Talk:Robert Rauschenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I can't read anything in the first line before "... and printmaker". Why's that? --KF 23:05, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dunno. Something happened between the first and second edits: either the submitter submitted corrupted text, or the database entry became corrupt. -- Someone else 23:09, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

really ok then

where is his art work?

more importantly where are the sources?

Art Pieces[edit]

  • Although it's always hard to pinpoint what works "define" an artist, I think that there are some better choices than the ones we have on the page right now. Copyrights are always tricky, so perhaps there's a reason why these are featured, but I think that one of his silkscreen works (Retroactive I comes to mind, or one of the "Ruminations" series) or his "cluttered" assemblages (such as Canyon or the one with the goat in the tire) would be more indicative of the impact he had on popular art. These were the types of pieces that really set him apart and gained him recognition. Any thoughts? Davemcarlson 08:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"As of 2003"[edit]

  • I notice that it says (paraphrased) as of 2003, Rauschenberg continues to create art. Does anyone have information that would enable us to update this to 2004, '05, or '06? Davemcarlson 08:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC) °==Personal== I think the information about Rauschenberg and Johns should remain private and professional here. There is no discussion about Rauschenberg's marriage to the artist Susan Weil or their son Christopher. Who sleeps with who isn't relative to an article about his work and likewise John's work. Modernist 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Basic information on marital status is usually considered standard material for biographies. If the spouse is notable in her own right then it is certainly worth noting. I can't imagine removing from his bio all information about the people with whom Pablo Picasso slept. So long was we use reliable sources and aren't engaging in gossip then the information is valid. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that if we included all the people with whom Pablo Picasso slept the article would increase in size to ten times what we have now. :) Modernist 03:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you're right, though we do include the top dozen or so. Regarding Rauschenburg, there are several online biographies and I did a quick review. Most mention his marriage to Weill and his friendship with Johns. One asserts a relationship with Johns, but it isn't the most reliable of sources. None mention his son's name. I'd suggest we mention his marriage to Weill and their son. Let's wait for highly reliable sources before we discuss the relationship with Johns in more detail. Unlike their friends Merce Cunningham and John Cage, Johns and Rauschenburg do not appear to have had an openly-acknowledged relationship. Scholarship, discretion, and Wikipedia may have to wait on the passing of the involved parties for the full history to be written. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Rauschenberg's relationship with Johns is pretty well documented, and suggesting it isn't as important as his marriage is a discriminatory double standard. Either both stay out, or both are included. In addition to that, if only the artist's work is to be written about, why mention his race? Surely, we can admire a Basquiat without knowing he was black and puerto rican, so why mention it? This is simply the art world acting homophobically, but not having courage enough to admit it. The reason Johns and Rauschenberg were not more open is because they knew they lived in a world that doesn't tolerate such openness, and that they might be ostracized from the world of fine art, which at the time was a bit of a "good ol' boys" club. This is also reportedly one of the reasons they refused to cohort with the up and coming Warhol, whose homosexuality is another "well-known secret." In addition, I find the analogy to Picasso offensive in that it suggests FROM is inherently lurid and perverse, and that the only reason to mention it is to wallow in gossip. It's one thing to delve into the myriad sexual escapades of Picasso, but to inform the reader about his heterosexuality and how it relates to his work is hardly tabloid. Johns and Rauschenberg were boyfriends, not some cheap one night stand. How could any biography whose authorship is the least bit concerned with truth persistently overlook this? The mention of race, gender, hometown, politics, etc. are all valid entries, but not homosexuality? who are you kidding but yourselves? (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear. gar in Oakland (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it shopuld be included because I do not believe that Johns is openly gay and there for it could count as libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Although, I realize it isn't important to most, I am curious, how he is identified as Cherokee. His grandfather, Robert was married to Tina (Tiny), who is identified as being a full blood Cherokee. From a genealogical point, Tina is Cherokee, it seems. But, she isn't identified as such anywhere in census records. Genealogy as a study, is of interest, more so since his unfortunate death. (user: gwytutsi; 14 may 2008)


I have been hunting down some of the sources for comments where I see the "citation needed" warning. In doing so, I have discovered that sections of this article have been copied verbatim from various web pages. Is this kosher? What is the appropriate course of action when such a section is found? --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If the original source counts as reliable, or if the material in non-controversial and isn't a quotation, then the material can be rewritten. If it's potentially controversial or if it's a direct quotation, and if the source isn't reliable, then the text should be deleted until a reliable source can be found. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been copy editing this article but didn't check the sources. I can work on rewriting as well.(olive (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC))
Two sections in particular are fresh in my mind. I'll rewrite them now. --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It still need work. Much of the article is copied from this: [1] --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Great. Thanks so much for the link. I can't do it today but will work on it tomorrow.(olive (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC))
I've started rewriting some of the plagiarized material, but got a little side tracked since I discovered some of Black Mountain College had been plagiarized as well. I'll continue on with both articles.(olive (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC))
Thanks so much for that -- I'll be away for a few days. I'll look in again on it next week. Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been sick and not up to doing much but will start in again on Monday. Never fear will wade through both articles and see what I can clean up. It may take longer than I'd hoped.(olive (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)(

Revert plagiarism[edit]

EqualRights. A lot of material in the article has been plagiarized so I am working on that. You reverted to a plagiarized version, I had reworded it. I'll add a reference immediately. Good call on the weasel wording.(olive (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I appreciate your goal and efforts, but the new revision continues to use weasel words ("was said to have ben influenced") attributed to an unreliable source (the self-published blog so I've removed the problematic text altogether for now. —EqualRights (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually I don't consider this to be weasel wording, but neutral wording, however I definitely did not catch the blog as a reference I'm going to have to look through the article carefully much more so than I have. I was only checking for plagiarized text, had planned to rewrite that text then make an overall check of the article, and was just using the references in place... sheesh.... Should have caught that. I think as you noticed, the text you removed was redundant and probably misplaced anyway. I hope to be able to do some serious work on this article soon, maybe today. Thanks for your input.(olive (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC))
And you're right. On checking it out this is a "weasely" phrase. I've never considered it so before since I always use it in a referenced situation in which the reference says somewhat the same .... but no that's no good. Thanks .... Learn something new every day .... And I thought I was pretty expert in "weaseling" .... hah!(olive (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

To add twp cents, - My impression for what it's worth about the Pollock the Bollock blog is it copies material from wikipedia and not the other way around..It's more likely the blog plagiarizes or rather just co-opts material from us and other sites, than vice versa.....Modernist (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Red and Black paintings[edit]

I've removed inaccurate information and will rewrite this tomorrow with source added.(olive (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Continuing to reorganize and look for plagiarized sections .... will add info on the "Combines"(olive (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC))

I doubt there is plagiarism, although nice work on the article so far..Modernist (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh,Thanks. I think there was more plagiarism than from just one source, but can't remember now. Yes, its possible the blog plagiarized Wikipedia... good point. I think if I can remember my own research, Black Mt College, linked from here was plagiarized as well, but not sure of the source ... will check it out ...Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC))


There are still some non sequiturs in the article but hope to deal with them soon.(olive (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

william edwin van brunt III[edit]

Rauschenberg was sued for a 22 year relationship with William E Van Brunt III, who was a business partner, contributer and involved relationship.

Shouldn't the main article mention WE Van Brunt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talkcontribs) 00:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the legal decision for that case, in favor of Rauschenbeg, in the event anyone wishes to write up that bit of history...

-- (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Frasier poster[edit]

I'm surprised the large RAUSCHENBERG poster on the apartment set of "Frasier" did not get a mention somehow in this article. "influences", "pop culture references"... something like that.-- (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I have removed [2] most of the external links as excessive, but was reverted with the note "Please be more selective. Some of these links are fine". Which ones? Vexations (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up the section somewhat .... if you see more feel free to continue. I do think its helpful to include sites where the work can be seen since we are restricted somewhat by copyright here, but remove if you think appropriate. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Littleolive oil, TBH, I don't think there are any links that add something that cannot be otherwise included in the article, except the oral history link (my bad), but for example, I really can't see why we ought to have a link to an article about a work by Andres Laracuente Vexations (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Vexations Oops, yes just delete it..I remember just glancing at that link (now my bad). I'm not attached to anything although it can be helpful to link to sites where the work can be seen as I mentioned, but again this may not be the place. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Foundation may be considered a spam link.... so removing. Removing everything else but oral history link so that should finish this up. I am easy to get along with.:O) Littleolive oil (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)