Talk:Sculpture

Eurocentrism reeks from this article
i think the summary of this eurocentric article is, the sculpture art is from europe and all other arts are just footnotes. This eurocentric BS has created a mess all over wikipedia pages, the euroes i think operate proper organised funded groups to adjust all articles based on this eurocentric agendas.

Indian sculptural arts are so at the bottom of the page below china, japan which have all been inspired by indian buddhist sculptures, even SEA has more sculptural legacy then china, japan.

the indian styled buddhist sculptures of gandhara are packaged as usual as an extension of european or greek arts which is nothing but delusional and euro-centrism.Buddhist art is indian in origin not BS european maybe shift the buddhism as an extension of european philosophy as well while you are at it. Rameezraja001 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason for this is that most of the folks who edit here are knowledgeable about western art and not eastern art. I was going to start to remedy this 5 years ago, started studying up on the topic and just felt unprepared, so backed off.  So find some good sources and start making changes.  Don't do it all at once, making 1,000 changes, start with a couple and go from there.  Carptrash (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Trust me Carptrash, lack of knowledge about Asian art is not the reason for the positions he is complaining about, quite the reverse. This guy just wants everything to be invented in India, regardless of what sources say. There is little difference between Western and Indian sources on such points, but a great deal of difference between both and the Hindutva and other nationalist positions - though this editor seems to hail from Pakistan, which is a somewhat new twist. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what it seemed like. The two sources I have, that I was going to rely on are both, I believe, written by Indians so i was not too worried about cultural biases, I was (am) just too lazy or busy with my laundry to plunge in. I ran into an interesting (to me) reference to greco-roman influence in India in  Cahill's "How the Irish Saved Civilization" but that's another story for . . . . . ............. Carptrash (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

im including buddhist art as separate heading
im including buddhist art as a separate subject which will including all buddhist arts and not just greco-buddhist art which is actually gandhara school of art, im including buddhist sculpture under india because buddhist art has origins from india and gandharan art is a sub genre of buddhist art.Rameezraja001 (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Make a separate article and stop edit warring!..Modernist (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am looking forward to seeing what edits you make. I do hope that your grammar improves. Carptrash (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well he's blocked for a month, & if he carries on as he has at other articles on his return, that won't last long. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Another case of the euro-centric power structure squashing the voice of Truth? Carptrash (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Art Deco sculpture
Why is there no Art Deco sculpture? Socialist realism sculpture is also lacking. 95.180.55.184 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

How flat can an artwork be an still be considered a "sculpture"?
Is there some consensus on this? The article describes sculptures as "three dimensional" but what about flat surfaces with plane carvings like these, coins or a cameo carvings like these?★Trekker (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes those are technically sculpture. See intaglio, relief etc in the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find "intaglio" in the article so I searched for it. Do you mean Intaglio (printmaking)?★Trekker (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry. Not prints, where the final product is 2D, but Engraved gems etc. Reverse of cameos. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Relief would be considered sculptural. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks!★Trekker (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

the bull
, do you want to discuss why you think a photo of the bull sculpture should be added to the article? I'm personally ambivalent on it, but if one is added, it should be a better image, rather than one that is more of people than the sculpture. For example: Schazjmd  (Talk)  21:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Recently added to Artlover's talk page, but better belonging here, I suppose,
 * If you are serous when you wrote,
 * "What is the issue? I am adding "Charging Bull' to the lead of sculpture as it is arguably the world's most iconic sculpture? If you can please let me know a sculpture which attracts the millions of people each year Charging Bull does, I would happily agree that Charging Bull should come second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artlover8789 (talk"
 * As to your claim that this is one of the most iconic statues in the world, NYC already has the Statue of liberty, Lawrie's Atlas and Manship's Prometheus - all icons, all magnets, and all in New York City. There are probably more there, much less in the rest of the world. I suspect that the other image was picked because this work is being promoted NOT as an important work of sculpture but as a tourist attraction.Carptrash (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the photograph you have chosen. It is better than the ones with the crowds. I think it is acceptable to say that Charging Bull is much more famous and important than the Angel of the North. How about we place your Charging Bull photo above the Angel of the North? --Artlover8789 (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not familiar with this article so I defer to the editors who've been involved with it previously. If this article is like others on Wikipedia, I'm sure a lot of discussion (and compromises) went into choosing the images. Let's see what, , and think about including the bull.  Schazjmd   (Talk)  22:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is THE article about Sculpture. It is trying to give a good cross section of all the sculpture in the history of the world.  The Charging Bull, in my view, does not belong here. Carptrash (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Bull does not belong in this historical article, This article does not need that image...Modernist (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And going over and stuffing it in the Modern sculpture is not going to help either. What is the deal with you and that work? Carptrash (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto for the Art article. This is not one of the world's great masterpieces. Carptrash (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that Artlover has added the bull photo to 10 articles today, some in a context that makes sense and some very tangential. Hardly any participation in this discussion either. Looking over the excellent images already in the article, I agree with you both that the bull statue isn't needed. Schazjmd   (Talk)  00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Carptrash & Schazjmd. Thanks, both.  Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"3D painting" as a form of sculpture
I noticed that the phrase 3D painting redirects to a section of this article. Is "3D painting" a type of sculpture, or is it something else? Jarble (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the only articles using links to "3D painting" were referring to this. I should have fixed those articles, rather than change the redirect. I have corrected the former and reinstated the latter. Thanks for the nudge. Jmg38 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Poorly written
This is very poorly written. Needs major editing. 47.229.161.253 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Spiral-jetty-from-rozel-point.png

"Three dimensional art" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Three dimensional art and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seed of  コスモ  (alternative account of Sonic678) 20:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Too many images
The article has almost 300 images in it! It makes sense that this would have more than the average article, but this isn't wikicommons! it would improve the article to focus on fewer per MOS:IRELEV, "too many can be distracting" Tom B (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)