Talk:Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

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


Note: There is a temptation to refer to this as "the New York Guggenheim". However, see the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation; there are at least two other entities that could be called "the New York Guggenheim" (the SoHo and waterfront museums), although neither is in operation at this time. In text, I suggest we prefer using "the Solomon R. Guggenheim" wherever possible. Thanks. --k.lee

I've replaced the external-view photo with a larger one. As the old one was nice (and wasn't so cluttered with cars and street furniture) I've not deleted it, but left it linked from the image page of the new one. I've also added a section on how difficult it is to hang art in the Guggenheim, and (admirably, IMHO) resisted the temptation to call the Guggenheim the worst museum on earth, with all the style and character of a public toilet in Romford and suitable only for the same purpose. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It'd be nice to also have a bit of positive views/explanations to balance the immense criticism present in the article. --Menchi 21:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wright's original design[edit]

From Wright' Wikipedia page:

Its unique central geometry was meant to allow visitors to experience Guggenheim's collection of non-objective geometric paintings with ease by taking an elevator to the top level and then viewing artworks by walking down the slowly-descending central spiral ramp. Unfortunately, when the museum was completed, a number of important details of Wright's design were ignored, including his desire for the interior to be painted off white. Furthermore, the Museum currently designs exhibits to be viewed by walking up the curved walkway, rather than walking down from the top level.

From the museum's page:

He originally wanted to design a square building, the baroness preferred a round shape though. He also wanted it to be painted in bright red, she wanted it to be in white.

So, did he want it red or white inside? red or white outside? Square or round? Both versions should be consistent.

My father worked for Transit Mix which supplied the concrete and managed this project. He said that the architects insisted on a special concrete that would be perfectly white rather than the usual off-white color. That they had to keep it separate from all the other concrete in the yard. He always thought it was funny, because within a few years they had painted it white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

like a coffin[edit]

I recall the PBS series on Wright quoting the architect as saying that the Guggenheim was going to make the Met look "like a coffin." Can't find the quote on the net. Can anyone provide a source and the full quotation? I think it would be a great addition to the article. Bgruber 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

the show was on last night here, here's the full quote:

Wait 'til you see the blueprints for the Guggenheim. it's going to stand almost directly across from the Metropolitan Museum; it's going to make the Metropolitan look like a protestant barn.

here's an online article that contains the quote. Here's a really good one from Time magazine in 1959. I'll try to work it into the article when i get a chance. If someone else would like to do it first, go ahead. Bgruber 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


This article centers on criticisms of the shape of the museum. I think we deserve to see the positive or at least the original purposes of the design.

What artists have been featured here? What does the museum itself (not its architecture) attempt to accomplish?

Are there pop culture references to be displayed? (I think of the recent USPS Stamp featuring architectural works.) --Spesek 16:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

To anonymous user who added information about artificial light[edit]

I think your contribution is quite good, but it would be great to have a citation. Normally I would have left the article alone and left a message on your talk page, but since you're anonymous I decided to revert and leave you a message here. I hope you don't take offense. Bgruber 05:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hang "proud"??[edit]

The line "meaning that canvasses must be mounted proud of the wall's surface" doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

I can interpret "proud" to mean standing off of the wall (being that it's a curved surface) but I'm not sure if it's clear enough.

The wiktionary entry for proud/pride doesn't seem to include this usage of the word. Is there a better way to say this? Mondochrome 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How is the name pronounced in English?[edit]

goo-gen-hym —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Although the rotunda is generously lit by a large skylight, the niches are heavily shadowed by the walkway itself, leaving the art to be lit largely by artificial light.

I beleive the building was originally lit with skylights along the outside of the spiral, but they were replaced with artifical light to allow the museum to control the level of UV light reaching the artwork. This fact in the article is unsourced. Can anyone confirm/deny this? j.reed (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Main image[edit]

It's located in New York, the major US city; it's one of the major museums. How is it that the headline image is so poor? I'm thinking of File:Guggenheim museum exterior.jpg, which (a) is tilted (b) is 800 pixels wide (c) has a taxi, some streetlights, the back of a car, a crane, and some pedestrians in the way (d) is underexposed, and has a blown-out sky. I understand there are only so many places to stand, but how is it that a major, major museum in the heart of New York has such a poor image? Are there no New York Wikipedia editors with cameras? (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Classic art[edit]

The article should mention that the museum has one floor dedicated to classics. And that it prohibits photos everywhere, including in the floor filled with public domain works. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:Reliable source? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

News articles about the museum[edit]

See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Need better lead image. I'll try to get one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Article expansion[edit]

I have been working on expanding the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation article, and I have brought some of the new material here from that article. I plan to import more of it over the next weeks to provide a continuous history. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

New material under the heading "Critics"[edit]

This rather confusing material quoted below was thrown into the article with a citation that cannot be easily verified. 1)Is it correct? 2) What exactly does it mean? 3) Is it important enough to add to the article? Where in the article does it belong? Surely this heading is not helpful:

German born Hans Haacke exibition was censored by Guggenhein Museum in 1971. The exhibition included critics of the art museums connections including questionable real estate deals. [ref]Ulla Karttunen Aktivistinen taide, aikamme rappiotaide ? Magazin Taide nr 4 2008 page 42 (in Finnish): ”Saksalaissyntyinen Hans Haacke kuuluu viime vuosikymmenten merkittävimpiin taiteilijoihin, mutta hänen näyttelynsä Guggenheimmuseossa joutui ennakkosensuurin kohteeksi, niin kuin jotkut myöhemminkin. Haacken teoksissa on esitetty tieto taidemuseoiden taustayhteyksistä, muun muassa kyseenalaisista kiinteistökaupoista. Haacken teoksissa on arvioitu ”täysin vailla taiteellista laatua” oleviksi, ”koko taiteen käsitettä vastaan” hyökkääviksi. (toisin kuin esim Turkmenistanin pyhää kirjaa -- Ruhnama, ihmisoikeuksien loukkauksen välikappaletta, kiitetään ”taiteellisesta laadusta” ja ylistetään ”mestariteokseksi”.[/ref]

-- Ssilvers (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me. Someone has used Google translate and has pasted the result verbatim - delete it. Jack1956 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Jack. There's no harm in keeping the stuff on this talk page, whither Ssilvers has moved it, but it certainly doesn't belong in the article. It's not only inadequately referenced but, I fear, not notable enough for inclusion on the main page. Let it sit here, though, for anyone who may be interested, I'd say. Tim riley (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"The Collection" and "Library and Archives" sections[edit]

An editor wishes to add the following:

The Collection

The Guggenheim Collection is comprised of several very different, private collections. Central foundations are:

This section is redundant, as these collections are already discussed, with appropriate references, elsewhere in the article. Where each collection is discussed above, appropriate context and citations are give. In addition, this proposed new section is sourced only to the Guggenheim's own website, and in any event, the citation needs to have more information per WP:CITE. It may be that some of this information should be added to the penultimate sentence of the LEAD section of the article.

The editor also wishes to add the following:

Library and Archives

The Guggenheim Museum Library and Archives includes books and documents that help inform curator's understanding of contemporary artists and prepare for future exhibitions. The library and archives also house the institutional records of the Guggenheim museum, and can be accessed by making a private appointment. The Guggenheim library and archives are located in the Hudson Square area of Lower Manhattan.

Again, this proposed new information is referenced only to the museum's website. I am not sure whether this material is of significance, because no third-party references are offered. If it is of significance, there must be references to it in third-party WP:Reliable sources. This museum gets lots of press, so I am sure that if there is anything of interest in this paragraph, it has been reported on in the media or in third-party materials about the museum. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Information should not be added that is not properly referenced. As stated above, if this material really is significant there should be reliable sources available either online or offline to substantiate the addition. Jack1956 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


The Collection The Guggenheim Collection is comprised of several very different, private collections. Central foundations are:

* Solomon R. Guggenheim's collection of nonobjective painting.
* Peggy Guggenheim's collection of Abstract and Surrealist painting and sculpture.
* Justin Thannhauser's array of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, and early modern works.
* Count Giuseppe Panza di Biumo's holdings of European and American Minimalist, Environmental Art, and Conceptual Art.
* Major gifts have also been contributed by the Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation and the Bohen Foundation.[1]
Sure, these sections are discussed in other parts of the article, but the Collection is a separate part of the institution, and I think its description currently gets lost in the 'early years' section and 'the building' section- I know I was confused by by Justin Thannhauser's collection was described in the building section- this does not make organizational sense. Moreover, Peggy Guggenheim's collection is currently not mentioned in the article, neither are Count Giuseppe Panza di Biumo's holdings, nor Robert Mapplethorpe's.
Citations I can provide:
Peggy Guggenheim's collection is described in the article about that collection: Peggy Guggenheim Collection. It is also discussed in the article on the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. Now, I am beginning to feel that you are confusing the articles on the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, where all the collections are described, and the article on the NY museum, which does not house the Peggy Guggenheim collection at all. The article on the NY museum should only discuss that museum. For more general information about the Guggenheim museums, see the Foundation's article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor also wishes to add the following:

Library and Archives

The Guggenheim Museum Library and Archives includes books and documents that help inform curator's understanding of contemporary artists and prepare for future exhibitions. The library and archives also house the institutional records of the Guggenheim museum, and can be accessed by making a private appointment. The Guggenheim library and archives are located in the Hudson Square area of Lower Manhattan.

  • Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum Library and Archives Catalog
Again, the Library and Archives are discreet institutions which have sepearate projects, and staff than the museum on the Upper East Side, and they have received press for their projects. (see below)

:Citations I can provide:

OR drohowa (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

These citations show that some archives are online. They don't explain what part they play in the New York museum, which is what this article is about. Note that there are about a dozen articles releated to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

SSilvers, thanks for the link. I have read that article, and I think it's section on the collection is good, but I would still like to see the collection as an independent subsection from the institution. If you look at other museums such as the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art or most of the more complete museum articles, there is a separate section for 'collection' and 'collection highlights' that way, as people begin writing more about works in the collection, those works can be listed on the page. See also the Morgan Library & Museum.

The library and archives, also I believe should be described because they are departments within the New York institution that have particular histories of their own. I think this would be easier for anyone studying the history of the institution. OR drohowa (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The "collections" section is redundant in part, and inappropriate in part – as it includes some items that are discussed at length in the article, and some items that are not appropriate for the NY Museum's article at all, such as the Peggy Guggenheim Collection. That is discussed in its own article and in the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation article. OR's thoughts about improving the organisation of the article are fair enough, but this does not, I think, meet the case. Perhaps we can discuss that issue under a separate heading. Meanwhile, the citations given by OR here should be considered in the context of the citations already given in the article – some of these references, perhaps, can profitably be added where the collections are currently discussed in the article, and if they contain any important information about the collections that is not already discussed, that information should be added and properly cited. That would require someone to read those sources carefully and compare them to the current text. Otherwise, I agree with Ssilvers that a brief mention of the most important collections could well be added to the penultimate sentence of the lead section of the article. The library and archives paragraph does not, on the face of it, appear to contain any important information. It goes without saying that the museum has an archive for its records, and that the curators would use such materials to prepare for future exhibitions. This article doesn't really need to discuss those activities of the curators that are the normal business of museum curators. If it is of interest, it would need to explain much more clearly the importance of these materials to the NY Museum and/or the Foundation. Furthermore, the paragraph does not give the sources in-line, so that readers can see what statements are derived from which sources. The sources given, in any case, mostly seem merely to suggest that the archive exists, not what its importance, function and relationship with the museum/foundation are. As Jack1956 observes above, any material added should be cited (in-line) to reliable third-party sources to substantiate the additions. – Tim riley (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Guggenheim and GLAM-Wiki[edit]

Hi, continuing this discussion again. I am a Wikipedian-in-Residence and GLAM-Wiki organizer, and have been discussing with Guggenheim staff editing practices, and their plans to incorporate Wikipedia editing into some of the work of the museums staff and the archival/library staff, and possibly other departments. I believe that they are interested in writing articles on archival collections or items within the library and archives, and possibly also adding pages on exhibitions etc. I'm letting you know this because it is likely that they are going to be making changes to this page, and if you are administering the page in some way, you will want to know that they are involved in the Wikipedia:GLAM project, and will be aided by Wikipedians, including myself. I know editing the institutional page is not the focus of GLAM projects, but they may make changes to this page in order to direct visitors to the other articles they add, for example, if a lot of articles are added about items within the archive, I think that that warrants a discreet section called Archives should be added. OR drohowa (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great. Once there are related, well-referenced articles, it will be easy to add well-referenced summaries of key information to this article. Before you help the museum staffs, however it is important for you to learn how to use citations in Wikipedia. Every citation should give the following information, to the extent available: Author's name, title of article (and title of work in which it appears if it is part of a larger work), date of publication, publisher name, url, page number and accessdate. See WP:CITE, and more generally WP:RS, especially the part about self-published sources (WP:SPS). You should also review Wikipedia's manual of style: WP:MOS. And since you will be working with institutions that have a commercial interest in promoting themselves on Wikipedia, you need to understand our guideline on conflicts of interest: WP:COI. Most importantly, please make sure that copyrighted text is not copied into Wikipedia, except for directly quoted material used sparingly, per WP:QUOTE. See WP:COPYVIO. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Critics: Real estate deals[edit]

Ssilvers please explain yor removal [1]. I would like to have more data about the questionable real estate deals of Guggenheim in the article. This article also point out that Guggenheim has sensored art. Please tell more of this in the article.

German born Hans Haacke exibition was censored by Guggenhein Museum in 1971. The exhibition included critics of the art museums connections including questionable real estate deals.(ref. Ulla Karttunen Aktivistinen taide, aikamme rappiotaide? Magazin Taide nr 4 2008 page 42 (in Finnish): ”Saksalaissyntyinen Hans Haacke kuuluu viime vuosikymmenten merkittävimpiin taiteilijoihin, mutta hänen näyttelynsä Guggenheimmuseossa joutui ennakkosensuurin kohteeksi, niin kuin jotkut myöhemminkin. Haacken teoksissa on esitetty tieto taidemuseoiden taustayhteyksistä, muun muassa kyseenalaisista kiinteistökaupoista. Haacken teoksissa on arvioitu ”täysin vailla taiteellista laatua” oleviksi, ”koko taiteen käsitettä vastaan” hyökkääviksi. Toisin esim Turkmenistanin pyhää kirjaa -- Ruhnama, ihmisoikeuksien loukkauksen välikappaletta, kiitetään ”taiteellisesta laadusta” ja ylistetään ”mestariteokseksi”.

Watti Renew (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Other appearances in popular culture[edit]

I think it also appeared in Men in Black the movie as The perp (the guy with blinking pupils) and Agent J got into a chase at a building that looks just like the museum (it had the interior of the museum when J entered it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. 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. As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Karol Vail[edit]

Please note that someone started an article about the new Director of the Peggy Guggenheim Collection, who is also Peggy Guggenheim's granddaughter, Karole Vail. You can contribute to the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karol Vail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Uncited section; edit warring[edit]

I have deleted a paragraph headed "Controversy" which an editor keeps adding. It wholly fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria, being full of personal opinions, and containing no citations or supporting evidence. If what the paragraph says is accurate many of us would share the recent editor's abhorrence, but an unreferenced paragraph of WP:POV is not acceptable under WP's rules. Tim riley talk 07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. The editor has been edit warring to add the information and should, instead, present his or her sources here. Since this exhibit has not yet opened, see WP:CRYSTAL. See also WP:WEIGHT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
BTW, the museum decided not to include the criticized videos in the exhibit, "Art and China after 1989: Theater of the World," which opened without them on October 6, 2017. CNN noted: "... disturbingly, few in the art world have voiced a defense of the artists' right to show their work. Ai Weiwei, veteran artist-activist and an individual often on the sharp end of Chinese government censorship, was moved to declare that 'pressuring museums to pull down artwork shows a narrow understanding about not only animal rights but also human rights.' ... After the Tiananmen Square massacre ... many Chinese artists found themselves unable to exhibit, and many others emigrated. ... works from art's past, and the possibility of learning about the history of a particular period and perspective in art, becomes less available to us." "Should the Guggenheim have pulled controversial animal artworks?". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Architectural inspiration?[edit]

This is a request for the opinion of other users.@Yhesum: claims in recent edits that the work of "G. Momo was clearly the inspiration for Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim". After having examined the sources posted (and others), there appears to be no corroboration with that claim. While some have compared the Guggenheim Museum structure with the Bramante Staircase, there is no clear indication that Frank Lloyd Wright had ever seen, or been inspired by Giuseppe Momo's work. It looks therefore like a case of WP:ORIGINALSYN. Coldcreation (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This is pure speculation, and "frankly" dubious. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Moving this here from my Talk page:

Dear Ssilvers ...I do not understand your aversion for my little paragraph which is, at least for a trained architect, very useful to understand architectural evolution and inspiration. At first the source was missing, granted I diligently added them up later on for precision sake. Now you are telling us the sources are speculative and/or irrelevant. Well I am sorry that Guido Montanari of the Politecnico di Torino is not an expert in Hair (the show) or Lee F. Mindel recipient of twenty-eight AIA awards for architecture, seven Interior Design Magazine Best of Year awards for residential and commercial interiors; eighteen design awards from the Society of American Registered Architects is not an connoisseur of Kinky Boots. Even George L Hersey the Yale professor is wrong. So can you please explain what it is so objectionable in accepting the very evident similarities between the two projects which are for any trained architects quite palatable mentioned by the very relevant sources and experts in architecture ( not theatre) ? Have you actually taken the time to look at the two buildings? The oculus is almost identical, the spiral of the ramp extremely similar, the conclusion of the last ramp into the last floor by curved radius identical. Perhaps I imagine you are American and thinking that this might disparage FL Wright, you could not be more wrong if thinking that. Architecture is as any form of Art a progress, a process that improves the past and predict the future. This “philology” of the architectural language is one of the most essential part of architecture. And yes should be relevant and can be speculative and accurate at the same time. An oxymoron? no just art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhesum (talkcontribs) 02:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Dear WP:EDIT WARrior: Even if any of the mountain of stuff you shoved into article is valid, the point requires no more than a sentence. This is not an article about architecture, it is about a museum. Certainly it should go into the Design section and not have a new heading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mr Silver, I think you are quite right I also believe the paragraph should be a footnote at the bottom of the architectural/design section. However, may I remind you that when I did try that earlier on today the paragraph was also removed for a lack of references, when I did add them it was once more erased. I am quite happy to shorten it again and put it back in the design section. Alternatively, if more acceptable for your editorial taste I could create an ex novo page on the architecture of the Building. Either way I think it would be a lacuna not to have this little yet very important piece of information (not a mountain of stuff) mentioned about the building. Every article about St Peters tells the story of its inspiration that comes from the Brunelleschi Duomo di Fiorenza, the Rucellai Sepulchre from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre Jerusalem, Versailles from Château de Vaux-le-Vicomte, the English terrace houses from the King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London etc. Yhesum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhesum (talkcontribs) 03:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

First, let me say that you came very close to being blocked for Edit Warring. We do not work that way at this encyclopedia. If you make a change, and someone disagrees with you, *immediately* take the discussion to the Talk page and present your evidence there. Do not make the change again until an agreement or consensus has been reached. See WP:BRD. Your implication that other editors must do what you tell us to do because you are an expert in architecture is invalid, and your sarcasm was not appreciated or appropriate in presenting your arguments here. In fact, if you persist along those lines, you will develop a bad reputation here, and it will be less likely that people will take your arguments seriously in the future. This encyclopedia is written by WP:CONSENSUS, not by stubborn reverting, bullying and sarcasm. You should read these guidelines before you edit again, as they may help you behave in a way that will avoid you being blocked from editing at this encyclopedia for unacceptable behavior, such as you exhibited today. Another relevant guideline is WP:PROPORTION, which explains that, when we add information to an article, it should be proportional to the rest of the article. In this case, the article is about a museum. It already has a "design" section, and adding another section about the inspiration for the design would be out of proportion. I must also note that you made numerous spelling errors in what you wrote in the article. You need to be much more careful to proofread your contributions.
Second, I have read some of the sources that you cited, and they merely *speculate* that the Momo design inspired Wright, because the writers are struck by similarities between the two. Apparently, Wright never said so, and I don't see that you have presented any evidence that Wright was even aware of Momo's staircase, let alone studied it. Therefore, the most we can say is that these writers and academics have made such a speculation. It doesn't matter what we, as encyclopedia editors believe; we cannot reach beyond what our sources actually state. See our key policy, WP:OR, for more information about this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mr Silver, Thank you for your re-editing of the paragraph “on inspiration”. I would only adjust two small items yet important for conveying the information. On the first point may I suggest changing the wording of “some architectural writers” which seems to me a little generic and dismissive of the merits of the professor architects with “architecture academics” or “several professors of architecture”. Second point, the picture showing Giuseppe Momo’s Spiral from above does not help comparing the buildings similarities. The one I previously inserted was a picture showing the Vatican ramp from below looking up. This point of view encompasses the three main similarities item we are discussing. Which are the helicoidally spiral ramp, the glass oculus, and the balcony attachment to the ramp. Feel free to advise or modify. On the guidelines, I am afraid I know nothing about them. Until yesterday, I did not even know of the existence of the “talk” page, which alone took me a while to figure out. I rarely edit or propose articles online. I only do so in within my area of expertise when I really see a lacunose gap. On the “speculative” as I tried explaining architecture as a form of art and can be very speculative. We do not know Salvator Mundi was painted by Leonardo as a fact but the experts can speculatively agree it might be. Same thing with with Palazzo Piccolomini in Pienza and its influence by Leon Battista Alberti we don’t know for a fact this but most architecture scholars agree on it.

Off course no architect not even Wright would admit been influenced by this or that or one or the other that never happens. We do know Frank travelled to Rome and stayed there for a period in the early 50s. We know also hat there is no architect in the world that would not visit “la Fabrica di San Pietro” if in Rome visiting Rome. As for the sources, they are from expert academicians in the field of Architecture. Without irony or spite if you truly believe you know better than a professor of art and architecture of Yale or a professor at the Polytechnic di Torino about architecture by all means use your power of erasing and blocking and let this be the end of it. I will only add that I now realise why most professors I know at the athenaeum refuses to edit or consult Wikipedia. That is a great shame. Yours truly without malice or sarcasm, Yhesum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhesum (talkcontribs) 16:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about comparing the buildings similarities. It is about the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Also, it is insulting to suggest that Wright would not have admitted being influenced by a building or architect. The fact is, only a couple of people have noted any similarity between the two projects. Blowing this up to anything more is nonsense. Good day. Coldcreation (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The article maybe about Solomon R. Guggenheim as a museum but the “Design” chapter contained within it clearly talks in length about the architectural design and process and possibly, to avoid confusion and inexactness should be renamed “Architecture” instead of “Design”. Comparing buildings and delineating influential works, is the profession of many architectural academics namely at Yale and Torino Polytechnic “not a couple of people”* which as part of the design process is intrinsically part of the architecture advancement. As I said on an earlier comment if the consensus is that this page is not to talk about the architecture of the building perhaps, the creation of another page is in order especially considering the importance of it. When you suggest that I have being insulting, telling me, “Wright would not have admitted being influenced by.” you are misunderstanding my meaning entirely. Architects are always influenced by a multitude of factors and certainly among these are the architectural movements, other architects (dead or alive), building and materials, proportion of existing streets and many other aspects. In addition, nobody, unfortunately I would add, ever asked Wright that question. I am certain such a great master would not have been “offended” by such a legitimate and interesting architectural question. The more I read remarks like yours the more I feel that somehow maybe for a misplaced sense of patriotism or the misconception in a belief that great architects are unique and take all they ideas from themselves and saying otherwise would diminished their artist’s talent. Let me assure you that this is not the case. Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the gems of 20th century architecture, which makes even small information such as these the more important. Good day to you.

*remark I note to be sarcastic and worthy of blockage on this site according to your esteemed colleague Mr Silver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhesum (talkcontribs) 19:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I've gone through all the literature on this topic. It is nothing but speculation. I'm still waiting for the opinions of other editors to see if there is any consensus on the removal from this article of Momo's stairs. My opinion is that it should be removed. Coldcreation (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, guys. Yhesum, I have modified the text to specify that the writers are architecture professors. I'll defer to Coldcreation on the image; I'm not sure why she or he prefers one over the other, but you should discuss it with him/her. Thank you for contributing to the Talk page. Even though the above has been contentious, because we got off on the wrong foot due to the edit warring, I think you will see that if you engage on Talk pages in the future (instead of reverting), you will find people willing to discuss article improvement, and usually a good compromise is eventually reached, sometimes with more people focusing on the issue and making helpful suggestions. On the talk pages, you need to stick more to the *topic* and stop talking about your assumptions about why other people are making whatever arguments they are making. That is not helpful at all. I must admit that I have not read all of what you wrote above (see WP:TLDR), but please note that Wikipedia is not art. It is an encyclopedia that presents a summary of facts about the world. Again, please read WP:OR. As for this Guggenheim article, the Design section is probably too long, per WP:PROPORTION, and since you have background in architecture, you may be in a good position to suggest ways that we could streamline it and still retain the most essential information. As for academics, the reason that many of them do not contribute here is that they are underpaid people and want to get paid for their writing. They do not want to give it away to Wikipedia for free. Wikipedia is not only the biggest encyclopedia in the world (by a factor of 20), it is also the best, as many studies have shown, and it is free for all to use; people who have little or no access to libraries especially rely on it. So when you contribute to it, you are doing a good deed. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Quick note: As noted in the edit summary, I changed the image because this one is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons and is considered one of the finest images. Coldcreation (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I should note that I am still not sure whether the sentence that we have added about the similarity of the two designs (and the image illustrating the same) is helpful to this article, and I would welcome other opinions by additional editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
"... opinions of other editors ... on the removal ... of Momo's stairs" – IMO the current brief text and the picture are fine now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Michael Bednarek. I don't know that the short remaining addition adds a great deal to the article, but it seems to me harmless and unintrusive. Tim riley talk 15:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ssilvers, Thank you very much for taking the time refining the wording and changing the illustration of the “inspiration” piece. I think the material is now sufficiently informative for people interested in architectural derivations to further research the topic at their own leisure. Yhesum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhesum (talkcontribs) 12:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Signatures and the bold part in the 1st line below the edit window: "Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)