Talk:Sculpture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleSculpture was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 12, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sculpture. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photo gallery[edit]

for the Minimalism section contains two works by Tony Smith and two by Donald Judd. I think it is a good practice to include only one work per artist, per section, in a survey article such as this. Unless I hear otherwise I shall remove one image from each of them. Carptrash (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eurocentrism reeks from this article[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

im including buddhist art as separate heading[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Another case of the euro-centric power structure squashing the voice of Truth? Carptrash (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Art Deco sculpture[edit]

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

How flat can an artwork be an still be considered a "sculpture"?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Yes those are technically sculpture. See intaglio, relief etc in the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Relief#Low relief or bas-relief would be considered sculptural. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks!★Trekker (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the bull[edit]

Artlover8789, 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Schazjmd 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)Reply[reply]

Artlover8789, 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 Carptrash, Modernist, and Johnbod think about including the bull. Schazjmd (Talk) 22:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
The Bull does not belong in this historical article, This article does not need that image...Modernist (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Ditto for the Art article. This is not one of the world's great masterpieces. Carptrash (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Agree with Carptrash & Schazjmd. Thanks, both. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"3D painting" as a form of sculpture[edit]

@Jmg38: 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)Reply[reply]

Jarble, 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)Reply[reply]

Poorly written[edit]

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]