Talk:Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2

Image
I found a better link for the picture but I need someone sober to make it display.

PBS - DuChamp It's larger and prettier, featured image applicable. -Lizard Wizard


 * That one is actually Nude, No. 3, a hand colored photograph that Duchamp made for Arensberg. --sparkit TALK 15:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Homage
Under the Homage heading, perhaps the poem Nude Descending a Staircase, by X. J. Kennedy, should be added. This was also the title of one of his award winning books of poetry, published in 1961. See http://www.xjanddorothymkennedy.com, for instance. 64.48.129.20 12:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Name of similar photographic technique?
There is a field of photography that looks very similar (long exposure + strobe light + moving person, like here: ). Problem is, I don't know the official name of it, searched for about 15 minutes. It looks like it has been invented by Harold Eugene Edgerton (no pics or a official term in that article, though). The most often used term is "stroboscopic motion photography", which I used in this article here now. But everybody is welcome to correct it (and create an article about it :-D). Thanks. Peter S. 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Influence of Muybridge
In the article is written:
 * Duchamp also recognized the influence of the stop-motion photography of Eadweard Muybridge, specifically his Nude Descending Stairs (1887).

But in the reference, Tomkins says that he claimed that he didn't remember seeing Muybridge's work. Should this sentence be removed? Chabacano 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Tomkins says Duchamp remembered the influence of Étienne-Jules Marey. It's now changed in the article. --sparkit TALK 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Muybridge did influence the work, however, as it is named after the Italic textoriginalItalic text nude descending stairs photographs of Muybridge. The reference to Muybridge ought not be omitted just because the artist claims to have forgotten the photographs.

Scandal
The article says that the painting caused "a huge stir during its exhibition at the 1913 Armory Show in New York following a press copy of an abuse scandal". What does this mean? What abuse scandal? 87.114.231.151 (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I took out that phrase. People were scandalized, but no abuse was involved. --sparkit TALK 06:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

German version
This tag was added in 2009. Time to get off the page. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2. 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/20090425134129/http://www.lpg.musin.de:80/kusem/lk/gym8/b/sequb.htm to http://www.lpg.musin.de/kusem/lk/gym8/b/sequb.htm

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 14:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of File:Fountain Descending a Staircase, No. 2.jpg
I'm adding a talk page discussion about this issue because from inspecting the edit history I see that this has been removed before and reverted multiple times. My main argument is notability. There is no evidence this is a notable work of art that deserves to be included on the page.

User:Randy Kryn provided the most comprehensive argument in favour of this image so I'm going to quote his edit comment and preemptively respond to it:


 * Undid good faith revision (going to reverse on this as the image has been on the page since January 2019, with hundreds of people a day reading the page with no complaints. other user images have been used on pages, and this is a unique creation in that it combines the artists two most prominent works so is more than just a user-creation but a stand-alone work of photograph art

Firstly, the fact that an image has appeared on an article for over a year is no reason for retaining it. There have been many cases where things have appeared on Wikipedia pages in conflict with Wikipedia policy for years until being discovered and corrected. The fact that "nobody has complained" seems moot since there have now been multiple attempts to remove the image, but it's also not a Wikipedia policy or really an argument in favour of the image.

The strongest argument here is that other articles contain user-created images. Indeed, WP:IMAGEOR provides an exception to the "no original research":


 * Because of copyright laws in several countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. [...] Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments

In this case I don't think this applies: there is no published idea or argument that is being illustrated by the image; it is simply a user-created homage to the artwork described in the article. We also have no shortage of images in the article that serve as better illustrations by established artists.
 * Fragglet (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, that would be for over three years, so will revert back to the well-established image as the discussion takes place. That it is original to Wikipedia is fine, there are many such images on pages. Much more than a homage, the image is a unique representation of the art, the artist, and the concept. It provides context for all three. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal. No evidence of notability or significance.  It's a cool remix of the original but it doesn't add any encyclopedic value.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The educational value remains in the context, combining two works along with Duchamp's sense of the folly in art. This is probably one of Wikipedia's finest art images in the field of surrealistic commentary, and that's saying a lot. It was not added to the article lightly. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a fine image aesthetically, but I don't agree that it illuminates anything about Duchamp's work and seems a rather superficial take on it.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand you correctly I, or anyone else, could make a similarly pastiche, claim it's surrealistic commentary and you'd support adding that too? Or is it just this one particular image? If so, why is this one unique? How is it more pertinent than http://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll1076781llgZotCfDrCWvaHBOAD/eliot-elisofon-marcel-duchamp-descending-a-staircase.jpg or Gerhard Richter's Frau, die Treppe herabgehend, or Ema (Akt auf einer Treppe), which if I recall correctly has actually been discussed in relation to Duchapmp's work? Or even better, why not Odradek, Táboritská 8, Prague, 18 July 1994 1994 by Jeff Wall, which refers to both Richter AND Duchamp? Vexations (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd support adding the Duchamp descending, good find. Why not do a gallery with a few of these? I don't know if you could do a similar or better image, give it a try, but I wonder if anyone has combined the two artworks in the image being discussed before. If not, the image is unique, descriptive, encyclopedic, and should stay. Surprise me, change your mind (Angels on the Talk Page). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not do a gallery with a few of these? Because I could find hundreds of such images. The internet is awash which fan art. Vexations (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha, a challenge. See if you can find a Fountain descending which came earlier than the image under question (sincerely interested, CC even got the No. 2 in there, here's No. 1). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I could take a minute and easily whip up something similar in Photoshop by copying it along a spline, and produce en massse an earlier version of something descending a staircase. It's trivially simple and completely without any artistic merit. No. The whole unsourced trivia section should go. If you want to add an illustration and discuss works that preceded or informed this one, you could use The King and the Queen Surrounded by Swift Nudes for example. There are actual sources that discuss that. Vexations (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Evading the question. Can you find an earlier example of Fountain descending a staircase? Or even another one since? If not, then the image being discussed is unique and probably important as to connecting the two most important artworks of Duchamp's legacy. That it was made by a Wikipedian who gave up copyright is neither here nor there, mostly there, in terms of using it on the page as defining Duchamp and his historical impact on art. It has resided for three years because of that. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I said I could make one in about a minute. the image being discussed is unique and probably important as to connecting the two most important artworks of Duchamp's legacy No it's not. It's neither unique not important. I gave you an example of a work by artist whose work is in major museum collections that has been discussed in scholarly sources which do what you claim " connect[..] the two most important artworks of Duchamp's legacy". The one you want to include hasn't been discussed in any sources anywhere. That we neglected to remove it was an oversight, not an endorsement. Vexations (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems unique at least chronologically, are there any previous Fountain descending images? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support removal. There is no independent, reliable source that describes this image as relevant to the interpretation of Duchamp's painting. Whatever it's merits, it has no encyclopaedic relevance. Vexations (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removal, with utmost regrets. The image is reasonably interesting, but Wikipedia is not a place where clever new artwork should be first promoted. I suggest finding more-appropriate forums to post the image, such as online art or design magazines and discussion groups. If and when it receives noteworthy attention and publication by reputable third-party commentators, the image could be resubmitted and justifiably be considered for inclusion in the article. Reify-tech (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there is no text-based reason to merit this image's inclusion. It has only peripheral relevance to this topic for a general audience. czar  04:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't state an opinion on the main question here, but just comment that several editors here have fallen into the trap of raising the "notability" of the image. This is wrong - the WP concept of notability only applies to the question of whether a topic is suitable for its own article. Content within an article does not have to demonstrate WP notability, and non-notability is no bar in itself to including it. There are other policies that apply here, in particular WP:UNDUE; highly notable information may not be relevant enough to include in an article - for example an image of Michelangelo's David here. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)