Talk:Grant Wood

Year of birth
An anon changed the birth-year in the lived-template from 1892 to 1891 which made me go looking to find what the correct year is.

It turns out that many sites indeed have 1891, like Joslyn Art museum, this site (listed as a reference here) and this site to name a few.

But the Artcyclopedia, britannica and this site have 1892.

The google test favours 1891: A search on '"Grant Wood" born 1891' gives 1040 hits, while 1892 only returns 504 hits.

Can anyone come up with a definite birth year for Grant Wood? I'll change the birth-year in the header to 1891 now to make it consistent with the cat year the anon changed (he probably just forgot changing it in the heading too), but I'm not at all sure about this, and we really should have stuff like this accurate. Anyone?? Shanes 22:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The bio from Iowa State's website gives an 1892 birth. http://www.lib.iastate.edu/art/gwood.html

Clean Up
I have begun cleanup on this site, as it has been tagged since April. As far as I can tell, here is what should be done. Matterson52 22:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Expand the biography, and better incorporate some of the elements that already there into prose that flows more nicely.
 * Evaluate whether the whole paragraph on American Gothic needs to be here or if it should really be dealt with in the American Gothic article.
 * Better incorporate the two "selected works" into the rest of the article.
 * Also, is there an artist template that should be on this page? I don't know the answer but I wouldn't be suprised if there were.

I have removed the cleanup tag as I feel the article has been drastically improved. I was never able to find any kind of Artist Template, however. I do not know if one exists.

Matterson52 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wood-designed home
On Goblins Gully Dr SE, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, there is a Wood-designed home from about 1930. I don't recall the address, but the house is on the left and is distinct in appearance from more recent homes.

Main photo
Does anyone think that, while on the articles of most of the other American masters there is a either a picture or a self-portrait on the immediate right of the article, that space is taken up by American Gothic instead? I really think, out of respect for this artist that actually painted other works besides American Gothic, there should be a picture or self-portrait in his description. I would suggest "Return from Bohemia" or his Self Portrait of 1932. What do you think? Notkc 06:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

American Gothic
A crucial and famous work by this artist, needs to be included in this article, leave it alone..It is not in the infobox and it belongs here.....do not remove it..At this point it is being used at minimum, here - the artist who created it and at American Gothic. Leave it alone already..Grant Wood, is the artist who created it...and the image is discussed in the text, and it is the seminal work of this artists life..he would not be known if it wasn't for this one of the most famous paintings in American art history..Modernist (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * please read the non-free content policy. your inclusion violates that policy. all you need to do is link to the article containing the image you dont need to re-include it, further violations of the non-free content policy will result in block. βcommand 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the policy and I disagree with your interpretation of it..The image belongs here per WP:NFCC and you will be blocked if you continue to revert my edits, you are in also danger of a 3rr violation..Modernist (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * please note WP:3RR's exceptions. read WP:NFCC. βcommand 17:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of you should stop edit-warring on the subject. As for the image, I have to agree with Betacommand that it's unnecessary: there is a full article on American Gothic so interested readers will get the image there. In any case, it's pretty obvious that neither of you will be convinced by the other so you should both seek a third opinion. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case I agree the picture is needed - for most people who have heard of Wood (including myself) he is "the guy who painted American Gothic". If the policy was intended to mean that each non-free image could only be used once, it would say so. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * According to WP:NFCC, one use of a non-free image is the required minimum, not the maximum. Multiple uses are condoned provided the other conditions are met: image significantly enhances understanding of the subject, etc. This image has a role in this article comparable to the role of the Eiffel Tower jpg in Gustave Eiffel. Ewulp (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that your example is a free content image. policy clearly states that this article does not need to include the image as it has its own image, please review WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. βcommand 04:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is beside the point, which is that the Eiffel Tower jpg is rather important to the Gustave Eiffel article. Minimal use does not mean the same thing as single use, and multiple use is not prohibited. Ewulp (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that minimal always means one, what I am saying is that when an image has its own article its most often should not be included, instead use a wikilink, as it provides better context and reduced usage of non-free content. βcommand 04:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case the image belongs in this article..A link that may or may not be accessed is plainly ludicrous..this is Wood's most famous image and Wood's claim to fame...The image should be restored immediately to this article..most often you say? well....this is an instance where the picture counts..Modernist (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is one paragraph on the painting and it is not referenced. As things stand, this doesn't justify using an image which has its own page. This is a flaw of the article. It should have a separate section on the painting, giving strong basics and be reliably sourced. In this case, I would support inclusion, because of its iconic status and importance in the artist's work, as its omission is the first thing anyone with even miminal knowledge of the artist would notice. That is an obvious sign that it is needed.  Ty  06:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It has plenty of text and references now...It needs the painting...Modernist (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

American Gothic section expanded
The section has been expanded and referenced to show the importance of the work for the artist and American art. The iconic status of the work demands that it is included in the article on the artist.  Ty  09:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image has been returned per MoS above...do not delete..Modernist (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * the infobox should not contain non-free materail. it should have a photo of the person. Modernist why is your talk page protected and please dont make sockpuppet statements without proof. If you want to use the image put it with the text associated with it. 72.69.113.237 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, it's in text...enough nonsense..Modernist (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is your talk page protected? 72.69.113.237 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you start an account? Modernist (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I prefer not to, you should not have your talk page protected. 72.69.113.237 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And you shouldn't issue orders...Modernist (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted about this on AN/I.  Ty  20:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth (I guess I've missed the boat with the discussion, but whatever) I strongly support the inclusion of the image in the article as it really does add significantly to the article (the work is discussed at length) but strongly oppose it's inclusion in the infobox, which should instead be reserved for an image of Wood. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "... one of the few images to reach the status of universally recognised cultural icon, comparable to Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa and Edvard Munch's The Scream" is ludicrous. It may be so in the United States (I can't vouch for that) but definitely not in Europe, so the term "universally" is inappropriate, to say the least.Yougeeaw (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Better biographies
I'm not sure what would be a good way to reference this blog, but it seems to be a far better biography than this article, even though it, too doesn't show or describe his beautiful landscapes, with his wonderful unique style. Also, "Grant Wood: A Life" by R. Tripp Evans is one of the best book biographies, but is only listed among others, not quoted or reviewed. David Spector (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Grant Wood. 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/20160105095015/http://www.preservationiowa.org/programs/endangeredArchive.php?endangered_year=2008 to http://www.preservationiowa.org/programs/endangeredArchive.php?endangered_year=2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grant Wood. 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/20160124000232/http://www.crma.org/collection/wood/wood.htm to http://www.crma.org/collection/wood/wood.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708193645/http://www.grantwoodstudio.org/index.html to http://www.grantwoodstudio.org/index.html

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) 11:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Portrait of Nan
Grant Wood's "Portrait of Nan" was due to be sold yesterday (November 16, 2018) at Sotheby's in New York but apparently the lot was withdrawn at the last minute. The pre-sale estimate was $1.5 to $2.5 million. Sotheby's did a nice little writeup about the piece in advance of the sale. 108.52.84.213 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Grant Wood in the Military.png
 * Grant Wood photo.jpg

Early life: Answers.com
Today, I deleted the last two sentences from the Early life section. ''He is said to have later returned to the Guild to paint American Gothic. A year later, Wood returned to Iowa, where he taught in a rural one-room schoolhouse.'' The material in question has been tagged "unreliable source?" for roughly a decade. If no one has found better sources by now, it is definitely time to delete it. I also deleted now a prominent artist collective in the city from the sentence focusing on the Handicraft Guild. Well-source information in the Handicraft Guild article indicates this is out-of-date. Condensinguponitself (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)