Talk:Parthenon Frieze

Suggestions for improvement
It has been remarked elsewhere that this article could usefully be expanded. I quite agree, but feel that I personally have done enough. I'll confine myself, then, to suggesting a few topics which it would be informative to add. A section on the historical background to the frieze, including the Periclean building program, Delian funds, the religious and political context. Recent research on polychromy. More detail on the iconography of the participants, including attributes and problems of interpretation. The sculptural precedents for the frieze, aspects of composition and landscape elements. More could be said on the documentary history of the sculpture; which is more than just Carrey, but Stuart and Revett, other early surveys, traveller's accounts and early photography. Anyone wanting to do this would be well advised to use Neils's book as a first resort.

One thing it doesn't need is any more reference to the politics of repatriation, there's already a page for that. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 13:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of ISU
I suggest removal of the use of feet as a measurement unit based on Manual of Style (dates and numbers).Jabberjawjapan (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Copies of the Frieze
There should be a section discussing copies of the frieze, casts often including sections which are either split between London and Athens, or no longer exist (figure of Eros for instance) Dollist (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What would it tell us about the frieze? There are many many copies, a list wouldn't be informative or encyclopaedic. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 12:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Elgin marbles, again
Apparently, we have to rake over this again. User: 94.66.57.195 adds "The part of the frieze in London is the subject of an international controversy and its permanent return to Athens is the subject of pending high profile negotiations between the Greek government and the British Museum. " with the edit comment "Undid revision 1132369306 by Twospoonfuls (talk) sorry, it is manifestly relevant for the article and should be noted in the article. may be unwelcome to you, but not to readers of Wikipedia" As discussed previously the subject of this article isn't the Elgin marbles, it is specifically the Parthenon frieze - a different subset of the Parthenon sculptures. There is a whole article wholly devoted to the Elgin marbles and its politics: if we're not going to observe any difference then there is no point in having separate articles. WP:Out of scope and WP:Tendentious editing 2.12 and 2.16 are relevant here. I appreciate this is a hot-button topic and repatriation is a popular point of view (indeed the only aspect of the sculptures some people are interested in) but it is not germane to the subject of this article. If experience is anything to go by cultural politics is quite likely to crowd out discussion of art history, which is why it is desirable to keep those two topics carefully demarcated. I won't presume to speak for the "readers of Wikipedia" so I will just invite any comments. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 22:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I edited the reference to the negotiations before I saw there was an ongoing discussion. The user has been adding non neutral POV stuff to every article which has any connection with Elgin or the marbles. However, I think in this case it is relevant and worth one mention. I've reworded the sentence in a way which should be durable and acknowledges that the issue exists. I agree that the Elgin Marbles article is the place where this issue should be thrashed out.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Photos
I was recently at the BM, and went around all of the frieze taking high-ish photos of each part of it, on Commons at - in case they are useful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)