Talk:Campbell's Soup Cans/Archive 1

GA Passed
This article has passed the GA noms. Here are some more suggestions to bring this article to FA-class. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tarret 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of Campbell's Soup Cans
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6 feet, use 6 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 6&amp;nbsp;feet.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.

Suggested table (unfinished)
--Gkklein 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of lead section
Please explain why you have reverted back to a lead section which is full of unsubstantiated POV editorial statements and bad sentence construction. Take the first sentence:


 * In the art world,(unnecessary - it wasn't just in the art world: it was the whole world)
 * See hatnote on article page to see which definition is for the whole world and which ones are for the artworld.
 * Campbell's Soup Cans originally referred to (didn't refer to them: it was the title of them)
 * Proper correction.
 * 32 small (not necessary - the size is stated)
 * Again PC.
 * 20"x16" canvases of portrait paintings (not necessary, sounds weird as portraits are normally of people, should at least be in inverted commas)
 * Warhol changed the artworld by making this subject Kosher and thus I think he changed the implication of the word portrait, but I have to find sources for that.
 * of Campbell’s Soup cans ("of...of..." is clumsy and confuses the meaning)
 * that Andy Warhol produced (bit ambiguous, could mean he produced the soup cans)
 * O.K.
 * in 1962 for his first gallery exhibition of the then 32 varieties of soups (does this mean it was his first ever gallery exhibition or just the first one where he exhibited the soup can images? Also to be more accurate his first gallery exhibition was not of "the then 32 varieties of soups" - it was of his paintings of the then 32 varieties of soup - no need for plural. Also "of... of..." yet again)
 * Warhol is like a two sport athlete. He can make multiple professional debuts.  Each is notable.
 * made by the Campbell Soup Company.(I think it is clear by now that Campbell are the company. Also which is correct Campbell's Soup as earlier or Campbell Soup as here, or should it be Campbell's soup?)
 * It is not Campbell Soup for the soup, but it is for the company. Look at the image in the upper right close up.

I did work to improve this, take out editorialising fluff and strengthen sentence construction, but I'm not going to bother if you're just going to revert without any discussion or even stating a reason in the edit summary. This article needs revising. Tyrenius 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Response to 23:20, 21 January 2007: We have not established any such thing.  If you don't know what the meaning of the phrase first one man show is, it means that an artist has displayed art in shows along with other artists.  This show is the first show including only his work.  I truly think you are a high brow vandal.  I will revert by the end of the day if you have no further issues. Also see below which was moved to this section after missing your 64.107.1.104 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement that overlooked 23:20, 21 January 2007.
 * I am on a 15 minute internet computer and may get booted any minute. I will rethink the intro and get back tomorrow.  However, Let's start Campbell's Soup Cans in general means the subject of the artwork.  In the artworld it means the artwork.  I.E., CSC means what you buy at the grocery store in the real world.  In the art world it means what we are talking about on this page.
 * Real world = CSc or Csc (do you know which is correct?). This title is CSC.
 * Yes small and 20"x16" are redundant. One or the other probably is sufficient.  Will rethink.
 * Might as well be specific with the measurements.
 * canvases of portrait paintings is necessary to distinguish artworld def from real world def.
 * Portraits are normally of people. It is clumsily expressed to say "canvases of portrait painting of..."
 * of-of. I believe the object of each preposition is clear.
 * Yes, it's clear, but it's bad style.
 * Produced. Choose your verb for what a silkscreen painter does.  Will rethink.
 * Nothing special about my choice. Many alternatives.
 * First one man show. Should be clear from article.  He had an earlier show as a commercial illustrator.
 * The lead needs to be unambiguous. The lead is meant to be a shortened form of the article for people who don't want to read the whole thing. It's not an introduction: it's a Reader's Digest version.
 * Campbell's. I am trying to work in wikilinks to the company, soup cans, etc.
 * Only need wikilinks if they are useful. Too many get confusing and irritating for the reader.
 * I think the company is Campbell Soup. The product is Campbell's Soup.  Not sure. Will check. TonyTheTiger 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Important to get it right. This is a definitive reference work! Tyrenius 00:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to clean up everything, but your editing reduced the significance of many points and obscured others. Now one does not know that these were for his first one man show, instead they are for his inauguration. The 3 points of importance have disappeared. I will return to this later. TonyTheTiger 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We've established that the "first one man show" is ambiguous in meaning and inaccurate, as it is not actually his first one man show. I await your specific points as to what information needs to be included. Tyrenius 02:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, this was his first one man show. There is no reason to believe that the commercial illustrator show was a one man show because all references refer to this as his first one man show.  Do you have a source that says otherwise? I truly believe you are a high brow vandal. I apologize that my answer below overlooked your 02:25, 24 January 2007 response. TonyTheTiger 16:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In all honesty I don't much like your edits because they are entirely obfuscatory. You basically take every important point and make it less clear
 * You make it unclear that the first 32 painting were for his first one man show. Instead you refer to his inauguration.
 * The original didn't make it clear to start with. Please see my earlier post which I have bulleted for clarity. You've already said it's not his first one man show - that he had one earlier of commercial paintings. This needs to be clarified.
 * I don't know whether he had one man commercial illustrator shows.
 * You make it unclear whether he became the highest priced living American artist based on "a wide variety of art works depicting Campbell's Soup cans"; based on other images from the world of commerce and mass media; or based on His reputation growth.
 * I don't see that as critical. It's just saying that that's what he became eventually. I don't even think it's necessary to say that in the lead section anyway.
 * Although I don't think the largest single subject museum is that important, I think the fact that a soup can became the highest price painting by a living American is important to note.
 * You erase my clear tripartite statement on why the original 32 pieces are important.
 * Provide verifiable references please.
 * I will get back to this, but think the body is chock full of refs.
 * You eliminate my discussion of the speculation of his motives which is a large part of the article.
 * Provide verifiable references please.
 * As above body is full of refs.
 * Your recent correction of my additional sentence is ridiculously vague referring to "that subject", which by that point is probably referencing works about his reputation, instead of my very clear "drawings and paintings depicting Campbell's Soup cans.".
 * I've added mention back in.
 * Your wikilinks removals necessitated a dab page where they could be included
 * Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
 * The dab link at the top (Hatnote, I believe, but could be using the term incorrectly) was the result of removed wikilinks.
 * At this point, clear up the first 5 bullet points or I will revert back to my version with the addition of the hatnote. TonyTheTiger 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is a hat note? My version is not set in stone, as you seem to imply. Collaborative editing is contributions from different people to work towards a resolution. It's not a question of either/or, keep/revert. It should be an evolving text. Tyrenius 00:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am glad to have the attention of people who care enough to give feedback. I will return tomorrow or Saturday for a little while to this page.

You said earlier:
 * First one man show. Should be clear from article.  He had an earlier show as a commercial illustrator.

That is a complete contradiction which makes nothing clear. If he had an earlier one man show, then this is his second one man show. Do you see why I am querying your text? OK, I've qualified it - his first one man show as a "fine artist". That's accurate. The former version wasn't. Tyrenius 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius asked me to take a look at this article since I had edited it earlier. It is definitely improved since it was at FAC. However the lead still seems unbalanced. It seems like it should focus more on the motivation for and reaction to the work itself, rather than on Warhol's later success. e.g, the fact that he has the largest single artist museum doesn't seem relevant enough to the subject to appear in the lead. I think a better focus on the motivation/reaction surrounding the work could relieve two of Tony's concerns above, while adhering more to specific supported facts, rather than using broad statements such as "transformational contribution to the art world," could alleviate Tyrenius's concern about references. Looking over the rest of the article, it needs a detailed copyedit before it his FAC again. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should focus on the Soup Can work. It needs to be longer, but with specific facts, not generalisations. Tyrenius 13:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Why did you blow away all the internal wikilinks? TonyTheTiger 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * above post copied from my talk page. Tyrenius 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't blow away all the wikilinks. There were 4 left in 3 short paragraphs, and I've just reinstated a 5th omitted by accident. The wikilinks are now to important subjects. If there are too many wikilinks it makes the text harder to read and also makes it hard to pick out the significant links. I don't think "canvases" needs a link here, or "(tin) can". People know what these things are, so it's not essential, as opposed to Abstract Expressionism, which is a good link. It's a matter of evaluation as to what the reader will find useful in the particular context. Let us be judicious. Overkill is counter-productive. Tyrenius 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Useless information
Here's something I removed earlier, and you objected to its removal:
 * In fact, he had three distinct phases in his career in which he expended a great deal of effort producing Campbell's Soup can works.

If you are going to say that there are three phases, then you have to give an indication what each of them is. Otherwise the words are meaningless. "Expended a great deal of effort" is weasel wording. It means nothing How much of an effort is a great deal? Give us the facts. If you said he produced a total of 2000 paintings or somesuch, then it would be useful. Tyrenius 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Films
It says, at the end, something like "his films were better than his paintings"; but there is no information on his films!

Martin | tk 06:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for carefully reviewing the article. This is not an article about Andy Warhol or The Factory.  You can probably find that information in other articles.  I will spend some time making a quick reference to his film roles earlier in the article. TonyTheTiger 03:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree now. The title does control the scope of the article. I had seen the Paul Morrissey films, Dracula and Frankenstein, and that actually prompted my note. Thanks for your references to Andy Warhol and The Factory. I see the list of the many films they made. Martin | tk 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I had considered making revisions to the article. However, as you seem to have determined, the article is not really about those other subjects. TonyTheTiger 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Four Colored Campbell’s Soup Cans.jpg
This image concerns me. The article says it's from 1965, but the font on the labels is clearly Frutiger, which didn't exist before 1976. The cans look more like the current design than anything from the 1960's. Compare File:Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg. Dyfsunctional 18:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This image is a painting by self-described Warhol protege Steve Kaufman. I've removed it from the article. Thanks are due to User:TonyTheTiger who pointed this out to me on my talk page. Dyfsunctional 16:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Castelli/Costelli
Isn't the spelling Leo Castelli, not Costelli? Bus stop 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects
I must say i think you are overdoing it here - VA of course, Media ???, New York ok, but Pittsberg & Pennsylvania, just because (like most major cities in the US & many in the world) they happen to have an example or two in museums - its too much! Johnbod 03:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Off topic text?
I'm unsure whether a couple of text fragments should stay - they seem to wander too far off topic for me:


 * He returned to Blum’s gallery to exhibit Elvis and Liz in October 1963.[3] His fans Dennis Hopper and Brooke Hayward (Hopper's wife at the time) held a welcoming party for the event.[32] from The premiere


 * a man who once made set the record for the largest credit card transaction when he purchased Lichtenstein's "I...I'm Sorry" for $2.5 million with an American Express card.[61] The $11.8 million Warhol sale was part of the Christie's Sales of Impressionist, Modern, Post-War and Contemporary Art for the Spring Season of 2006 that totaled $438,768,924.[62] from Variations.

Wrap up is also a somewhat interesting heading. Why not Phases? Wrap up sound very casual, and does not seem to be (what I'd understand) a wrap-up to be. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Image
Image has been deleted by User:Roofus citing fair use infingement. What is the word on that? &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use issues were dealt with on Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans, although the comments were deleted rather than struck. --Wafulz 01:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the page and the image should have been protected? I don't know, but it's kind of ridiculous... coming to the page and not even seeing the work of art the article features, even though that's now fixed. &mdash;Amada 01:40 May 10, 2007 (UCT)
 * I think protecting the featured article is frowned upon because we're presenting ourselves as an open project. Relevant discussion is on the talk page of Main Page featured article protection. --Wafulz 01:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like having featured articles unprotected. They are watched closely by vandal hunters and relatively safe.  Having them open really does make a statement about wikipedia. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 02:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Very Detailed, Well Done
Very detailed and well done. Class B or better article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gautam3 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Very interesting, & good article, but...is it art? Lindsay 08:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um didn't you come to this article because it was TFA? Nil Einne 09:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course is it. How cliche do you wanna be? (referring to asking whether it is art). lol. It is an artwork in the practical sense as well as having a thorough underlying concept. This isn't the place to discuss it though, sadly. Good article but, folks. Rothery 09:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are we debating if Worhol's work was art?? Gautam Discuss 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)/b>}
 * We're not; we're discussing if the article on his work is art. At least, that was my (joking) question ~ the antecedant to it was article.  Cheers, Lindsay 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad; I read your joke incorrectly and went off on a tangent... Quite embarrassing. Rothery 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have about 350 edits on this article. It was not art it was slave labor. :-) TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not slave, perhaps, but certainly a work of love; and a successful one, at that. I really did enjoy reading the article, even though i gave a flip comment.  Wikticles like this give me hope for this project; well done, and thank you, Lindsay 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Possessive apostrophe?
In 1st para...

Campbell's Soup Cans' reliance on themes...

...should it not be:

Campbell's Soup Cans's reliance on themes...

(cans's not cans')

...?

Reasoning: Campbell's Soup Cans is the name of a single work of art. Hence its possessive is 's. (If on the other hand we were talking about the cans of soup IN the work of art, we could say something like: "In the painting, the Campbell's Soup cans' labels are all red.")

I know how touchy people can get about punctuation, so I'll wait for a response before I edit. Ryancolm 14:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The general rule is that you write as many s's as are actually heard when the word is spoken. Hence Jesus' s sermon, the can' s contents (singular), and the cans' contents (plural) are all correct. In the case of Campbell Soup Cans, I think most people only pronounce one s following Can. — Loadmaster 22:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Loadmaster, that is, without doubt, the clearest explanation of the apostrophe rule I have ever seen. I commend you (albeit, 3 years after the event, lol). BlueRobe (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Is it always like this or is it just today that this article has been a vandal magnet? Rklawton 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Any featured article of the day (2007-05-10) is a target for vandals. — Loadmaster 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Main Page featured article protection should be redrafted or not? Please help form consensus at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. DrKiernan 09:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:100 Cans.jpg
File:100 Cans.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Campbell's Tomato Juice Box. 1964. Synthetic polymer paint and silkscreen ink on wood.jpg
File:Campbell's Tomato Juice Box. 1964. Synthetic polymer paint and silkscreen ink on wood.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Big Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg
File:Big Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NYC template
I have been overruled on adding several project templates to this article. However, adding the WP:NYC template seems to be important. I know at WP:CHICAGO we care about our art. I find it hard to understand that NYC folks don't care about theirs. I also feel that if something were to happen like they decide to take it off of permanent display or lend it out for a Wharhol exhibition, cultured NYC folks who read the Sunday Times might contribute to the article as effectively as art buffs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If this were an article about mid-20th-century art in NYC, then it would definitely belong to WPNYC. Direct relevance to the city is not claimed in the article.  Art collection, from an artist who was in NYC.  Too many levels removed IMO.  Not enough relevance is drawn to NYC in the article. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that going forward, the many of the most likely things to impact the article are New York type news. The painting is not likely to change and its place in art history is not likely to change.  Components of the Museum of Modern Art collection that have achieved WP:FA status should be watched by the NYC project, IMO.  I am just sort of looking at it like how we look at stuff in Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting point, but speaking generally, I think art people (from all locations) would be most likely to hear about a change in status. NYC non-art people may also hear about it, but that would be secondary IMO.  I can see how the movement or change in status of part of the MOMA permanent collection could be relevant to NYC, but this is a future hypothetical.  If there were someone in WPNYC who was interested in art and sees this article as relevant to the project, I would certainly not oppose them adding this article to the project, but that person is not me.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, you could take half of the article that are of low importance to the project (Category:Low-importance New York City articles) and remove the WPNYC tag from their talk page and say it is just not important enough for the project to have this particular article tagged. My point is that a single piece of art in the MOMA collection is probably a low priority article for the project, but it belongs in the project.  Most articles about physical objects belong in some geographically oriented project.  In this case, NYC is the project.  I have been through the low importance/almost no importance debate with several articles at WP:CHICAGO and in fact two articles out of about 15000 that I think should be in the project have been so adamant that they have against my better judgment been removed from the project.  I, of course, would like to have Jon Corzine and Wicked (musical) in the Chicago project, but the most active editors have rejected our projects involvement.  In this case, I am on the other side as the primary author and want a particular project tag to remain on my article.  I have been of the impression in my other two arguments that the wishes of the primary author are what should prevail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Will mark it as low importance.  Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Biographical Detail
If this piece is about the 1962 piece it starts with, does it need to include so much biographical detail?Research Method (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest

"Early career

New York art scene

Warhol arrived in New York City in 1949, directly from the School of Fine Arts at Carnegie Institute of Technology.[8] He quickly achieved success as a commercial illustrator, and his first published drawing appeared in the Summer 1949 issue of Glamour Magazine.[9] In 1952, he had his first art gallery show at the Bodley Gallery with a display of Truman Capote-inspired works.[10] By 1955, he was tracing photographs borrowed from the New York Public Library's photo collection with the hired assistance of Nathan Gluck, and reproducing them with a process he had developed earlier as a collegian at Carnegie Tech. His process, which foreshadowed his later work, involved pressing wet ink illustrations against adjoining paper.[11] During the 50s, he had regular showings of his drawings. He even exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art (Recent Drawings, 1956).[8]" be deleted, as it is irrelevant to the art work being discussed.Research Method (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Or rather most of that shuld be in the biographical article.Research Method (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exagerated Importance of This Work
"Because of the eventual popularity of the entire series of similarly themed works, Warhol's reputation grew to the point where he was not only the most-renowned American pop art artist,[6] but also the highest-priced living American artist.[7]" This, and other statements wrongly imply that this work is significantly more important than other works of warhol, such as the 1962 Marilyn Diptych, 100 Coke Bottles and 100 Dollar BillsResearch Method (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, in 2004, his  Marilyn Diptych of 1962 was named the third most influential piece of modern art in a survey of 500 artists, critics, and others.[4]Research Method (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of checking whether the source made the claim as stated.  Ty  02:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this article about 32 Campbell's Soup Cans, or all of 'em?
I added the following text, which has been removed as irrelevant- "Andy Warhol's first New York solo Pop exhibit was hosted at Eleanor Ward's Stable Gallery November 6-24th, 1962. The exhibit included the works Marilyn Diptych, 100 Soup Cans, 100 Coke Bottles and 100 Dollar Bills." I also changed the first line to "32 Campbell's Soup Cans", as the article is about that one work, I think. Both have been reverted. Any thoughts?Research Method (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For what its worth - Andy Warhol had several shows at the Bodley Gallery long before his shows at the Stable Gallery..Although the show at the Stable Gallery put it all on the map...so to speak. Modernist (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So is the article about "32 Campbell's Soup Cans", or all of them?Research Method (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is about a work called "Campbell's Soup Cans" which is the title of the piece described by the Museum of Modern Art which owns it, as "Campbell's Soup Cans. 1962. Synthetic polymer paint on thirty-two canvases, Each canvas 20 x 16" (50.8 x 40.6 cm)", i.e. the work shown in the infobox consisting of images of 32 Campbell's soup cans.  Ty  02:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case why does it cover a few of his other works on that theme. They should be in a separate article, or this article should be about all of them.Research Method (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The background is useful to the understanding of the piece - why don't you learn how to spell? - separate xx - separate is correct...Modernist (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. The article is about this set of works, and it brings in related aspects. I don't see any problem. This is a standard approach. You might note, RM, that this article has been through a rigorous feature article review.  Ty  02:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Today, the Campbell's Soup cans theme is generally used in reference to the original set of paintings as well as the later Warhol drawings and paintings depicting Campbell's Soup cans." - according to this article. Shouldn't there be a disamiguation page, and a separate article on other Campbell's Soup cans, or they should be included here.Research Method (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is fine as is...although it can use fine tuning..Modernist (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RM, I suggest you write an article Campbell's Soup Cans variations to cover all the relevant material, including all the material that you say is missing. The section "Variations" in this article can then contain a link to it as the main article on that subject.  Ty  03:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I am saying that this article is confused.Research Method (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Modernist, it may benefit from some tweaking, but the basic premise seems sound, namely the importance of the original 32 and an outline of related material, which can be expanded on in a separate article. Fairly standard approach, I would have thought.  Ty  06:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever your belief about the importance of the variations, you can not change the title of the primary artwork or series of works.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But perhaps there should be a disambig page = 100 are fairly important too.Peas &amp; Luv (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to disambiguate to. There is no article on 100 Campbell's Soup Cans. If one is written, then a wikilink via see also or "main article" template would do the job.  Ty  04:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it very confusing to read an article about "Campbell's Soup Cans" which is about one painting called "Campbell's Soup Cans", and partly covers other "Campbell's Soup Cans". I feel that the article should be split for the sake of clarity.Peas &amp; Luv (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are in the minority of one, so WP:CONSENSUS is against you, especially as a featured article review has validated the content. If you still have a problem, follow WP:DR.  Ty  06:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

silkscreen
Just happened to pass this article, because it is FA, and noticed persistent references to silk screening. I'm pretty sure the paintings were all painted by hand after he'd traced a pencil outline using a stencil. Warhol didn't use silkscreens until Baseball. august 1962. (see catalog raisonee vol1 . #231.) Even then, he would only screen black, never colour, until around 66. I'll change it if i can find a proper reference.Franciselliott (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm at it, Campbell's tomato juice boxes were consigned to the stable gallery in early 1964 for the Warhol's last show there; His first show for Castelli was Flowers series the next year. see catalog raisonee vol2 #824-916. I'm beginning to worry about the veracity of the whole article??Franciselliott (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't hurt to check - see this by the way - Stable Gallery although it needs updating. In my opinion he did silkscreen but that's just my opinion..Modernist (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a relevant link: ...Modernist (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think maybe I'm confused because baseball and the rauschenberg portraits are his first photo silkscreens, and he did stencil screens before that. A few quotes from the catalog; "To create a template for each one of the thirty-two varieties, Warhol cut the word "Tomato" from the source image on the envelope; it appears in red, taped onto a sheet of tracing paper in fig 36. mThis block of lettering determined both the overall size and curvature of the other varieties. These appear to have been lettered ono the paper freehand, rather than traced. They were then cut out, taped into place on the source image, and projected onto the canvas. In several instances, Warhol had to paint out and redo a particular variety when his lettering wouyldn't fit within its block..... Once all of the ferus type cans had been projected and painted onto canvases, the individual varieties could have been added in a seperate stage. The row of fleur-de-lis across the bottom were applied one by one. Warhol probably used a carved gum eraser." catalog raisonee, p70. So it would seem he projected them in the same manner as Lichtenstein did. For early silkscreen stencils, the lesser known Martinson Coffee images are a good examplke of how sloppy his screen printing technique was. Franciselliott (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

References in popular culture
Dick Shawn's character in "The Producers" wears a Campbell's soup can on a necklace.

robotwisdom (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Souper paper dress of 1967?
This image has been uploaded by a Greek fashion museum to Commons. I feel some coverage of the 1967 Souper Dress should be in the article - it was a significant spin-off of the artwork and the Souper dresses are treated as works of Pop Art in their own right. One fetched a record-breaking auction price not that long ago. Rather than plunge into editing a Good Article I thought I'd suggest the edits here and see what you think - especially as I don't see any reference to the fashion spin-offs in the text. Mabalu (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Really nice image. I think that the image s/b added here under variations maybe-or "spin-off" as you called it. Link to Paper clothing article is :appropriate as well, but I see some problems here, and also notice that you worked-on the Paper Clothing article. One--that article s/b :named, "Paper dress.
 * two-The photo of Warhol's Paper Dress, is a photo of artwork, I think? Unless Warhol's paper dress was produced and worn during :the paper dress era? I guess more research needs to be done about this to determine if it was "just" one-of the multitudes of paper-
 * dresses that were produced and meant to be worn and thrown-away, or if this was strictly art? In which case, it could qualify as art :devoted to the paper dress phenomenon, but not actually qualify as a paper dress. TeeVeeed (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

edit MOSTeeVeeed (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Nevermind-I see the Paper dress redirect, and also, looks like evidence that "life imitated art" here and that it was a "real" paper dress.https://www.wengcontemporary.com/shop/product/the-souper-dress

TeeVeeed (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And maybe call the spin-off section licensed use of the images? TeeVeeed (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Campbell's Soup Cans. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927222705/http://www.mcachicago.org/exhibitions/exh_detail.php?id=1&syear=2006 to http://www.mcachicago.org/exhibitions/exh_detail.php?id=1&syear=2006

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)