Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Museum of Bad Art


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009.

Museum of Bad Art

 * Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk), User:Ferrylodge, User:Found5dollar, User:Kafka Liz, User:Ceoil, User:Jbmurray, User:LeadSongDog, User:Ceranthor

As an artist, this place has captured my imagination, both in the intellectual understanding of beauty and the fear that one of my pieces will show up here someday. This article has gone through a complete rewrite in the past week, and in the interest of transparency it is for the main page on April 1. This is a real place, evidenced by the all the sources. The article reflects the "wtf"? tone of the sources that have reported on it since 1994, as well as the sincere discussion on what is considered beautiful, and why museums and galleries are required to tell people what kind of art should be valued. I appreciate the time you take to read it and give your opinions. Ealdgyth, I must say for your edification, this is the first article I have ever written where I sought a citation from The National Enquirer. How unfortunate that I ended up not needing it. Moni3 (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are three left-aligned images directly below subheadings in contravention of WP:MOSIMAGE. I'm not enough a MOS-guru to know whether such contraventions are historically considered a reason to fail a FAC, but I thought I should note it.  A quick scan reveals some remaining prose issues, but I'll try a more thorough review later.  Seems promising overall, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm posting issues here as I find them:
 * "Its permanent collection includes 500 pieces of art "Too Bad to be Ignored"," I'm not clear on why the motto is capitalized, especially since the museum itself doesn't seem to capitalize it.
 * "MOBA has been mentioned in dozens of off-the-beaten-path guides to Boston, featured in international newspapers and magazines, and has inspired several other collections throughout the world that set out to rival its own visual atrocities." Faulty parallelism.

More later (this review is likely to be pretty haphazard, I'm afriad). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no more left-aligned images directly below subheadings. Thanks for taking the time to give it a quick scan, and we'll look forward to your thorough review.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The motto is no longer capitalized, per a discussin at the article talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess for lack of a good April Fools article we've got to work on this, no? And that's what I call a ridiculous contributor roll call :P Anyhow, images :
 * Couldn't the web site be cropped from File:Moba Logo.jpg? I'm assuming that the web site field is used anyhow, so it's wasted space (it would hardly tarnish or misrepresent the museum)
 * File:Lucyflowers.jpg and File:Compelling Detail of Lucy.JPG; I'm assuming we are waiting for the OTRS? Have any of the art images been verified yet? -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe just remove the web site field at the bottom of the infobox? I just want to say that I found this article hilariously funny, and Moni3 did an incredibly good job with it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On images:
 * To cut the website off the logo would be to alter the logo, wouldn't it? I am not sure we should do that since it is a non-free image.
 * On the placement of left sided images, if an oppose is going to be based on left-sided images, I'll shift them all right, but articles with images all shifted right look like they're about to tip off the side of the monitor.
 * All of the museum's images have been sent to permissions. I am waiting for OTRS tickets on all of them. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to throw a spanner into the works here, but is everybody (museum included) clear on the copyrights of the atrocious artworks? File:Lucyflowers.jpg was painted in ~1970 by an unknown painter.  If he or she turns up in court to assert copyright over the work (with proof), I would think the person has a fair case.  Picking the art from the rubbish does not take away the copyright from the artist (just like purchasing the work) unless an agreement was reached between the two to transfer the rights.  File:Eileen by R Anglo Le.jpg would probably be a concern as well.  Jappalang (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Spanner thrown, despite your best intentions. I wrote to Michael Frank and Louise Reilly Sacco and asked them specifically: do you have copyrights to distribute these images? If so, can I have your permission to use them in the article? Sacco's response, emailed to me on March 2: "Yes, we own the rights to our images and we are releasing them to Wikipedia." --Moni3 (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I checked the OTRS tickets and everything seems fine. The question of whether they have copyright is not our issue if they assert that they do indeed own the copyright, so it's not a worry for us (could be for them :P). -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Disgraceful. I mean, Support. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC).
 * It's good to see the Bish re-engage at FAC !! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I contributed a bit to this. So, I guess I'll support.  Ceran  thor 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. Support.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- External links and dabs (found using the checker tools), and ref formatting (found using WP:REFTOOLS) are all up to speed.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Well-rounded and well-sourced article, wonderfully written with a tone that is both encyclopedic and funny. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, a pure joy to read. I fixed a few minor issues here and there. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support this article on a museum that I have long known and (from afar) enjoyed. But a worrying number of flaws for an article praised by so many: (1) no consistency in capitalization for sources cited (I've gone for "up" style), (2) "flora" treated as singular (fixed), (3) a painting in "tempura" (a lovely idea, but since there was no "[sic]" or hint of nutritional value, taken as a typo for "tempera" and fixed accordingly). If I found all these oddities (and an obvious repetition) within ten minutes, I think a more careful copyeditor will probably find more. Morenoodles (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On tempera, which is the most embarrassing faux pas - it's from MOBA's website. The painting's described as "Tempura and acrylic on canvas". That could go either way. I read a source that said a guy sent in a painting made partly out of goose poop. It was rejected, of all crimes. Though it is entirely possible that some of the painting may be made out of fried batter, it's probably safe to transform that into "tempera". --Moni3 (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "tempura" is likely a typo on the site; the full image on the site shows that the artist has written "tempera" in the whitespace on the right side of the canvas. Jappalang (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. It also says "Bone Juggling Dog in Hula Skirk" in writing. User:Yomangan changed it to "Juggling Dog in Hula Skirt" per the text on the source site. I have the book that lists it as "Bone Juggling Dog in Hula Skirt". So, ah. You know... reliable sources rule. And in the end, we're fussing about a painting that shows a wiener dog juggling bones while wearing a hula skirt. --Moni3 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Geese? Why geese? Morenoodles (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because he was painting geese as a subject with goose poop. Get it? The symbolism? Me neither. In the end, you paid $400 for goose poop to hang on your wall. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * High concept art with a concept too high (or anyway too odoriferous) to be ignored. That's beautiful. Morenoodles (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Question. Why does the article allude to "New York City's Getty Museum" when the wikilinked article clearly states the museum's branches are in Southern California?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I was thinking of the Guggenheim. Can't people make museums that begin with different letters of the alphabet for God's sake?? No, I'm mortified. That was my mistake. --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was all my fault. Moni3 was relying on proofreading and I let her down.  I'm so sorry.  I assumed that Getty was rich enough to have branches everywhere.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (after EC) Ah, that explains it. I was wondering why would patrons find a large museum full of "art from ancient Greece, Rome, and Etruria" to be "equally hilarious" as the MOBA--boring perhaps, but not funny.  Matthew Barney's Vaseline sculptures at the Guggenheim, on the other hand, well.... I'll bite my tongue.  After all, if he's good enough for Björk....--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the quote was referring to the Getty? Maybe I'd have to see that place for myself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments regarding images:
 * Jappalang made an astute point above and I've actually been lurking waiting to see whether anyone would pick up on the problem of claiming rights to work fished out of a rubbish bin. While I think the museum is probably mistaken in its belief that it owns copyright (to "Lucy", anyway), the OTRS email is indeed explicit in its declaration of ownership and, as such, the "verifiability, not truth" philosophy of which I am so genuinely fond seems to apply and resolve policy issues.  Philosophical issues may be another matter.
 * File:Moba Logo.jpg - While I realise logos tend to get a "free pass" to inclusion, time and care should still be taken to write a specific purpose. The purpose statement of "The image is used to identify the organization Newbury Comics" seems to suggest a mechanical copy and paste and is, at the least, inappropriate for this image.   Also, to make a similar point as Herr Fuchs, the web address does not appear to be part of the actual logo (e.g. not present on this placard or, for that matter, on the MOBA website).  Rather, it appears to have been an addition for certain merchandise (e.g. the coffee mug.)  Being non-free does not preclude alteration (consider, for example, all of the non-free images that are scaled down - i.e. altered - by Wikipedians to satisfy NFCC#3B).  Its removal, I think, would improve aesthetics (it would also be nice to convert to a .png with a transparent background) and remove redundancy with the address already present in the infobox, to say nothing of likely being a more accurate representation of the logo.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, except for transparent background (don't know how).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Laser Brain and Ferrylodge. The transparency is, obviously, nothing essential or mandatory.  If no one beats me to it, I can do the transparency later today (laptop doesn't have Photoshop).  Эlcobbola  talk 17:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * More Fat Man feedback:
 * Don't hate me, but I was almost ready to slap one of thos obnoxious templates after seeing the article passively assert twice (once in the lead section and once in the "Collection standards" section) that some people claim the museum is anti-art.  I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, but is anyone really saying that?  I checked the NYT source, and it appears that curator Mr. Wilson thinks that "there are people who have frowned on us and said we're taking these poor innocent people's work and twisting it".  Do we have any direct sources or quotes from those who have criticized the museum in this fashion?  I'm just sayin'... it would make for a stronger, more balanced article if we did.
 * Minor gripe with the "Use in academic research" section: Of the two studies described, the former is far more interesting, yet treated in far less detail than the latter. We say that "researchers tested the consistency of responses between people asked to make 'gut' judgments versus those who made conscious well-thought responses". "Gut judgments" and "responses" about what, exactly?  The quality and merit of the paintings?  The content and iconography of the pieces?  Tell us a bit more--this sounds like a great experiment!  The other study, IMO, is less interesting.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From The Chicago Tribune: "...criticism has come from a few gallery and art-school types who complain that MOBA ridicules artists and art history". Headline in The Ottawa Citizen: "Bad Art Finds a Good Home at this Anti-Museum". Carey Goldberg's article from the NYT: "...the museum's founders emphasize that they are not in anyway anti-art or anti-artists - quite the opposite. 'There are people who have frowned on us and said we're taking these poor innocent people's work and twisting it,' Mr. Wilson said, 'and that's not what we're about. We're celebrating the artist.'" --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article on unconscious thought is interesting, and I wish the article discussed its methods in more detail, but it does not. The MOBA v MoMA experiment is one listed among a dozen that illustrate the differences between gut judgments and conscious thought. It does not say what aspect of the art participants were asked to evaluate: were they asking them to identify which pieces are "good"? Or "beautiful"? Or which one came from which museum? It doesn't say. I just reread it 3 times hoping to glean some more info from it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the study in question. The study's also been mentioned elsewhere.  It seems to be saying that those who reasoned in conscious thought were neither accurate nor consistent about whether a piece was from MoMA as opposed to MOBA.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The last article makes that connection, but that's what I would consider WP:SYNTH because the original primary source does not say that explicitly. Perhaps that is sloppy writing, and the authors did not expect it to be used on an article about MOBA. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The last article does seem to be engaged in some synthesis and original research, but that's no problem if the last article is a reliable source.  Anyway, just thought I'd bring it to y'all's attention (I love to say "y'all's").Ferrylodge (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like to used synthesized info. I have already been asked to correct inaccuracies from reliable sources that did sloppy reporting, or whatever is the result of using 50 newspapers. I would like to stick to the original article. Well done with the twang. --Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's kind of interestingly bizarre that a psychological study involving MOBA paintings is being used to suggest how to sell a car and "rescue America’s auto manufacturers." :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support an article too good to be ignored about "art too bad to be ignored"  Were Spiel  Chequers  20:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I went through the article just now, but there wasn't much to do in terms of copy-editing. Please check what I did so this gem can shine as brightly as possible on April 1.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - But of course I have no taste. LeadSongDog (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.