Talk:Sculpture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Sculpture was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
March 12, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted

Working on a new layout, a bit of patience please[edit]

I'd like to work on a different layout system for highly illustrated articles - what we have now (in general) seems to be a complete mess, and this article is pretty messy IMHO. I'll be done within a week with my experiment - a little patience please. I suppose everyday I could revert to my last version and start again, but what's the point? As far as I'm concerned almost any change to the visual layout of this article is an improvement.

Specific problems here:

  1. the number of photos at the top and the resulting stack totally clog things up.
  2. the galleries (and resulting stacking problems) clogs it up and overwhelms the reader with fairly small images. Bigger images in the galleries would generally be worse. I generally like galleries, but not so many large ones.
  3. toggling between "show contents" and "hide contents" results in a completely different overall visual - generally even worse for "hide contents"

What I'd like to come out of this:

  • A real layout guide for highly illustrated articles. Have you noticed that MOS:Images and WP:Layout really don't have anything about an integrated layout (especially for highly illustrated articles)? Rather they address the individual elements that are being laid out (concentrating on the trees rather than the forest), or just talk about section order.
  • a way to avoid or minimize stacks of images, which can appear in various (ugly) ways on different divices.
  • something here that people could come to - on various devices - and say "That really looks nice!"
  • the use of "upright=" (relative size) vs fixed px's

Any help or comments would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  • It would have been better to choose a smaller and less high-traffic article. Remember that images should face into the page. And that some of us have preferences set at 300px, where "upright 1.4" is just enormous. I never use the "scaling" parameters because they make no sense when there are other variables. The whole question of image size & placement has become much more complicated since the sizes of screens became so varied. I have to say that so far yours looks just awful to me. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer the way we had it. These articles aren't easy and IMO it worked - don't mess with it...Modernist (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the placement of photos on this page doesn't come even close to working - I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Look at everything from the History section and below. Huge galleries overlapped with different sized photos on the right result in visual overload, with the unbalanced overlaps making me nauseous. Look at the top - if you hide the TOC, you get a stack of 6 large photos going down to the 4th section, imposing a boring uniformity on the article blocking the entire rhs. As far as setting your preferences at 300px, I think you should set your preference back to normal and all changes in picture size should be set using scaling parameters. Imposing your px size on each picture on other people in a way that can't easily be changed, is just as annoying for them, but you can change your preference, and they can't change the size of each pic. Using the scaling parameters is clearly superior. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Image in "Materials and techniques"[edit]

I question the inclusion of the image by Arnold Henry Savage Landor, found in the Materials and techniques section of the article. I think that image is of a two-dimensional work. I believe this article is about three-dimensional work. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a painting of a carver carving, apparently large Tibetan letters - whether those letters count as sculpture is an interesting question. I'm not that attached to it - it's one of the few remnants of the old article. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request[edit]

File:HEECH.jpg
Nothing, Iranian sculptor Parviz Tanavoli's depiction of the Persian calligraphy of the word hich, meaning nothing, late 20th century (bronze) Niavaran Palace library, Tehran, Iran

Please note that on 30 April 2013 user Freshacconci deleted from the entry a photo of renown Iranian sculptor Parviz Tanavoli's work Nothing, citing as a reason "Not needed, not representative of sculpture historically", and advising me "do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Sculpture; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox."

I would like you to judge if the said user was right in deleting the picture rather than moving it to a more representative section of the entry, and that if I have committed vandalism in trying to introduce the work of a renown sculptor to the world.

I look forward to your judgment. --Echopapa echoromeo (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, he was correct to remove it. Does it really need explaining why? This is a very crowded article, and the work was obscure and by a relatively little-known atrtist. That does not mean it was vandalism to add it. I think the copyright status on the image file is incorrect also - the work is still in the copyright of the artist surely? Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • He was correct in removing it. There are thousands of sculptors whose work could be added to this article; we cannot add every artist...Modernist (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I do regret using the pre-written template warning as the wording is incorrect to this situation and I should have written a message in my own words. However, I do stand by my edit. Echopapa echoromeo has attempted three times to insert the image without explanation or an edit summary of any kind and three editors have removed the image. I explained in my edit summary that the image was not necessary and in an article spanning the history of sculpture, this particular piece is not appropriate. As Modernist has stated, we cannot add a representation of every artist so there needs to be a sound encyclopedic reason for including a particular image. You have provided none and in fact reverted other editors' edits without any sort of explanation. There are other articles that may be better suited for this image. An article such as this should only contain historically significant works. freshacconci talktalk 02:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt attention and reply--Echopapa echoromeo (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

wrong image[edit]

The image labelled "tympanum of Vezelay abbey, Burgundy, France, 1130s" in fact shows the 19th century tympanum on the West Front by Viollet-le-Duc, which replaces the original destroyed during the French revolution for which there is no evidence of its appearance. The reknowned surviving 12th century carved portal with tympanum is found inside the building, marking the passage from the Western narthex to the nave of the church. Mattymootoo (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed & the image file corrected, though it is still used wrongly on lots of other language WPs. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I just removed this phrase[edit]

Sculpture is often used mainly to describe large works, which are sometimes called monumental sculpture, meaning either or both of sculpture that is large, or that is attached to a building.

because, if for no other reason, it really does not work as a sentence very well. Also, I am not quite sure what it means. And you? Einar Carptrash (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What it says? Figures 1 inch high tend not to be called sculptures, nor do figures in eg porcelain. Needs a bit of a rewrite though. Johnbod (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we can be pretty sure that any sentence that combines "often used mainly," " sometimes," either or both," and "or" could profit from a rewrite. A reference would be nice too. Carptrash (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

bronze contracts as it cools[edit]

Unless this is verifiable, I believe that "Common bronze alloys have the unusual and desirable property of expanding slightly just before they set, thus filling the finest details of a mold. " is incorrect. It is my experience that bronze goes into the mould, takes the impression from the walls of the mould and shrinks away as it cools, details being determined by the quality of the mould, the material the mould is made from, the temperature of the mould, the temperature of the bronze when it is poured into the mould and the rate at which the bronze cools in the mould, to name just a few of the factors involved.


lutedcrucible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutedcrucible (talkcontribs) 14:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Chinese sculpture[edit]

Make a separate article...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is titled 'Sculpture', not 'Western sculpture', and therefore should feature sculptures worldwide without bias. Are you saying Asian sculptures shouldn't be discussed in details in this article and should be excluded to their own articles? -Anddme (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia in case you aren't aware. We discuss sculpture from all over the world in this article and yes western sculpture as well. If you are so inclined to see an article on Asian or Chinese sculpture then create one...Modernist (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
However English is the International language and therefore should serve to best represent the views from all people around the globe. Yes, you do discuss western sculpture, to the point you won't even allow me to add some diversity to the lede images. In case you haven't realised, 90% of the text and images in this article are devoted to western sculpture already. Btw, I'm not inclined to see an article on Asian sculpture; I'm inclined to see an article on sculpture with sculpture and its development from all over the world featured equally and without bias. -Anddme (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
So you are still saying Asian sculpture should not be discussed in details in this article, and should be relegated to other articles with such links -- which is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm not only interested in Chinese sculpture, but Japanese, Indian as well. And I think the historical development of these sculpture styles should be discussed in the same details as western sculpture in this article. -Anddme (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me? All the subjects are linked to more complete articles without exception. This article covers an enormous worldwide field; if you think those subjects need more intensive coverage then make an article...Modernist (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


I understand what you mean. Just wanted to reiterate my standpoint: I'm saying historical development of Asian sculpture styles should be discussed in the same details as western sculpture in this article (like from Ancient Greece to Renaissance, to Neo-Classical). (I'm not talking about article linking. Of course all the subjects in this article are linked to more complete articles, West or East, but they are not discussed in the same details in this article.)

I summarise your standpoint as such: This is English wikipedia so this article should have a natural focus on western sculpture. If this is your opinion then I understand and repect that, though don't personally agree.

Thanks for the suggestions (not personally interested in African sculpture though). Will do.

-Anddme (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I am very curious to see what gets discussed here and what get moved to other linked articles. I might even pitch in at some level, who knows. Carptrash (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As the article explains, sculpture (at least large sculpture) became significant relatively late in the history of Chinese art, and, in terms of what survives, the same is true of India. I doubt it is true that "90% of the text and images in this article are devoted to western sculpture". The Chinese section could be longer, but the Pre-Columbian American section seems the one most obviously too short, maybe followed by the Ancient Near East. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
90% was an exaggeration of mine. I was just talking about the fact that only western sculpture gets discussed in various laid-out stages of development in this article. I would also like to divide Chinese sculpture in similar laid-out stages, as the sculpture style got influenced by and evolves with dynasty change, religion spread, etc. -Anddme (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
One of the features of Chinese art is that it continues to look back at traditional styles and forms, so the changes in style are less marked than in Western art. I suggest you start by creating Chinese sculpture, much of which can be compiled by extracting sections from existing articles on Chinese art at different periods (explaining in the edit summary when and where from material is borrowed), and then gaps filled in. Or even just expanding the material at Chinese art. This could then be summarized here. But there certainly isn't room to treat every culture here at great length, and we should concentrate on what is most significant and typical. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks John. Got it. I think another reason why changes in style are less pronounced in Chinese art is that China was more of a unified culture throughout its history, while the European culture was divided among different countries so that new styles could pop up from different places and influence each other more easily. -Anddme (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
That too. As you've seen, I've added a bit & will try to add more in the New Year, Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Statues of Historical Females[edit]

In terms of public art, I hereby propose a new article devoted to the sculptures of historic women (rather than symbolic or mythological representations). In Boise, Idaho alone we have the Anne Frank Human Rights Memorial, as well as statues of Anne Simplot and Julia Davis. kencf0618 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sculpture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sculpture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)