Talk:Museum of Modern Art

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saragraceful.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Major pieces
Every art museum has one or two pieces that are the anchors of their collection. For instance, at the MoMA, people who know very little about other art make a beeline for Starry Night. Do people know the major pieces of the other collections? It would be worth adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny (talk • contribs) 31 July 2002

Non-neutral title
It seems to me that the only reasonable thing to do with this page is to move it to New York Museum of Modern Art and make the current Museum of Modern Art a disambiguation page. New York's is not the only museum with this name, so it should not be on this page. Unless somebody can provide a good argument why not, I will move the page and edit all the pages that link to it to link to New York Museum of Modern Art where that is the intended meaning. (unsigned)


 * There is no "New York Museum of Modern Art", and no apparent need for disambiguation. I don't think we have any articles on any other institution that calls itself simply "The Museum of Modern Art". The museum of modern art in San Francisco calls itself the "San Francisco Museum of Modern Art". The museum of modern art in London calls itself the "Tate Museum". If disambiguation were needed, it should be done in parentheses ("Museum of Modern Art (New York)"), lest we leave an impression that there is an institution called "The New York Museum of Modern Art". Though frankly it's probably better left alone. - Nunh-huh 03:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "Museum of Modern Art (New York)" might not be such a bad idea. Some people might not be aware of the distinction when they look up MoMA at Wikipedia.


 * From a non-US point of view (UK) it seems essential to rename it, as soon as I opened the page I went to this talk page to suggest it, only to find the discussion already in progress. Museum of Modern Art should redirect to Museums of modern art. Timffl 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * MOMA refers to itself exclusively either as "The Museum of Modern Art" or "MOMA". If there another institution (within the US or internationally, of comparable renown/size) that refers to itself as "The Museum of Modern Art" without any other qualification, we should indeed disambiguate as Museum of Modern Art (New York), and change this page into a disambig page. However, my research doesn't turn up any institutions that fit this criteria (see below). Therefore, we should not disambig. Similarly, we should not redirect to Museums of modern art, as "The Museum of Modern Art" only refers to a single entity within this group. To resolve any ambiguity without unnecessary redirection, I propose including the standard inline "disambiguation" text at the header of the article, stating "This article refers to The Museum of Modern Art, based in New York City. For a list of other modern art museums, see Museums of modern art." This should clear up any confusion for casual Wikipedia users, with the additional benefit of increasing traffic to the articles about other museums of modern art. -- Docether 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine print : As indicated here, "MOMA" is a trademark, used in connection with the Museum of Modern Art since the late 1960s. However, I haven't been able to find out if "The Museum of Modern Art" is also a trademark, which would definitively settle the matter ... so we have to infer from common usage. As noted above, MOMA refers to itself exclusively either as "The Museum of Modern Art" or as "MOMA", without qualifiers. It never refers to itself as "The New York Museum of Modern Art," and outside sources use this formulation only rarely (and probably incorrectly). Though catalogues of artists' works often use the "Museum of Modern Art, New York" form, the city is not actually intended to be read as part of the museum's title, and is a standard inclusion in this kind of reference (as in, for example, "State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow").. So ... the common usage when referring to this institution is simply "The Museum of Modern Art". Perhaps more importantly, the phrase "the Museum of Modern Art", when indicating an institution, always (as far as I can see) refers to this one. Docether 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be added here that it is a fact that the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York was the first such museum ever founded to collect solely modern art under any title, and was the inventor of the whole concept of modern art museums. Indeed, all other museums have followed its example--its influence has been enormous. By rights, the Museum of Modern Art holds this title exclusively to itself. Further discussion is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.113.139 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The preceding unsigned comment is incorrect. MoMA was not the first museum to collect solely modern art. That title actually belongs to the Société Anonyme whose founding predates that of MoMA by nine years. The Société, founded by Katherine Dreier, Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray, actually held the first exhibitions in America for Alexander Archipenko, Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, and Ferdinand Leger, among others, all before MoMA was ever founded. The Museum of Modern Art didn't even hold that title exclusively to itself, either. The full title of the Société Anonyme was "Société Anonyme: Museum of Modern Art" (though Dreier later added the date 1920 to the end of the title to distinguish it from MoMA). All of this was conceded to even by MoMA founding board member Nelson Rockefeller in a letter to Katherine Dreier on the 30th of April 1950, which is reprinted in the article “An Artist’s Museum” by Jennifer R. Gross, in the exhibition catalogue The Société Anonyme: Modernism for America (page 5).

To that end, despite it's being footnoted, it is further incorrect for the article on MoMA to state that MoMA was the "first of its kind in Manhattan to exhibit European modernism." During the Société Anonyme’s first year alone, they held eight exhibitions of European modernism in their gallery at 19 East 47th street, including the aforementioned first American showing of the work of Archipenko. (again, this information is all in Jennifer Gross’s article as well as the Beinecke archives at Yale ). I'm not sure about the protocol of these things, so I don't want to leap in and change it myself... Duschamp (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.114.121 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that what is being said here is that the "MoMA" was the first museum established permanently and fixedly anywhere that called itself simply (and not as with another, primary title like "Societe Anonyme") "The Museum of Modern Art," and while surely the above post is right in saying that the Societe Anonyme has precedence in terms of the idea, that collection, which I have always read was meant to be a traveling one (at least initially), neither survived as an independent entity or had the overwhelming/ongoing influence of Barr's institution (please correct me if I am wrong on that count). But, in any case, the important point here is that MoMA has the right to call itself "MoMA", which is a fact hardly invalidated by the above comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckkgourmet (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that the Museum of Modern Art should refer to the one in New York because it is US-ian and everyone knows that the US trumps every other country in everything. The US has the most culture, the most history, the most literature, the most art, the most intelligence, the most style. It has the bigly-est president, who is the most intelligent ever. And the most knowledge about everythng, in the huge encyclopedia... the Wikipedia. The US is the world. The rest of the world is just a side-show. added on 14 February 2019 by User:86.175.56.67 (contributions).


 * Jocosity isn't going to work. If you want the article renamed, argue for this. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You confuse jococity with irony, a rhetorical device which is known to confuse US-ians, bigly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.140.196 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Classification
This article needs expansion. There is no mention of the original building, an important International Style design. There is little discussion of the history of curators, important exhibitions, publications, MOMA as a cultural force, etc. The article could be reclassified as "Start Class' until it is expanded.Chesterct (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No History after 1939?
Why does the history section of this article end in 1939? The subsequent history with curators after Alfred Barr and the maturation of MOMA as an institution would seem to be worth addressing Sullivanesque (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Formatting suggestions
Hello, I would like to propose some organizational edits to the MoMA page, and also to propose to add more images- this is a major art museum, so perhaps it should have more than one image presented. Anyone have any to offer? Any comments on the addition of a content box and headings? Below are four examples, which would go after the introduction:

Collection
Painting is allready represented in this article, but there is a diversity of art media at MoMA, so we should show that without too long of a list.
 * i also would very much like to see a short list of the industrial design collection, with stuff like the Bic Cristal pen and such. a category "permanent collection of the MoMA" would also be very nice. -- ExpImp talk con 13:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Museum's Architecture
Under this might be included all the building / facility related info, of which there is alot already in the article, and potentially alot more.

Historic Exhibitions
Two off the top of my head to write about are below, and there are more:

The International Style: Architecture Since 1922, curators: Philip Johnson, Henry-Russell Hitchcock Jr. 1932.

Deconstructivist Architecture, curators Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley. 1988.

Role as a Museum
Maybe here where we discuss the affiliation with P.S.1, difference to the Met., Louvre, etc. Please tell me what you thinkDavidrowe 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, there definitely should be a little section on PS1 - I'll add one - AKeen
 * As of June 2023, there is no mention of MoMA PS1, other than a Wikilink buried near the end of the MoMA article. Although there is little point in reproducing that separate article here, there needs to be some mention in the History section. One problem is the organization of the History section around the 53rd Street location, leaving little room for any mention of other locations and programs. Reify-tech (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Design Collection
I'm adding the Eameses, Noguchi, and some others to the list of designers whose works are in MOMA's collection. All can be confirmed at moma.org. R 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Photography Curators
There were photo curators besides Steichen and Szarkowski. Beaumont Newhall may have been the first; Peter Galassi is the current one; there may have been others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.17.165 (talk • contribs) 9 January 2006

Modern Art
What about modern art in other countries? Has anyone seen the Istanbul Modern. www.paulcooklin.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.46.205 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2006
 * The Istanbul Modern is an interesting museum (and a great location, right on the Istanbul docks .. you can see Russian ships unloading cargo literally next to the museum windows). In fact, it has its own page here on Wikipedia. -- Docether 13:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Takin' it to the Street
Anybody know MOMA's actual street address? Trekphiler 09:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11 West 53rd St (between Fifth and Sixth Avenues). -- Docether 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 82.66.141.162
User 82.66.141.162 has made some major additions to the MOMA article, alleging CIA sponsorship of / involvement with the MOMA. I've removed this text.

I'm not in a position to judge whether this text is well-founded or not. I've removed it because, honestly, it's just not within the scope of this page. This page is a brief overview of the museum, its collection, and its history, and this text is far too narrowly focused. Secondly, regardless of their accuracy, controversial edits like this must be well-sourced, with a wide range of references. This text needs to be much better-sourced if it's to be included in Wikipedia. I suggest creating a separate page for this text, under its own title, and hashing out the quality issues (and NPOV issues) there.

Best, -- Docether 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page
I´ve noticed the disambiguation page states only "For the São Francisco Museum of Modern Art...". I don´t think this seems adequate. There are thousands of museums all over the world which are named "Museum of Modern Art", like São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, etc. Dornicke 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

correct appellation in article title
The appellation of the subject museum is "The Museum of Modern Art" (see moma.org, the museum's official site, for that styling plastered all over (that is, when they don't use the "MoMA" common-use style) and i have conformed artcicle to reflect that (capping the The). However, I'm not skilled enough to emend the article's title to "Museum of Modern Art (The)" to complete my task.  Perhaps a more-skilled wiki editor can do this?   (btw, how does one get this symbol "|" from their keyboard?)--68.173.2.68 (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
This article makes claims of greatness by third people without providing sources. Also, such claims of greatness are not very encyclopedic. --Karljoos (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Life Trustees etc
Is it relevant information for an article? --Karljoos (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art
Please note this museum is participating in the Wikipedia Loves Art ([Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/Museum of Modern Art]]). All interested editors are invited to participate in this project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Our meetup at the museum is this Friday, February 27 from 6:00-8:00 pm. See Meetup/NYC to sign up.  Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Kazimer Malevich's "White on White"
It's terrific that the image of Malevich's "White on White" is being displayed, but it's not being displayed correctly. The white square is in the upper left corner and is skewed towards the upper left corner. Or for clarification go see the painting on display at the museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.93.123 (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems to be upside-down. . Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Plum Blossoms
Is a fair use image as is Broadway Boogie Woogie,, unlike the other images used in the gallery which are pd...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking Members for WikiProject MoMA
As the new Wikipedia-in-Residence fostering institutional cooperation at the the Museum of Modern Art, I'd love to invite all interested Wikipedians to come participate! Let me also know if you have any further questions about this project (see also GLAM/MoMA/Members).--Pharos (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing imagery
An editor is deleting images that have valid reasons for being in this article and valid Fair use Rationales. Please vent your opinions I'd like others input. I think the images should stay...Modernist (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly violates WP:NFCC #8, no reason to have non-free images, if we can display free images. If someone cares to see what something looks like enough, they'll go to the image article page. C T J F 8 3  01:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In general it would seriously misrepresent the museum's collection to show only out of copyright works. However in fact the latest work in dispute dates only from 1948, and imo it would be better to have more recent works. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We are talking 4 great, important works by Dali, Bacon, Matisse, and Mondrian and as pointed out they depict 20th century works after 1923 and they directly and completely fulfill WP:NFCC #8, explaining to the reader important and vital information visually, that words cannot convey. In this case the Museum's world class collection of Modern Art...Modernist (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You both fail to understand Wikipedia is not an advertisement for the museum and is not here to showcase the museums works. C T J F 8 3  02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh really. I think you fail to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose isn't to use copyrighted works, which has legal considerations, when free ones work well. C T J F 8 3  02:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't work well, because they misrepresent the nature of the collection, which covers "Modern art", not "art by people who died before 1940". Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this encyclopedia is to be the most accurate, neutral and informative source we can be supplying information to our readers - including visual information that cannot be conveyed in words...Modernist (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria are the stature of the works. How can that be set aside? Do we just show lesser works and be satisfied with it? And as has been pointed out, there is a desire to have a representative sample over time. Art is hardly static. Would an article on clothing fashions limit itself to an arbitrary period of time? It is humorous to think of some decades being represented and other decades not being represented. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

These are not the points. This fails WP:NFCC, and is overuse of non-free material. The depiction of the work is replaceable by a link to the page about the painting. Yes, you are all right that depiction would give a fairer overview, but that is the same reasoning as 'I am driving 130 Mph here, even though I am allowed to do only 50 Mph, because driving 130 brings me home at least twice as fast'. You feel that certain decades are under-represented, you can also look at it that the others are overrepresented. Maybe a couple less images here would be fine, I can hardly follow the list of works anymore. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dirk touches on the key issue here - it would definitely be good to be able to display these images. But we also committed to meeting certain goals in terms of copyright and the display of images. So where on situation would be nice, it is not in keeping with our resolutions on non-free images. These images are not being used to explain (or accompany) something written in the text (which is a core part of NFCC usage) and are basically there to decorate the article and give an overview of the notable works. Dirk points out, quite rightly, that this can easily be replaced with links to the works instead.
 * As it is the list of works is a mess for a reader. I would cut it down to 3 or 4 notable works, and then include a commons box with a link to a Category:Works at the Museum of Modern Art. This would be much more reasonable. --Errant (chat!) 12:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not agree at all. There's the rub Dirk, this passes WP:NFCC because in general with paintings after 1923 there are very few free equivalents. These images visually convey to the reader what words can't say. As the MoMA is one of the finest collections of Modern art in the world the notion of 130 mph around the track - (this is a special track) - not your average street is not so surprising...Modernist (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it is not, Modernist. You don't explain anything about the images.  That is done in the articles, and thére display is appropriate.  Here you don't explain, and it is replaceable by a bare link.  This is very clear a violation of WP:NFCC.  'these images visually convey to the reader what words can't say', 'this speed brings me home easier what I can't do when I drive 50'.  It may not be an average street, it still has a limit of 50 Mph.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again I disagree - the Dali, Mondrian, Matisse and Bacon convey to our readers what words, lists, and any other device cannot convey. It satisfies the requirements, and as I stated it's a rarified track...Modernist (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What does the image convey to the readers, Modernist? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't be stated in words Dirk - look at the paintings :)...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you convey here the message 'this museum shows this work', that can be conveyed in work. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, The question becomes 'this work' - which means nothing until it is seen...Modernist (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, the question becomes 'this museum shows this work'? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered by the paintings - words are not needed...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But that is not the point, Modernist. It is not whether words are not needed, it is whether words can do what the images can do as well here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the point Dirk, paintings are what words can't say...Modernist (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting circular, Modernist. The images on Museum of Modern Art say that the museum has the work, not how it was made, what the thought of the artist is behind it, what material he used.  That is not the reason why these images are here, that is not the text that that image here conveys.  Here, the image conveys 'this museum shows this work', nothing more, nothing less.  What you want it to convey, is conveyed on the description of the work, on The Plum Blossoms, e.g.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

But this really needs to go to Media copyright questions with this issue. This needs the eye of NFCC specialists. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Media copyright questions. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The words are of secondary, tertiary, or lesser importance to the images. This is visual art. The words that are most useful are: materials, technique, title, year made, artist's name & nationality. The images convey virtually everything, and the words in lengthy accompanying text contribute relatively little. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bus stop, those words are of importance on the page about the works. They are not important here (here, on THIS page), here the message is 'this museum displays this work'.  If I read the page 'Museum of Modern Art', then I want to know which paintings are on display (a reasonable subset of them, at least).  I want to know something about which paintings.  If I am then interested in the painting, I follow the link and look at the image, and maybe read the text.  Those are two different messages.  The former does not need the image, the latter does.  What you are saying is, that that image is needed here to see how it is made, what style, what material, what year.  So we can actually delete the page about the work itself, The Plum Blossoms can be deleted, because Museum of Modern Art is showing what the image is like, and that is more than enough.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ^^ Indeed I don't see what all those images add... someone cut it down please, think of the readers! --Errant (chat!) 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me, eye of the beholder I guess...Modernist (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not disputed, Modernist (though the layout of the page could be optimised). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that...Modernist (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved all into a gallery, sorted by year (maybe some of the same year could be swapped, if one is known to be before the other). Hope that helps at least.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it for now - although ironically Dirk, I had all the images with the FuR's outside the gallery...Modernist (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? What is the difference?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An agreement I made with J a few years ago to only use - or try to only use free images in galleries...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, at least this rationale was removed ... --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dirk, fixed that, was not cool to do that behind our backs...Modernist (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The museum is its works. If you are going to write an article on a museum such as MOMA you are necessarily going to conjure up an image of the museum and you are going to do so by presenting the works, albeit just a sampling of the works. Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but sometimes one can not do that to the full extend that we would like to do it, Bus stop. Sometimes you would like to drive 130, sometimes you even 'need' to, even on that special track somewhere, but sorry, if 50 is the limit there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NFCC - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The topic is the museum, not the art works.  They are perfectly well represented on their own pages.  In fact, the images also fail WP:NFCC ("Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available") because as far as the museum itself is concerned, they are perfectly well replaced by the text that says they are on show at the museum.  This is akin to placing multiple non-free album covers in a discography article of a musical artist, and we don't do that - the image stays in its own article. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect analogy - an album cover is not analogous to a painting. The paintings satisfy WP:NFCC "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" because in context the topic is the collection of the museum...Modernist (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the artwork has its own article (which in these cases they do) the reader's understanding of the collection is not significantly diminished without the image, as they can simply click through to that article (indeed, one could argue that they are likely to increase their understanding of the work by actually doing that). Black Kite (t) (c) 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've dealt with non-free image policy on Wikipedia for a long time, and I have years of experience with questions at Media copyright questions, Possibly unfree files, and Files for deletion. We deal with questions like this one perennially, and every time the non-free images have to be removed from articles that aren't specifically about the subject, in order to comply with policy. If you want a more definitive answer, feel free to nominate the article at Non-free content review. But I seriously doubt you'll get the answer you're looking for. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no inherent value in art except the value that people bring to it. The museum "creates" art-value (to a limited extent) when it acquires a piece for its collection. It is the "taste" of the museum that enhances the value of all involved. You are illustrating the museum's good taste when you present a sampling of their collection. A prestigious museum is a powerful entity in the art world. You are underestimating the importance of the prized pieces in a museum's collection when you argue that they are not essential to understanding a subject such as the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All of which is irrelevant because we a) document what it holds and b) note what RS's say about its taste. As pointed out above, this is not an advertising portal. --Errant (chat!) 18:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, if you have some RS's that talk about the museums taste, and link it strongly to a specific piece of art (or a few pieces) with critical commentary about the choice then, sure, we have the basis for a FUR --Errant (chat!) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not an "advertising portal". But it is an "identifying portal". The "identity" of the museum is the "identity" of the art it has acquired. We are actually not referring to the art when we depict it in our article (on MoMA), because the museum's identity is subsumed into those most famous pieces in its collection. We are illustrating the museum when we include images of certain works of art. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly think there are RS's that talk about the museum's taste and nature, with critical commentary about the choice of specific pieces that could be used in an FUR. This may be a valuable way of illustrating the museum and its full identity.--Pharos (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear - The Dali, Mondrian, Bacon and the 1948 Matisse have been removed because of the technicality that each painting has its own article; and because RS's have not been supplied indicating that the museum's taste and identity is enhanced because of it's Dali, '48 Matisse, Bacon, Mondrian et al. or any other work in the collection with a Fair Use Rationale, thus I added 2 images of Monet's Waterlilies that are in the public domain...Modernist (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Glenn D. Lowry
In this version of Glenn D. Lowry, the current version as I write, I converted a couple of external links into references for details that may also need coverage here. Apparently the museum went to unusual lengths and methods to assemble a financial package that would attract Lowry to the museum back in the 1990s. A related topic is the significant and disproportionate increase in admission price since the mid-1990s, though I haven't done any internet searches to determine what the history of its admission price has been or to confirm whether the ticket price increases are unusual when compare to other museums. 67.101.5.213 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rain Room
Could someone add this if you have the time please?1 Regards, Reh  man  04:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Flush left
Having the gallery imagery flush left is visually efficient and easier to read on small screens. My preference is to keep the imagery as is...Modernist (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to specific images? czar  ♔  12:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The gallery imagery is what we are discussing, (the images have been flush left for several years until 2 days ago)...Modernist (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support flush left:
 * Modernist (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really support either, but I lean towards keeping it as it was unless someone has a strong reason otherwise. I think centering is aesthetically much better, but I also see that flush left looks lightly better when resizing. I didn't find official guidelines on the matter—please ping me if you do. Also I'd like to see the gallery pared down to only include works that are sourced as generally MoMA's best work (should also be noted that only work in the public domain is shown), or at least remove a few. czar  ♔  13:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Flush left is preferable for galleries of images. We read from left to right in English, and we view images best that way as well. The central orientation tends to evoke a hierarchy, in particular when the rows are uneven. As well, with the Malevich painting at the bottom, it appears to be isolated from the gallery and the text below it referring only to that one painting. Central orientation can only work if we maintain even numbers of images (of the same size) in each row.  freshacconci  talk to me  17:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that with the centered orientation there is the ever so slight implication that the present selection of images is somehow special. The orientation to a side implies that the selection is one of many possible selections of images. This is because the selection of images appears to "grow" from one side. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support central orientation:
 * Looks better; doesn't send a message of any kind, it's just neater. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This may be no different than Toilet paper orientation. Nevertheless I do think there are implications to even this. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lists of names

 * While I do think the lists are interesting; and should remain; I don't object to your creating ways to integrate some of the inclusions into the article prose. Can you create a sentence or a paragraph for us to see?...Modernist (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The article has several indiscriminate "list of names" sections. If these names are worth mentioning, aren't they supposed to be incorporated into prose? My recommendation, if there is consensus or no objection, is to move the lists here to the talk page, and to work the names into the prose where appropriate. czar ♔  13:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please specify one or more list of names found to be problematic. Perhaps it would be helpful if you specified which list you find most problematic. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to all of the lists of names:


 * These lists treat WP more like a directory than an article due to their excessive detail. The article would do much better to have the necessary parts in prose (the directors alongside their histories within the institution), but trustee and curator lists are not within the article's scope (nor that of any other museum's article).
 * czar ♔  00:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't collapse the above list - it obstructs further comments, thank you...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure how collapsing a large section would obstruct comments, but I switched it from naked to blockquote to be more readable czar  ♔  05:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is no harm in listing these names. They are not the mainstay of the article but I think they are well within the scope of the article. Probably some have influenced the development of the museum. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversies section
I condensed this section into a single sentence, linking to And babies article. The MoMA is constantly involved in controversies -- the exhibitions, funding, architecture, ticket prices, etc. Devoting a whole paragraph to this particular controversy was disproportionate. Everything in the paragraph is covered in detail in that article. Other controversies are already covered in other sections, so I don't know if we even need a "Controversies" section. -- Margin1522 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes and deleted images
See the Removing imagery images section above - this has been argued ad infinitum...Modernist (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Photo captioning consistency
It is pretty common to caption a photo with the title of the work listed first—that is what you are looking at—rather than the name of the artist who produced it. I have changed all the listings to title, artist, year in both the list and the captions.

I still feel all the text needs to come before the gallery rather than breaking the reading flow with images and then returning to more information about the collection.

By using "undo this edit", a few typos crept in; they've been fixed as well.108.98.76.187 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no good reason to place titles before the name of the artist. The most common way to write captions is to begin with the artist's name. This is standard practice at Wikipedia. See Image captions, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts. Coldcreation (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * From your link: "Note: some editors prefer "Title, Artist" to the other way round. This should be consistent within an article." (Emphasis mine.) PICK ONE! The list has the titles first and uses the word "by", which is totally unnecessary, and is in alphabetical order by artist, while the gallery is ordered by date and lists the artist's name first. Additionally, by using "undo this edit", you restored a typo that I'm not bothering to fix again. I still feel the name of the piece should come first, but all the captions should be in the same order as the list.108.98.76.187 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Names are first in that list, which by the way are not image captions. But they are now changed anyway. As for a typo, which word is not spelled correctly? Coldcreation (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason I prefer titles first is that what is being shown is a picture of the artwork, not a picture of the artist. The list is still in alphabetical order by artist rather than date (which you have removed in most instances, leaving a few?). The title for Monet's Water Lilies in the list is incorrect; it is correct under the image. (There is no need for "triptych"). The typo is in the caption for the Man with a Guitar. I'm done.173.120.189.1 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Boy Leading a Horse
An important part of MoMA's collection. It has a fair use rationale and needs to be included in this article, absolutely in compliance with NFCC...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense. You do not need an image of the painting to understand that MOMA owns the painting. There is no valid use rationale, just a generic copy of the rationale for use in a different article, which makes not a shred of sense in this context. There is nothing, not one word, in the article whose understanding is enhanced by the image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, obviously I differ from that opinion; the quality of the image is apparent visually - it's a work of visual art, enough said...Modernist (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "enough said". That has nothing to do with our policies regarding nonfree content. Louis Armstrong's "Potato Head Blues" is a magnificent piece of music, but samples of it can't be stuck willy-nilly into music articles with no important nexus to it. Not one word of text in the article is enhanced by use of the nonfree image, and you make no argument that a free image of a Picasso owned by MOMA wouldn't suffice. "But it's my favorite Picasso" isn't an argument based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And you don't make any argument that the generic, inaccurate would-be use rationale meets NFC requirements, because it fails on its face. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A WP:NFCC rationale isn't a carte blanche. It requires that there be some immediate necessity for illustrating the image (such that the article text requires it). Unless there is some major point about a non-free work on the history of MoMA, there are really no non-decorative reasons for including it. – czar   01:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the image, this might be a moot point because if the painting was made in 1909, it is out of copyright in America. However, if it has a similar copyright to Demoiselles, it isn't PD in its home country and should not be moved to Commons. In any event, the license should be properly updated. And if the image is not free in the U.S., a better fair use rationale is needed or the item should go to non-free content review. – czar   01:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my first impression, too, but that's not the case. Unlike much of Picasso's early work, this painting was apparently first published after 1923, and therefore isn't automatically public domain. Several diligent editors have worked hard to track down the information needed to show that other early Picasso works are PD; examples include, , and . Other early Picasso works are nonfree (eg, Portrait of Suzanne Bloch. File talk:Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.jpg does a pretty good job of setting out the relevant issues and showing how they should be resolved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The painting was the subject of a dispute between this museum and another museum. I've added commentary on that dispute to our article. It is also an exceptionally iconic work that is associated with the museum that is the subject of our article. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will rewrite the rationale when I have time; I also agree the painting by virtue of its age should be PD...Modernist (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Controversies
, we should try to avoid "controversy" sections if possible. Can the section not be merged with the rest of the institution's thematic history? – czar   14:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not, done...Modernist (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Boy Leading a Horse, round 2
The nonfree image is the subject of commentary in the article only insofar as it relates to a dispute over ownership of the painting. As such, it falls squarely under WP:NFC, which states plainly that this type of nonfree image use is unacceptable: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Museum of Modern Art. 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/20090223092923/http://www.newyorkartworld.com:80/museums/momamuseum.html to http://www.newyorkartworld.com/museums/momamuseum.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 13:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 one external links on Museum of Modern Art. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/11/15/invisible-cathedral?currentPage=all
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nytimes.com/2006/11/01/arts/design/01tate.html?ei=5088&en=93bb317dd36f453a&ex=1320037200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/architecture/2005/03/street_cred.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/01/american-folk-art-museum-demolition
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://moma.org/press/images/press/homedelivery/HomeDelivery.5OutdoorSelections.FINAL1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/arts/design/08moma.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=prefab
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/22/arts/todd-webb-94-peripatetic-photographer.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E07E3D9143BE23BBC4152DFB6678382659EDE
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A05E6D8143DE13BBC4051DFB6678388659EDE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215014215/http://www.samuelanderson.com:80/default.aspx?page=5&type=104&project=383&set=1&focus=0&link=1 to http://www.samuelanderson.com/default.aspx?page=5&type=104&project=383&set=1&focus=0&link=1

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) 18:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Board and management
Can somebody please but the current board finance and attendance in a concise way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 06:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Museum of Modern Art. 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/20160213143207/https://www.moma.org/learn/resources/archives/archives_about to http://www.moma.org/learn/resources/archives/archives_about
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012112259/http://www.moma.org/learn/resources/filmpreservation to http://www.moma.org/learn/resources/filmpreservation

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) 01:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"The" MoMA
Hello, Art and/or language Enthusiasts,
 * I was about to move the page (slightly), but since there is a lengthy name discussion, "Non-neutral title", where MoMA is acknowledged as being either "The Museum of Modern Art" or "MoMA"; I'll post here: the page nonetheless remains titled "Museum of Modern Art". As with The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, for instance, I'd think that a "The" belongs in the page title, as MoMA's actual name. Lindenfall (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Research on MoMAs cultural impact
Research has been done on MoMA's socio-cultural impact and should be included in the MoMA article. Adding such research is central to understanding the museum, its impact on society and history, including the museum's role as a gate-keeper, and understanding the present context of the museum.
 * The information reeks of opinion, and can be refuted in many ways both politically, economically and historically. Being included in the article is a possibility; being in the lede is not appropriate...Modernist (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have already been warned once, you will be blocked from editing if you continue to edit war your preferred version. Theroadislong (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The research is peer-reviewed, published and empirically based. Acting as if this is an opinion is a poor rhetorical attempt to retain rights to censorship. Denial and deletion is not research nor evidence. Deleting referenced academic work and empirically based facts about the MOMA is simply suppression of information and bullying. If the editor can offer published empirical work that refutes the fact the MoMA serves as an important gate-keeper in the art world, then it can be used to balance the facts presented in the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarbTorba (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Museum of Modern Art
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Museum of Modern Art's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "new-york-times-gefter": From New Documents:  From Diane Arbus:  

Reference named "guardian-ohagan": From New Documents:  From John Szarkowski:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

US-centric
What a gross, US-centric presumption to call one of their museums "the" Museum of Modern Art. The are numerous such museums sounds the world. That a US institution cause itself such and that a would-be encyclopaedia defends the stance says much about the US's opinion of itself.

A more neutral, encyclopaedic title would be "The Museum of Modern Art (New York)" or "The Museum of Modern Art (US of A)" 86.191.214.39 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

First modern art museum in the US?
Can't find if it's already been discussed in the talk page before, but it seems there are competing claims for the "first" museum devoted to modern art in the United States. The Phillips Collection explicitly calls itself "America's first modern art museum," and the article for the Phillips includes that claim. This article for MoMA claims in the lede that MoMA was the first. The Phillips opened first, but they have some very small holdings of pre-modern art (a few El Grecos, mainly) despite being a modern & contemporary museum. Anyone have any insight as to which claim should be preserved on here? 19h00s (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)