Talk:Detroit Institute of Arts/Archive 1

The Seine at Asnie`res

While the DIA claims that they returned it to France, the Hermitage in St. Petersburg claims to have it currently - and that they received it directly from a confiscated German WWII collection. It can't be both. Rmhermen 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Thinker

The article states that The Thinker is sitting in front of the museum since 1883, that seems to be wrong:

The monumental version of The Thinker was not casted before 1902
The museum bought the sculpture in 1922 (See museums own catalogue on www.dia.org) from the German art collector de:Max Linde who had it in the garden of his Lübeck home, were it was painted by Edvard Munch in 1907, the only Thinker painted by Munch. The painting is in the museum Behnhaus in Lübeck.--Kresspahl 16:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I wrote Bkonrad:

Hi,

The fact in question in Detroit Institute of Arts was whether Rodin's Thinker was in fact sitting in front of the first Museum in 1888. You cite: [1] as your source, and it does indeed claim that this was so. However, this is a claim, not a fact. Here are three reasons that lead Kresspahl and me to believe that this cannot be true

According to The Thinker, Rodin finished a first small scale version in 1880. The first large scale bronce cast was not done before 1902.
The Museum collection information tells us that their cast of the Thinker has the accession number 22.143 indicating that it was purchased in 1922.
The Thinker project, which lists all existing versions, clearly identifies the Detroit version as the one purchased by Linde in 1904 and acquired by the DIA in 1922.

Please consider this evidence. --Concord 19:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what I replied there (BTW, it would be nice if you did not duplicate conversations, but simply directed attention through links -- it is confusing to keep track of discussions occurring in multiple locations).

The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability is explicitly NOT about truth, but verifiability. If you desire, update the text to indicate that "it is claimed that ... " or some such hedging. I have no specialist knowledge whatsoever in this regard. The {{fact}} tag simply asks for a citation -- whether the cited source is accurate or not is another matter entirely. older ≠ wiser 19:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources includes a picture of the museum in 1888. And even this picture doesn't show The Thinker sitting in front of the new museum. Seems to be an usual local newspaper article as they are published every day everywhere on this planet, copy and paste from archives and hearsay mixed with wishful thinking.

It should not be considered as a reliable source.--Kresspahl 20:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Industry

I think the Rivera frescoes deserve much more coverage in this article than the cursory mention given...anyone feel like beefing it up? (Detroit Industry doesn't even have its own article yet, unfortunately) I might give it a shot, but I'm a little strapped for time lately. Could we stick-in a photo from Diego Rivera perhaps? Stationwagontodd 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remodel

The museums remodel will soon be completed. Let's have photos when ready.Thomas Paine1776 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Detroit Industry article

I've started the article, seeing as how it seemed to be needing one forever. However, its my first attempt at an article here and I'm no expert on the mural either, so I'd appreciate it greatly if anyone could help contribute (the subject matter and controversy, anyone?). Thanks Clockwrist (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master Plan

The Master Plan section regarding the recent DIA renovations may no longer be important as these renovations are now complete. The section is now a little inconsistent with some portions implying that the renovations continue while some imply that they are complete. The link from the section also seems to have changed, noting that the renovations are now complete. I propose that this section be eliminated entirely. A small note about the renovation could be added to the discussion about the DIA's architecture instead. Pocklecod (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)PockleCod[reply]

Bubble Gum Story Has Inaccurate References

The paragraph about bubble gum damage to a painting includes two references, neither of which seem to relate to this incident:

On February 24, 2006, a 12-year-old boy stuck a piece of chewing gum on Helen Frankenthaler's 1963 abstract work The Bay, leaving a small stain. The painting is valued at $1.5 million as of 2005, and is one of Frankenthaler's most important works. [2] The museum's conservation lab successfully cleaned and restored the painting, which was put back on display in late June 2006.[4]

Is this incident real?--Lawrlafo (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]