Talk:Grand Central Terminal art

Scope of art
Hi and others - we were just adding details of events that have taken place in Grand Central to its main article, and I see several other events were just added here as well. I'm not sure the best path forward, but I have one suggestion. I believe this article should only focus on the events/exhibitions that are intended as part of the arts: the Colorama, the fashion show, Lost Property, Wish Mashine, the Art Cars, musical performances, etc. I think events/exhibitions like the Redstone missile, aircraft carrier or church model, park improvement plans, jump-rope competition, etc. shouldn't be in this article about art. It could be worked into the prose of the history article, or we could have a section at the end of the history article just for all bullets about all temporary events/exhibitions/notable things that have happened within the terminal. What do y'all think? ɱ (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm sure that not all of the exhibitions are art, but it wouldn't fit in the history article as well, either. The history is mainly about the predecessor and major events that happened throughout the terminal's history, and adding the bullet point list there would make it like a "miscellany" section.Maybe this article's scope can be changed instead. The title can be changed to something like Grand Central Terminal art and exhibitions. epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it'll look more out of place to include construction project exhibits, missile displays, and competitions in an article that is almost entirely about visual and performance arts. I also really don't think a "History of" article needs to solely be a chronological account, starting at the beginning at the top and ending at the present-day at the bottom. It can have other sections on notable events, other historical notes that don't fit into the general progression of the terminal's history, and other things. I think that article is the best fit: it's about the history of the terminal, which really should include all notable events to happen there over its history. ɱ  (talk) 11:24 am, Today (UTC−5)
 * I like this idea. We could recast the lead sentence and underscore GCT's significance as a public venue with something like: "Grand Central Terminal, one of New York City's main railroad stations, features public art and other exhibitions, many of which are seen by millions of people as they pass through this major commuting hub and tourist attraction. A transportation and architectural icon, the terminal has also been depicted in many works of art." PRRfan (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Permanent sculptures and paintings have nothing in common with a display of a US Army missile, and that proposed new article title would reflect that. People will think the article will only have art exhibitions; they'd be much more likely to look for rocket displays and other non-art exhibitions over the terminal's history in the History article, not the Art one. ɱ  (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Fair point, though I think it should be a prose section if we move the exhibitions to the history article. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We can try that! ɱ  (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Smeraldi involvement
states that the ceiling artwork was the work of Giovanni Smeraldi (an alternative name of John B. Smeraldi). This article doesn't mention him and his article doesn't mention Grand Central, though. Was he the one who covered up the original? Some info would be nice. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, I'm looking into it, but so far I am somewhat doubtful... ɱ  (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I might email some others to double-check, but none of the authoritative sources on the terminal, either current or historical, mention him. His own bios largely state he assisted with its painting, listing it among other bold claims such as the White House. Unless clarification can be found, I don't feel comfortable listing him. He clearly was not one of the lead designers or painters, he could simply have been one of 50 assistants, or could have added that claim into his bios as it's hard to prove if he ever assisted at all. ɱ  (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Tiffany clock sources
Was double-hosting work, now viewable here

-- ɱ (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Bad Footnote
Footnote #9, meant to back up the claim that the large clock built into the sculptural grouping atop the facade was designed and built by the Self-Winding Clock Company, does not in fact do that. It links to a NY Times article about a different clock, a small one inside the terminal.

While the article states that said company produced thousands of clocks used by railroads all over the country, nowhere does it confirm that they built the big clock outside.

Moshe (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I will look for a replacement source. Thank you! ɱ  (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)