Talk:Gustav Vigeland

Untitled
The man attacking the babies is a gustav vigeland sculpture. don't be a fascist

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gustav Vigeland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120616002218/http://www.reckonings.net:80/photos/vigelandphotos/index.html to http://www.reckonings.net/photos/vigelandphotos/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Emmanuel Vigeland? http://www.emanuelvigeland.museum.no/mausoleet.htm Robocon1 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Vigeland museum belfry
From the Vigeland museum section: "His ashes are still preserved there in the belfry of the building." Does the 'belfry' on top of this building have bells in it? If it doesn't it's not a belfry. Robocon1 (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 comments
Robocon1, I couldn't be more an amateur on Wikipedia and am not going to delete more text unless further discussion doesn't lead anywhere constructive.

1. Without knowing the Wiki rules I would wonder on the basis of common sense whether justifying text by referring to other Wikipedia text (the Norwegian Wikipedia version on Vigeland) makes sense, if it's precisely the Wikpedia text that's in question. 2. This bears no relation to Wagner. Wagner's views were proactive and he vigoriously and prolifically expressed them including in books he wrote. Vigeland made some passing comments including some of them as an artist naturally obsessed with his sculpture park presumably to try to keep the all-powerful occupying army or rogue indivuduals from it to vandalize or desecrate either through indifference or malice. Anything else he said as far as I know are just passing comments--unattractive ones to be sure, not much more or else. 3. In such a case to make the entire critical reception or legacy part consist of the most inflammatory elements of criticism possible to make, common sense would suggest to be one-sided and biased tendentious rather than unbiased and agenda-less and impartial. 4. I have owned a lot of Vigeland and have never seen this before, including the large English Abrams art volume of his work called "Embrace of Life." Abrams is a prestigious art publisher; if you want to use Wikipedia text to evaluate Wikipedia text, look at the Wikipedia article on "Abrams books." 5. If you want another "real" source or at least one external to Wikipedia itself, try the article on Gustav Vigeland in the online Norwegian Encylopedia or "Store norske leksikon" at https://snl.no/Gustav_Vigeland an on the Vigelandsparken at https://snl.no/Vigelandsparken. Neither of these two Store norske leksikon articles mention anything of this. yet you make this, again most inflammatory or negative critical angle that it is possible to give as the *one and only* critical angle, period, in the entire Vigeland article as it now stands. 6. Hence my original deletion, which so far to me seems justified. It seems to me the one-sided extremely negative comments need either to be deleted or also angles of critical praise added.

For example the Store norske leksikon says in the Vigelandsparken article this critical assessment: "5. Livshjulet avslutter hovedaksen i vest. Skulpturen er en kolossal hjulgruppe i bronse, bestående av syv svevende figurer, hvorav fire voksne og tre barn. Disse er føyet sammen slik at de utgjør en sirkelform. Vigeland benyttet seg av geometriske grunnformer til ornamentale sammensetninger av figurer. Med sirkelen som evighetssymbol kan skulpturgruppen ses som symbol på det menneskelige fellesskap, hvor den enkelte figur eller gruppe ikke eksisterer alene, men går opp i en høyere enhet.

Vigelands plan og ønske med parkanlegget var å oppnå en syntese av natur og kultur og at betrakteren skulle gå organisk i ett med den. Det ikke-figurative kunstuttrykket som preget hans samtid, fikk liten innflytelse på ham. Stilmessig skjer det likevel endringer gjennom hans arbeid med anlegget; fra det romantiske og intime i tregruppene ved Fontenen til en mer monumental og jordnær skildring av menneskeslekten på Monolittplatået. Menneskets allmenne grunnvilkår, dets rike register av følelser og krefter, forble imidlertid sentral tematikk gjennom hele hans kunstneriske virke."

If nothing like this can be added to the critical assessment in the article, then my deletions of the inflamatory one-sided comments seem to be justified and should be reverted back to and to be sustained.

Thanks and respects.

Jarowe91

Jarowe91 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)



It's two days later and my critique of the reception section that it is undocumented and uncited, tendentious and one-sided and omits much, and contradicts the article as a whole, has gone without response, and I'm now going to delete that section. Jarowe91 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Jarowe91 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I've never edited & scarcely talked on Wikipedia (& just created am acc't) so please forgive & instruct me on style guideline errors here. I don't know much about Wikipedia editing but know some about Vigeland and am stunned by the "reception" section. It is so one-sided that I almost deleted it out of hand save for respect for my seniors so far here. On reception all is claims, without cites, is that Vigeland has been received as "fascist" and "Stalinist" in style. This so profoundly one-sided and hostile that it truly deserves anyone's including my instant deletion. It contracts the beginning of the article: " Gustav Vigeland occupies a special position among Norwegian sculptors, both in the power of his creative imagination and in his productivity. He is most associated with the Vigeland installation (Vigelandsanlegget) in Frogner Park, Oslo.[1][2] He was also the designer of the Nobel Peace Prize medal.[3]" He is the most famous and basically beloved Norwegian sculptor, and, as is not said here but should be, the park his sculptures are in is the most popular tourist attraction in Oslo with more than a million annual visitors, but then the only thing it says -- so contradictorily -- under "reception" begins and doesn't change tone from "By many art critics, Vigeland's sculptures were considered expressions of Nazi or fascist aesthetics,[citation needed] and he is often compared to Arno Breker.[citation needed] In the years shortly after his wartime death, art critic Pola Gauguin wrote that the Vigeland installation "reeks of Nazi mentality."" This is makes absolutely zero sense, and sense we know his stature in Norway and number 1 tourist destination in Oslo is factual, that only that scandalous negativity is put under "reception" seems rather an outrage. There is no critical praise of Vigeland? Despite that "he occupies a special position among Norwegian sculptors," etc., and what the article needs to say, his renown and his preeminence among Oslo's tourist attractions? That's the "reception" of Vigeland in Norway's university's fine arts department faculties and specialists and in the Norwegian critical fine arts literature on him--and in the rest of Scandinavia. I simply don't believe it, and at any rate the contradiction between the two parts of the article -- beginning and reception -- and contradiction between the popularity and renown of his work and that recpetion section -- are intolerably glaring. I won't delete the "reception" but would hope for some explanation, and also, if that material stays in -- which it's stated is "uncited" -- and for such gruesome negativity to remain uncited is unbelievable -- that all the presumed positiveness in the reception, both critically and in the city of Oslo and reception among tourists -- needs to be added. And the former negativity even needes deleted if not proven or doesn't contextually fit into what is such a short brief article. I hope for some answers or additions (and perhaps deletions to) or I will go to work my self, but so far will exercise restraint and do nothing yet. Jarowe91 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The section referred to was a translation of parts of a section in the Wikipedia article on Vigeland in Norwegian titled Vigeland og nasjonalsosialismen (Vigeland and National Socialism) https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Vigeland:

"Vigelands skulpturkunst er nært beslektet med den rådende stilretningen innen nasjonalsosialistisk kunst, med Arno Breker som den ledende representanten innen skulpturkunsten. Mange kunstkritikere har beskrevet Vigelands skulpturarbeider, særlig Vigelandsanlegget, som preget av et fascistisk kunstideal.[13] Den kjente kunstkritikeren Pola Gauguin skrev om Vigelandsanlegget at «hele Tørtberg-anlegget ånder av nazistisk mentalitet: Bruskulpturen, med den sammenbitte kraftutfoldelse, er som sprunget ut av pannen på Kraft durch Freude-bevegelsen, hvor all livsutfoldelse er blitt hermetisert».[14] Vigelands forhold til nazismen har vært mye debattert. Under krigen ble bevilgningene til Vigelands arbeid i Frognerparken økt og Vigeland skrev selv at han «med glede» åpnet sitt atelier for fremtredende nazister og at han «tør trygt la tyske soldater med sin utpregede disiplin bevege seg mellom mine arbeider». Vigeland søkte også selv de tyske myndighetene om midler til sitt arbeid. Vigelands sønn, som han riktignok ikke hadde noe kontakt med, var et aktivt medlem av Nasjonal Samling.[15]"

The quotations concerning similarities with Arno Breker's work and Pola Gauguin's opinions are cited to published sources. The Norwegian original also has a direct quote from Vigeland published in the newspaper Aftenposten stating that he welcomed German soldiers to walk around his studio: "By many art critics, Vigeland's sculptures were considered expressions of Nazi or fascist aesthetics, and he is often compared to Arno Breker. In the years shortly after his wartime death, art critic Pola Gauguin wrote that the Vigeland installation "reeks of Nazi mentality."[9] Torgrim Eggen and Jörg Modrow compare Vigeland's work to Nazi and Stalinist monumental art.[10] Vigeland himself sympathized with Nazi Germany, and stated while living under Norway's Nazi collaborationist puppet government during the Second World War, that he was "happy" to accept prominent Nazis in his atelier, and that "I welcome German soldiers with their excellent discipline to walk around between my work."[11] See http://everything.explained.today/Gustav_Vigeland/ Robocon1 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am restoring this section under the more relevant title of Nazi affinities for the reasons listed above, derived from the above text, adding links where relevant, and citing it to the online encyclopedia article referred to above. Robocon1 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed this for now; that "online encyclopedia" is a simple mirror of a previous version of this very article. Attribution is provided on the page. I have no position in your content dispute, but you will need to use an alternate source that meets WP:RS. Kuru   (talk)  13:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As I've already pointed out, the 'previous version of this very article' is a translation from the Norwegian Wikipedia article on Vigeland (as are all the other sections in this English language article). The various points are all cited there, in the section titled Vigeland og nasjonalsosialismen (under 'Arven', Legacy in English, together with the fact that Vigeland's work is featured on some stamps) which has been part of the Norwegian article since December 2014 without being challenged. It was removed by Jarowe91 for a reason that doesn't make sense. There is no contradiction in an artist being important nationally (and internationally) and having unpleasant political associations. Any encyclopedia article on Richard Wagner includes his anti-semitic views, as is the case here on Wikipedia. I am restoring this section with the cites used in the Norwegian Wikipedia article. Please do not remove it again without discussing the matter here first. Robocon1 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gustav Vigeland. 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/20100520003446/http://members.cox.net/c.kau/Vigeland/ to http://members.cox.net/c.kau/Vigeland/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024104830/http://www.fpvenner.no/index.htm to http://www.fpvenner.no/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127072105/http://www.fpvenner.no/kart.html to http://www.fpvenner.no/kart.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322024951/http://www.vestagdermuseet.no/artikkel.aspx?m=228&amid=2282 to http://www.vestagdermuseet.no/artikkel.aspx?m=228&amid=2282

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) 02:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)