Talk:Modern sculpture

Not mentioned
I noticed: Kathe Kollwitz, Jacob Epstein, Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, Barbara Hepworth, Elizabeth Frink, Jeff Koons, Andy Goldsworthy, Richard Long (artist), Tetsuo Harada, Ian Hamilton Finlay, Damien Hirst, Anthony Gormley, Tracy Emin, Rachel Whiteread (has a pic).

No doubt there are others. Contemporary sculpture seems to be almost entirely an American affair .... Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed this picture
because the caption attributes it to the wrong sculptor. Also many if the pictures in this article are repeated in the Sculpture article. We can do better than that. So, some are going to start being removed unless I hear something pretty soon. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, the attribution to Graham was my mistake. As fr as changes to this article - go for it - add as well as remove imagery - however there is a very limited pool of public domain images and a number of modern works may need Fair use rationales...Modernist (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the first thing that I would do is remove the FRD sculpture regardless of who did it because it does not really seem to fit into our definition of "Modern sculpture." I am assuming (always an interesting decision) that a sculpture is not "modern" just because it was created after, say the Armory Show.  Carptrash (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this was set up as a straight copy of the section at Sculpture 24 hrs ago, nearly all the pics were then the same. Really additions should be here rather than there, as sculpture is around 131k bytes, and too long by most standards. "Modern" can be used as purely a matter of date, as distinguished from (and also including) Modernist, not to mention contemporary/Post-modern etc, & personally I'd take the article that way. At the moment a clear definition isn't made. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a solid start - needs text, references...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I happened upon this article by accident soon after its creation. Modern sculpture is a sterling example of WP:SPINOFF, and I'm perplexed by cries of deletion and duplication. The existence of this article should enable editors to streamline the main article Sculpture, reducing Sculpture to a summary section (in particular, the Modern gallery should probably be deleted from the main Sculpture article, or greatly reduced). The duplication needs to be addressed there, not here, as Johnbod said, though a summary section will often duplicate key images from the main article. I also agree with the need to clarify the scope here, and to understand "Modern" as a term of periodization that encompasses but is not confined to Modernism as an aesthetic or intellectual movement. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am trying
to find a way to begin the article with what modern sculpture IS, rather than what it includes. In my search, if I come across references that might help beef up the reference section I am going to insert them. Please feel free to do whatever you will with these, modernism is not exactly my cup of tea. Carptrash (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to suggest
that we limit the images to one per artist, unless an artist earns two slots such as Alexander Calder might have done with mobiles and stables. Henry Moore has three images here. I feel two should go. Carptrash (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, I don't think we need a mobile, add one if you think we really need it...Modernist (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"stables" up above should be Stabiles - an article that needs writing - and I'll think about mobiles and images. They are (opinion) a rather significant development in modern sculpture since they spawned a whole industry of baby devises, among things, and are (again opinion) the most common and probably popular form of modern sculpture. Carptrash (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I find
that having pictures down the right margin through the gallery to be ......... not good. It disrupts the chronological order that the gallery has carefully maintained. I believe that pictures that are not in the gallery should be out for a reason and so far, that reason eludes me. I am inclined to put almost all the images in the gallery, in chrono order and then pull out and use ones that have a relationship to the text. However am reluctant to just do it because someone has spent a lot of time and effort creating what is there now. Carptrash (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree - technically fair use imagery can't be in galleries and by using the imagery as thumbnails technically they can be used. IMO best to let it be, although added text is still both wanted and required...Modernist (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You have convinced me. Carptrash (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Images
Visual art needs to be seen - stop deleting those images - think about the fact that the reader needs to see the art. Per WP:IAR, WP:UCS - this is an encyclopedia - the gallery is the best and most efficient way to display paintings and sculpture...Modernist (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither the Segal or the Di Suvero are included in the gallery by the way...Modernist (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Popularity of modernist sculpture
Re. this passage: "Since the 1950s Modernist trends in sculpture both abstract and figurative have dominated the public imagination and the popularity of Modernist sculpture had sidelined the traditional approach." Combining "public imagination" and "popularity" in a single sentence is misleading. Modern art never even approached public acceptance, let alone popularity, until quite recently. Many cities have had had mostly modernist sculpture installed since perhaps 1970, yet I never heard anything but derogatory comments made about them until at least 2000. The public despised modernist sculpture for the entire 20th century. Pretending that it was popular at that time is revisionist history. Philgoetz (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect (i.e., opinion) that the word "poplar" here refers not to the public's perception of these works but to the awarding of public commissions for them.  Also to what the 17 critics (or whatever) who define "good taste" claimed was imaginative or popular. What is needed there, and I am going to project and suggest that this is what you are thinking, that what is needed are some sources that present a different picture. Carptrash (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern sculpture. 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 tag to http://www.nasm.si.edu/events/pressroomreleaseDetail.cfm?releaseID=49
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130104152454/http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/show-full/piece/?search=Museum%20Piece&page=&f=Title&object=73.2034 to http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/show-full/piece/?search=Museum%20Piece&page=&f=Title&object=73.2034

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) 09:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)