de Charles Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, dit Le Corbusier, et que le pavillon de l'URSS, dû à Konstantine Stepanovitch Melnikov, qui associe l'acier au verre et au bois. L'ambassade française, aménagée par la Société des artistes décorateurs, réunit les contemporains et les modernes, Groult pour la chambre de l'ambassadrice, Chareau pour le bureau, Dunand pour le fumoir, Mallet-Stevens pour le hall. Cette exposition est considérée comme le chant du cygne d'une esthétique de luxe. Cet art déjà dépassé trouvera pourtant encore à s'exprimer, notamment dans la spectaculaire décoration des paquebots de l'entre-deux-guerres, tel le Normandie (1934), et lors de l'Exposition des arts et techniques dans la vie moderne de 1937, à Paris. En 1929, la rupture est consommée entre l'aile moderniste des artistes et la Société des artistes décorateurs qui, avec dix ans de retard, emboîte le pas au mouvement De Stijl, au constructivisme et au Bauhaus. L'Union des artistes modernes (UAM), fondée par Herbst, Mallet-Stevens et Chareau, est rejointe par une trentaine d'artistes, dont Eileen Gray, Francis Jourdain, Sonia Delaunay, les joailliers Jean Fouquet et Raymond Templier, l'orfèvre Jean Puiforcat, les architectes Charlotte Perriand et Le Corbusier, qui travaillent alors fréquemment en collaboration. Ils s'attachent à remplacer les matières nobles par des matériaux fonctionnels et adaptés à la standardisation, comme le verre et l'acier. Art déco et société."

Thanks for that SiefkinDR. Nice read. Coldcreation (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Le Corbusier and Art Deco[edit]

I went to Gibert-Jeaune and to the Decorative Arts Museum today and got a copy of Corbusier's "Vers une architecture" , and found the quote, "a house is a machine to live in." I haven't found an example where he used the term Art Deco, but he did use the term "Decorative art". He wrote: "Decorative art, as opposed to the machine phenomenon, is the final twitch of the old manual modes; a dying thing." He argues in his book for machine-produced architecture and mass-produced houses, all the same....He wrote during the 1925 Exposition, "right now one thing is sure. 1925 marks the decisive turning point in the quarrel between the old and the new. After 1925, the antique lovers will have virtually ended their lives, and productive industrial effort will be based on the new."

I plan to expand the section on the origins of Art Deco and add some more text about the 1925 Exposition the based on the books I found today. I also have more information about Art Deco painters and craftsmen. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent find SiefkinDR. And a good initiative too. Note that the term "Decorative art" (Arts Décoratifs) is not the same as the Art Deco. It cannot be said that the term "Arts Deco" or "Art Deco" was used by Le Corbusier. While "Art Deco" was derived from Arts Décoratifs, they are not the same thing. Arts Décoratifs was a common term at the time. As mentioned in the article, there was even a section of the 1912 Salon d'Automne called Arts Décoratifs. Interestingly too, despite Le Corbusier's 1925 call for the death of Decorative arts, it lived on for at least another decade (especially in architecture). Anything about Art Deco sculpture in your recent findings? One more point, I still do not see an incompatibility between machine-produced architecture and Art Deco. That is, Le Corbusier's critique seems unjustified; So too, incidentally, his critique of Cubism. He was a Cubist, a pure one at that. Coldcreation (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the term Art Deco[edit]

Artists, architects, designers, and industrialists from the Munich-based Deutscher Werkbund exhibited in Paris at the 1910 Salon d'Automne, in the Arts Décoratifs section. Just to say that the term arts décoratifs is not always synonymous with what became Art Deco. Le Corbusier may have enunciated the words Arts Décoratifs in his critique, but the term "Art Deco" (as relates to design, architecture, etc. produced during the 1920s and 1930s) dates to 1966. I would love to find an earlier use of the term, by Corbu or anyone else. But until that is found in the literature, 1966 remains the date of its first use. Coldcreation (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Corbusier used the term "Arts deco" In 1925 in a series of articles In L'Esprit Nouveau to ridicule the content of the Exposition, rather than as the name of a style. See Charlotte Benton, "Art Deco 1910-1935." Renaissance du Livre , (2002)

Placement of section on Cubist House[edit]

Dear ColdCreation: I've noticed that the section on the Cubist House is the only section in the article devoted to a single building (or two, if you count the later Studio House). Don't you think this section would be more appropriate as a subsection of "Origins"? The Studio House looks to me more like an example of Modernism, and it was built after the 1925 Exposition, so I don't think it really fits here. Cordiallly, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be a subsection of Origins. That's where it was placed originally, and that's where it was up until this edit. Coldcreation (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Coldcreation: I worked a long time on this section and tried to make it shorter, but it ended up even longer; now it's one of the longest sections in the entire article, which I think is out of proportion. What I've done is to create a separate article on La Maison Cubiste, with a lot of additional information. I would like to make a new single section on Influences, which will include Cubism, African art, etc. with a gallery that includes a picture of the Cubist house. What do you think? SiefkinDR (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The two paragraphs actually in the article seem well balanced with the rest. The origins (or influences that led to Art Deco) needs not be reduced to a single section, since there were several differing and independent sources of inspiration. However, previously, the term Origins was better than Influences, as the latter engulfs themes such as The style of luxury and modernity, which would not be in the Origins section. Plus, Cubism was not just an influence, it was at the origin. Coldcreation (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
can you cite a book on Art Deco that says that cubism was its origin? I've seen it cited often as an influence, but not the sole source or origin. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I'll cite a source as soon as I have access to my books, which should be very soon. Until then, I'm not saying Cubism is the sole source or origin, but that it is at the origin. So far, most books I've seen on Art Deco (all of them perhaps) begin with a chapter on Cubism (not on say, reinforced concrete). Coldcreation (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the term[edit]

The very helpful staff at the Library of the Museum of the History of French Monuments were kind enough to help me find Corbusier's 1925 book on Art Deco, and I will add some of the details of that to the section on the origin of the name. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, good find. To be clear though (and the article is not yet on this point), Le Corbusier used the term Arts Deco with reference to the 1925 exhibition, not to a style. In another way, it would appear, the first use of the the term Art Deco as a name for a style was in 1966. See Michael Windover, Art Deco: A Mode of Mobility, Volume 9 of Collection "Le Patrimoine urbain", 2012, ISBN 2760535134. Coldcreation (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear, when reading the book,that Corbusier is attacking "Les arts decoratifs" in general, not the exhibit. He says that the decorative arts are in decline. When he says that the quasi-orgaic decor is only the last spasm of a death that is already predictable" he's talking about the style, and he says that the modern decorative art has no decoration. It's true that he didn't use the term Art Deco, he called it "Arts Deco", but he clearly meant the same thing. Charlotte Benton and Tim Benton, in "Art Deco 1910-1939" say that he used the diminutive form "Arts Deco" to ridicule it rather than to raise it to the level of a style. It is correct that first use of Art Deco in English was in translation of the name of the 1966 Exhibit, but it also should mentioned that Corbusier used almost the same term in 1925. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds clear enough to me. Were you able to digitally copy Le Corbusier's 1925 book (photos, or photocopies)? Coldcreation (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I read the book on paper, but they told me that the full text is available for free on the site of the Library of the Museum of Architectural Monuments. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, let me know if you find it online, I'd like the link. Coldcreation (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't seem to find this online. What is the name of the library? And is this the exact way the title of the book is written: 1925.EXPO.ARTS.DECO? I see nothing online identical to this. Maybe we should have a link to this source cited in the article. That way anyone can verify to source. SiefkinDR, since you were at the library, and you saw the original title, could you please provide a link to the source online. Thanks in advance. Coldcreation (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. the name of the book is "L’Art décoratif d’aujourd’hui". It's mentioned in the article and citation and listed the bibliography. The 1925.expo.arts.deco is the heading of each chapter, apparently from the titles of the articles original publication in L'Esprit Nouveau. With the ISBN you can get links to the several sites about the book.I found it at the Museum of Historic Monuments at the Palais de Chaillot. I'll see if I can find the full text on their site. cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, yes, I found that title in the article yesterday, L’Art décoratif d’aujourd’hui, and found the citations on various websites. Above you wrote that the museum/library where you found the book told you that "the full text is available for free on the site of the Library of the Museum of Architectural Monuments". This is the URL I am trying to find, hitherto without success or a result. I checked on what I think is their website and could not find it. Could you check and see if what they told you is accurate and send the link, or better yet, cite the link in the article so anyone can have access to the source. Thanks in advance. Coldcreation (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I found these, full texts online, which may be of interest to you:

Coldcreation (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Coldcreation (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Coldcreation (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The portailedocumentaire address is the correct one; it's the Cite de l'Architecture et du Patrimoine at the Palais de Chaillot. In theory you can download the text, but I see you've found some other sources.

Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

How can you download the text (from the ortaildocumentaire.citechaillot.fr)? Coldcreation (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how it works, since I was able to get a copy of the book itself; I'll see if I can figure it out. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. I got as far in the site as the the catalog and the cover of the book, but I wasn't able to download the text. It may be that a password is needed from the librarians. I think you can contact the librarians through the site to find out what you need to do. . Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Influence section[edit]

Is the Influence section necessary? It doesn't have any citations, and just repeats information now found in other sections. I'd propose that we move the image to the gallery on streamline design and merge the text into other sections. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary. There are currently at least 10 citations in the Influences section. This relates to the origins of Art Deco (much was formerly in the "'Origins"' section).Coldcreation (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not speaking of the Influences" section, which is fine, but the "influence" section further down. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Ahhhh, I see. Had not noticed that the other section (with a photo of a pen) was titled Influence. Yes, by all means, feel free to do away with it. The image could be placed in the Gallery section. Coldcreation (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Csaky and "Proto Art Deco"[edit]

Can you tell me what the definition of "Proto-Art Deco" is? I've not seen that term used anywhere. This Casky statue seems to be cubist to me. Wasn't he known as a cubist sculptor, rather than an art deco sculptor? What makes this art deco?SiefkinDR (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Good questions. Below are a few examples of usage of Proto-Art Deco in the relevant literature (with quotes from the books, bold added), with a quote by Léonce Rosenberg regarding the Csaky sculpture, Femme à la cruche:
  • "The fin de siecle room is dominated by the English — not just Morris but also Voysey, a transitional figure between Morris's Arts and Crafts aesthetic and Art Nouveau, and later between that and a sort of proto-Art Deco",New York Magazine 8 Sep 1980, Vol. 13, No. 35, p. 74

Proto combined with Art Deco means "first", "foremost", "earliest form of", or just prior to Art Deco. Just as Proto-Cubism is pre-Cubist or an early form of Cubism. The sculpture by Csaky, this one in particular, but not exclusively, falls into the category of proto-Art Deco. See Fonds Leonce Rosenberg B17 Jean Metzinger, Intitulé : Correspondance échangée entre Léonce Rosenberg et Jean Metzinger (ARCHIVES), janvier 1929 (1 f.), Fonds Leonce Rosenberg B17: À propos de Csaky; sa sculpture La Femme à la cruche, exposée au Salon d'Automne de 1912, tandis que cubiste au cœur, est néanmoins pre-Art décoratif dans le délicieux sens vif du terme. (Rosenberg). Csaky was known as a Cubist sculptor, and as an Art Deco sculptor. Coldcreation (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I think of art deco sculpture being sculpture that's designed for decoration, like Bourdelle or Manship, but I see he's also listed in the index of the Victor Arwas book and mentioned as a decorative sculptor in the Benton and Wood book. Could you please move the image up a little so it doesn't come into the section below? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Style Moderne[edit]

The article begins with "Art Deco (/ˌɑːrt ˈdɛkoʊ/), or Deco, also known as Style Moderne, is a style of visual arts, architecture and design that first appeared in France just before World War I." While it is true that le Style Moderne appeared before World War I, I think, SiefkinDR, a source is required that confirms Art Deco was also known as Style Moderne, and that they were not two separate things. The wiki article on Art Nouveau states: Before the term "Art Nouveau" became common in France, le style moderne ("the modern style") was the more frequent designation. (Duncan, Alastair. Art Nouveau. World of Art. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1994. ISBN 0500202737)
It may be more precise to write Art Deco evolved from le style moderne. Various books cite this term as associated with Art Nouveau, rather than Art Deco, such as:

It seems Style Moderne was more associated with the Fin de siècle. See Leora Auslander, Taste and Power: Furnishing Modern France, University of California Press, Jun 4, 1996, ISBN 0520920945. Coldcreation (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

SiefkinDR, what are your sources telling you about the term Style Moderne? Was this synonymous with Art Deco, as implied in the first sentence of this article? Or, did Art Deco evolve in part from the Style Moderne, i.e., was Style Moderne (as Art Nouveau, Cubism etc.) a precursor to Art Deco, as those sources linked above appear to claim. Coldcreation (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence in the book Art Deco 1910-1939 by Charlotte Benton and others is: "L'art deco est le nom que l'on donna au style "moderne", mais non moderniste, du XX siecle qui connu un rayonnement mondial pendant l'entre deux guerres et laissa sa emprunte sur presque tout les domaines visuels, des beaux-arts, a l'architecture, de la decoration, a la mode et au textile, cinema, a la photograph." That's translated from English, but I have only the French version. Let me see if I can find some other citations on this. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
There's also this, from the Larousse on-line article on Art Deco:

Parmi les « modernes » – influencés par l'industrie et la technologie et tournés vers l'avenir – se remarquent particulièrement Pierre Chareau, l'Irlandaise Eileen Gray, Pierre Legrain, Francis Jourdain et surtout Robert Mallet-Stevens, dont le pavillon du tourisme met en scène une asymétrie provocante. Sa tour-manifeste en béton armé est aussi audacieuse que le pavillon de l'Esprit nouveau de Charles Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, dit Le Corbusier, et que le pavillon de l'URSS, dû à Konstantine Stepanovitch Melnikov, qui associe l'acier au verre et au bois.

This article makes the distinction on between the modernes, la Mallet-Stevens, from the traditionalists, like Ruhlmann, within Art Deco. I don't see a connection between moderne and Art Nouveau, but I can keep looking. My point is that Deco wasn't called Deco until much later; from the sources I've seen, it was generally called "style moderne" to distinguish it from the traditional historic styles. If that's not clear, I can probably word it better. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the term Style Moderne for Art Nouveau, I haven't seen examples of examples of that, except in some countries outside of France. The term Art Nouveau was used in Belgium and France from the 1880s The site of the Metropolitan Museum says "Art Nouveau style was particularly associated with France, where it was called variously Style Jules Verne, Le Style Métro (after Hector Guimard’s iron and glass subway entrances), Art belle époque, and Art fin de siècle. " (49.85.11).
Here's another citation, from the Financial Times, which is actually a very nice definition

"The style moderne, as it became known in France during its development in the 1910s and 1920s, reached its zenith at the great Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, held in Paris in the summer of 1925. Two principal characteristics dominate French Art Deco: its simultaneous expression of both modernity and national historical precedent, and its alliance of art and craftsmanship."

Again, if there's confusion, it can be clarified, but as far as I can see Style moderne is a correct term in French for Deco before it was called Deco, with the understanding that some Modernistes were more modern than others. . Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure the Financial Times is a reliable reference for the association between the terms Art Deco and Style Moderne. A book on Art Deco would be much better, of course. Also, there is a huge difference between Style Moderne and style "moderne" (from Art Deco 1910-1939, Benton et al). The latter is simply a style which is modern. For example Crystal Cubism, Futurism, Orphism were all moderns styles. The bas-reliefs of Bourdelle were in a modern style, but were neither called Art Deco, nor Style Moderne (before 1925). Unless a reliable source can be found on the topic, a clarification is in order, or simply, maybe Style Moderne should be removed from the lede, and explained in the "Naming" section where the term is already repeated. Coldcreation (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The Benton and Wood book seems pretty clear to me, and it's one of the most cited sources in English and French. Or there's this from the Encyclopedia Britannica on Line: Art Deco, also called style moderne , movement in the decorative arts and architecture that originated in the 1920s and developed into a major style in western Europe and the United States during the 1930s. Its name was derived from the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, held in Paris in 1925, where the style was first exhibited. Art Deco design represented modernism turned into fashion. Its products included both individually crafted luxury items and mass-produced wares, but, in either case, the intention was to create a sleek and antitraditional elegance that symbolized wealth and sophistication.' That seems good definition from a reliable source to me. I apologize, but I don't quite see the point that you're trying to make. Cordially. 19:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The Art Deco article in Encyclopædia Britannica was updated on 28 September 2016. You introduced the term Style Moderne (as a synonym for Art Deco) on 26 August 2016. Britannica most certainly extracted the Style Moderne term from the Wikipedia article. It is thus not a reliable source. All of the literature I've examined to date claim that Style Moderne is closely related to Art Nouveau, not Art Deco. You have yet to provide a reliable source that explicitly states Style Moderne is synonymous with (also called, or also known as) Art Deco. Until that source is produced, I will remove the term from the lede. Coldcreation (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's the Oxford English Dectionary definition of "moderne": Relating to a popularization of the art deco style marked by bright colours and geometric shapes. It's flattering to think that the Oxford English Dictionary and Britannica both copy their definitions from our Wikipedia articles, but I don't think it's very likely. I think there's abundant documentation, between Benton/Wood, the OED and Britannica that style moderne is a term for Art Deco. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, I wouldn't dismiss the Financial Times citation. It's an excerpt of the book "French Art Deco" by Jared Goss, published by Thames and Hudson and the Metropolitican Museum of Art in 2014. Goss is the Associate Curator of the Metropolitan Museum of Art for 19th Century, Modern and Contemporary Art.
There are four sources that "Style Moderne" primarily refers to Art Deco; the OED, Britannica, the Benton and Wood book, and the Jared Goss book. I'm sure there are more. That seems pretty convincing to me. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I think I've discovered the source of confusion about Modern Style and Art Nouveau. I read in the French article on Art Nouveau that in Britain around 1900 Art Nouveau was often called "Modern Style" in order to avoid using the French term. That seems the best explanation. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly: Style Moderne has been around since 1900. Art Nouveau: "Before the term "Art Nouveau" became common in France, le style moderne ("the modern style") was the more frequent designation." (Duncan, Alastair. Art Nouveau. World of Art. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1994, pp. 23-24. ISBN 0-500-20273-7). It is thus not synonymous with Art Deco, but with Art Nouveau. "Moderne" and "Style Moderne" have not the same meaning. Notice how Brittanica does not provide citations. They all get there info from Wikipedia now days. And, apparently, they do not always verify the source given. Coldcreation (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
With all respect, I believe you're mistaken here. There are four sources, Britannica, Larousse, jared Gross of the Metropolitan Museum, and the Benton and Wood book, that say Art Deco was called Style Moderne. It's quite probable that Duncan is also correct that Art Nouveau was also sometimes called style moderne, after the English term modern style, but that doesn't contradict the four sources that say that Style Moderne was the term used in France for Art Deco. The term moderne was used for anything that was new. I also think you would get a very astonished response from Britannica, Larousse and the Metropolitan Museum if you said they "all got their information nowadays from Wikipedia." They don't. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There are not four sources that say "Style Moderne" primarily refers to Art Deco; (a) The Oxford English Dictionary (just as Larousse) defines the term "moderne", not "Style Moderne". (Their definition of moderne appears not to come from Wikipedia). (b) The first sentence of Encyclopædia Britannica most certainly does come from Wikipedia. That they provide no source doesn't help undermine this probability. Britannica claims cannot be verified. This is unreliable by Wikipedia standards. (c) The Benton et al book Art Deco 1910-1939: reads L'art deco est le nom que l'on donna au style "moderne". They are talking about a style called "moderne", not a style called "Style Moderne". (d) Financial Times appears to be the only source that actually mentions style moderne (though in lowercase) as a term relating to Art Deco. Yet the dates mentioned of its development (1910s and 1920s) is in stark contradiction with many other sources (e.g., see above) that mention the style moderne (in both upper- and lowercase) as early as the Exposition Universelle de 1900, in relation to Art Nouveau. Coldcreation (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question above, as to the point I'm trying to make: When Wikipedia makes one mistake, or arrives at a false conclusion or erroneous interpretation, the ramifications can be widespread, if not devastating (in art historical context). Case and point: You arrived at the conclusion that Art Deco was also called Style Moderne, based on a source (Benton et al) that in effect said Art Deco is a name given to a style formerly called moderne (L'art deco est le nom que l'on donna au style "moderne"). Now several websites, including Encyclopædia Britannica, have promulgated (or mirrored) the same unfounded assertion, that the two terms are synonymous. We can correct the Wikipedia article, but the damage is already done; we cannot correct the misinformation in those articles outside of our purview. Sincerely, Coldcreation (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Coldcreation, I'm sorry to say that I think you're wrong about this. If the curator of Metropolitan Museum writes: "The style moderne, as it became known in France during its development in the 1910s and 1920s, reached its zenith at the great Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, held in Paris in the summer of 1925," I think that's an accurate statement from a reliable source. The same with Britannica; I don't give any credit at all to the idea that they copy from Wikipedia, they 've been among Wikipedia's greatest critics. What evidence do you have of that? There is a lot of confusion between the terms modernist and modern, but the sources I've seen say Art Nouveau was known as Art Nouveau in France and Art Nouveau or Modern Style in England. Attacking the sources you don't agree with isn't the way to go. Cordially,SiefkinDR (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the terms modernist and modern. There is a problem, however, with the term Style Moderne. Depending on the source consulted, the answer as to its meaning now, and how it was used at the time (before Art Deco) is different. There should be no hurry to adopt the meaning of one reliable source over another. In fact, since alternative meanings do exist for Style Moderne−some relating to Art Nouveau, some to Art Deco−there is no reason to confuse the reader.
As for sources and their inspiration from Wikipedia: before, Wikipedia was treated (mostly by competitors) as unreliable. Now, even museums such as the Museum of Modern Art in New York have replaced their artist descriptions with links to Wikipedia articles. The simple reason for this is the accuracy and reliability of the information and the availability and reliability of the sources provided. See here for example: Jean Metzinger at MoMA, or Picasso at MoMA. That is not to say that Britannica and the likes are all inspired by, or copy Wikipedia. The only evidence in the case of Britannica is the first sentence almost verbatim that of Wikipedia (before I removed the contentious term Style Moderne) and they revised their article approximately one month after you added the contentious term. Neither Britannica nor Wikipedia had provided a corroborating source backing the notion that "Art Deco" and '"Style Moderne" were synonymous. I have provided reliable sources that show they are not, you have since that they are. The term is still therefore contentious. Why insist on using the term "Style Moderne" if not all art historians agree on its usage? Coldcreation (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
That Britannica would copy text from Wikipedia is not at all surprising: even the the Defense Department 'plagiarized' Wikipedia, according to top lawmakers. The chances that both Wikipedia and Britannica would make the same mistake citing "Style Moderne" is dubious enough, let alone that the first sentences were quasi-identical. Coldcreation (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Cold Creation: The definition in Britannica has almost nothing in common with that in Wikipedia, except the general facts found in all sources and the mention that Art Deco was known as Style Moderne. There's no evidence at all that it was copied from Wikipedia. You've ignored the citations in Larousse, in the Oxford English dictionary, and in the article from the Curator of the Museum of Modern Art. How do you explain those? Your stubbornness in the face of stated facts is very impressive; you would make a good defense attorney. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You edited the Art Deco article here at Wikipedia, 26 August 2016:

"Art Deco or Deco, also known as Style Moderne, is a style of visual arts, architecture and design that first appeared in France just before World War I; it became very popular in the 1920s and 1930s."

Art Deco, Encyclopædia Britannica was updated on 28 September 2016. They write:

"Art Deco, also called style moderne , movement in the decorative arts and architecture that originated in the 1920s and developed into a major style in western Europe and the United States during the 1930s."

The definition in Britannica is strikingly similar to that in Wikipedia. It really makes no difference to me whether Style Moderne comes from you, from Britannica, or some other source. The fact is, the term was unsourced both here and at Britannica. I challenged it. You failed to produced reliable sources (except for one, the Financial Times article. Your other sources mentioned the term moderne, or a "moderne" style, which differ). I have provided numerous sources demonstrating that Style Moderne was in use as far back at 1900, well before the advent of Proto-Art Deco, and synonyms with Art Nouveau. Unless you would like to explain this controversy of terms in the article, I suggest we keep it out, so as not to engender confusion, or misinformation. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. Coldcreation (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

For some reason I can't fathom, you're ignoring the citations from reliable sources that say very clearly that Art Deco was commonly called Style Moderne in France; Larousse, Britannica, the curator of the Metropolitan Museum, and others. The definition in Britannica sounds "strikingly similar" to the one you deleted from Wikipedia probably because it was based on similar reliable sources, not because it was plagiarized from Wikipedia.
You're also ignoring the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines "moderne" as: "Relating to a popularization of the art deco style marked by bright colours and geometric shapes," not as a term for Art Nouveau..
The idea that Art Nouveau was called Art Nouveau in France is also based on reliable sources; Mr. Bing called his shop "Art Nouveau" well before 1900 and that helped popularize the name. That's found in all of the standard sources. Where did the term "Proto-Art Deco" come from? I haven't seen that term used anywhere. What is it? When there are two conflicting points of view, you either find a compromise or state both points of view; you don't accuse other editors of misinformation and inventing facts, you find a compromise. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Larousse says nothing of the kind. Britannica cites no source. Neither had you. Oxford English Dictionary defines "moderne", not "Style Moderne". The idea that Art Nouveau was also called Style Moderne is noncontroversial. You now have multiple reliable sources as testimony. The idea that Art Deco was called Style Moderne is controversial, even if for the only reason that so too was Art Nouveau. We already discusses Proto-Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For what it's worth, my paper 1976 Britannica says of Art nouveau ". . . in France it was called Modern style, reflecting its English origin", and of Art Deco "also referred to as moderne". Awien (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Awien, that's a very useful citation, and it illustrates nicely the different views on the subject. I think the best way to deal with this is to compromise, and to present the different versions with citations in the Naming sections of both the Art Deco and Art Nouveau articles. Then readers can decide for themselves. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Modern'style (Art nouveau): Le Dictionnaire Pratique de Menuiserie - Ebénisterie - Charpente, Par J. Justin Storck, édition de 1900. What is useful about Awien's post is that he cites a source that states Art nouveau was called Modern style. Art Deco was simply modern. The source I just posted shows the use of the term Modern'style back in 1900 as equivalent to Art Nouveau.
There is really nothing to compromise about here. Even the term modern refers to Art Nouveau. The term Art Nouveau first appeared in the 1880s in the Belgian journal L'Art Moderne. "In Russia, Saint Petersburg and Moscow were the two centers of production for Stil’ modern."(Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, Metropolitan Museum of Art). In Spanish Modernismo, in Catalan Modernisme, in Russian Модерн (Modern). Art Nouveau achieved further recognition in Italy with the Esposizione Internazionale d'Arte Decorativa Moderna of 1902, Turin. Before the term "Art Nouveau" became common in France, le style moderne ("the modern style") was the more frequent designation (Duncan, Alastair. Art Nouveau. World of Art. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1994). At the outset of World War I, Art Nouveau—expensive to produce—morphed into a more streamlined, geometrically rectilinear modernist style—cheaper to produce—that became known as Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the literature is very clear, the terms Style moderne (Modern style) are synonymous with Art Nouveau. It can be argued that Art Deco evolved from Style moderne, or that Style moderne was precursor to Art Deco. It cannot be said that Art Deco is also called (or also known as) Style Moderne. The preponderance of evidence from reliable sources present in the literature (current and from the epoch) is unequivocal. There is no ambiguity. The only source that appears ambiguous, at first glance, is the Financial Times article, by Jared Goss:

The style moderne, as it became known in France during its development in the 1910s and 1920s, reached its zenith at the great Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, held in Paris in the summer of 1925.

In his book, French Art Deco, Thames & Hudson and Metropolitan Museum of Art, 4 November 2014, Jared Goss, author of the Financial Times article writes:

Shortly after [Paul] Iribe's death in 1935, Louis Cheronnet, editor in chief of Les Échos d'art, described him as "...a precursor. Even before the war, it was he who laid the foundations for the simplification that is the true sign of today's art; and yet no one better represented that sort of art précieux—the refinements of which have their source both in the eighteenth century and in the style moderne of 1900—which had its last hurrah at the Exposition of 1925." (Goss, p. 105)

According to Louis Chéronnet, quoted in Goss (2014), style moderne existed in 1900 (without doubt as Art Nouveau) and ended in 1925. This coincides with what I have stated above that Art Nouveau was called Style moderne and that it morphed, or evolved—with the advent of Cubism and other influences—into Art Deco. While it is correct, then, to say Style moderne was also called Art Nouveau, it would be incorrect to say that Art Deco was also called Style moderne, since by 1925 it had its "last hurrah". Recall, this is when Art Deco began to flourish world-wide. Clearly, Art Deco picked up where Style moderne (Art Nouveau) left off.

The Jared Goss source is not at all ambiguous. What is ambiguous is the title of the Financial Times article ("Style moderne: What is French Art Deco?"). The only inconsistency (or inaccuracy) of Goss, is his claim that style moderne "became known in France during its development in the 1910s and 1920s". The literature shows Style moderne became known in France (and elsewhere) around 1900.

Art Nouveau (also called Style moderne), with Cubism en passant, evolved into (or laid the foundation for) a geometrical style later referred to as Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability of a staircase[edit]

So how picture become notable if no one can see it. Above all, its Finalist picture of last year, and also FP and QI. And there are no stairs yet. --PetarM (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

...its about Art Deco and this picture. --PetarM (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

We would need at least one reliable source that states this circular staircase is in the Art Deco style. Its circularity is not evidence of its Art Deco character, nor is the year of construction (1933) sufficient evidence. Is it published in any books on the subject of Art Deco? By the way, there is already a staircase in the article that is indeed in the Art Deco style. It is reproduced in practically all of the literature on the topic of Art Deco: Stairway in the hôtel particulier of fashion designer-art collector Jacques Doucet (1927). Here is an alternative view of the same staircase (upper level). I think you can see why it is notable. Coldcreation (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Coldcreation; I saw one stairs, true. Its part of this building: Nebotičnik. What is exactly border, to become Art Deco, i dont know. But together with marble and outer decoration, red border etc. Still has some feeling its different than others. Otherwise, look for instance this. I would say our case is better than this one. --PetarM (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

PetarM: Editors here at the Wikipedia encyclopedia are not supposed to give their point of view on topics, we don't decide what is Art Deco and what is not. That is left to the experts (art historians, museum curators, etc.), even if editors happen to be experts themselves. This is why it is so important to provided reliable sources for material published here. The publication of images that accompany texts must adhere to the same rules of notability. This, in part, is what makes Wikipedia such a valuable source of information to all who consult it. Coldcreation (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

True, will try to get some link. --PetarM (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the importance of attribution, but I'm nor sure if the article needs two images of the same staircase, particularly since the second image disrupts the gallery below. Wouldn't it be enough to have one image? Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The lower level of the stairway in the hôtel particulier of Jacques Doucet (1927) is in fact one of the most remarkable Art Deco interior design works following the 1925 exhibition. It is remarkable because it was created by artists who were at the forefront of Cubism and modernism in general (not designers). The staircase is all the more remarkable because, as mentioned in the article, and as can be seen in the image, Picasso's 1907 painting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is hanging in the stairwell. Historically, Les Demoiselles is the first work to employ the faceting of form (Cézanne aside) that would ultimately find its way into the mainstream, in the form of Art Deco. This painting—hung in this Art Deco staircase certainly not by chance—is essentially at the origin of Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I will move the image up so as not to overlap the gallery below. Coldcreation (talk)
Dear Coldcreation: "Demoiselles d'Avignon"was not the sole source of Art Deco it was just one of many. And also editing articles requires consensus with other editors. You can't change articles and take out sourced material just because you don't agree with it. This is a collaborative project. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You are correct SiefkinDR. Les Demoiselles was not the sole source. It was one of them. It was at the origin of Art Deco, nonetheless (along with other influences). Les Demoiselles was at the origin of the faceted aspect of geometric design, for which Art Deco is known. So far, I have not removed any sourced material. Quite the contrary actually. I've been restoring sourced material to the article that you removed (See this edit for example) as well as material for which consensus was obtained at Talk (see this edit for example). This is indeed a collaborative project. I see no problem or disagreement there. Consensus is required when controversial texts (your Style Moderne) or images (the spiral staircase above) are added to the article: Not for reliably sourced non-controversial material. Best, Coldcreation (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the best is that editors work together on this article, though I must say, I think the work you are doing personally is excellent (and so too on the Le Corbusier article). Cheers, Coldcreation (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)