Talk:Sculpture of the United States

Posting this article

I posted this entry -- while realizing that it focuses on my area of interest (20th Century modern classical figure sculpture)

Hopefully those more interested in the 19th century --- as well as those interested in other directions of modernism, cowboy art, and monster art -- will make their contributions. Mountshang 22:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Much good work here, but you need to cite your sources. See WP:NOR. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On stumbling upon this page

As is often the case, I have recommendations on editing. So, I am going to disregard the Wikipedia standards and start to present them here. My first suggestion is that the article be indexed so that it can be worked on in smaller chunks. My divisions are going to be a bit arbitrary, simply taking what is here and adding some sort of title to each paragraph. I am not particularly possessive about these, but I believe that it will make editing this article easier. Carptrash 17:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea of the index and the divisions -- though I took the liberty of resorting to fewer artists and gallery entries. I prefer seeing larger pictures embedded in text -- rather than smaller pictures coming in a gallery at the end --- but I guess that everyone does not agree. I tried to include all of the sculptors for whom you, Carptrash, made entries. Please add any others whom I missed. There are some more pictures and divisions that I will add next weekend. Mountshang 02:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not think that I was doing a particularly good job of chopping the article up - but it seemed like a good starting place. I saw the discussion about picture placement and decided to keep on the subject. My earlier articles had the pictures spread out throughout the article but there are folks who are much more comfortable with a more defined [regulated?] layout - and anyway my usual policy is if somewone puts time and effort into an article, it's okay with me. I am about to add a bibliography section [I am a book person - but only use books in my collection] and am going to limit myself to books that are surveys, as opposed to monographs on one artist. Does that sound right? Also I have many more articles on sculptors than what you included, but am not sure about just dumping them all in. There is also a Category:American sculptors list - something like that - that is a better place for that. Carptrash 04:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see this article getting attention. Cheers! Durova 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So . . . . ........?

So are silver sugar bowls and creamers [or whatever] really "sculpture?" If so, then we need to start this article off with a definition of sculpture, becasue I don't think that you will find them in other "sculpture" discussions or studies. Carptrash 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find it difficult to defend a definiton of sculpture as Neutal-point-of-view that is any narrower than "3-D objects recognized as art" (the one currently in Wikipedia)

Today, sculpture includes many things that are non-figurative, as well as many things that are fabricated without carving or casting - and once considered nothing other than some kind of decorative or functional art.

Today, at the Art Institute of Chicago (where most of the pictures on this page were taken) the same room in the wing of American art which had the silver bowls also had sculpted figures (cigar store Indians, ship figureheads, other folk art figures )from the same period -- as well as period portrait paintings on the walls. None of this stuff was called 'art' back when it was made -- but that's also true for everything else in the museum made before 1500. It's called art now and it's displayed in art museums -- and institutional use probably has to set the standard for what gets called 'art' or 'sculpture'.

I would also like to eventually include outstanding examples of furniture, pottery, glass, dolls --- and everything else that people (including museums) collect because of how they look.

Maybe there should be a separate Wikipedia entry called "Figure sculpture of the United States" ? What do you think ? There is still going to be the problem of things -- like dolls -- that may not have been considered sculpture back when they were first made.

Unlike a published book -- there is no limit on the size of an internet encyclopedia --- so including all the stuff that you don't consider to be sculpture does not limit how thoroughly this project covers all the stuff that you do.Mountshang 21:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that we are approaching one of the more slippery slopes around in trying to define "sculpture" and this is, in my opinion, a fine thing. Although my personal interest in sculpture is pretty much in the figurative realm I have no issue with including abstract sculpture in this article. I am leery about including any/all 3D man-made objects that someone finds to be artistic. Of course there are always Cellini's Salt Cellars or a wide variety of lamps or book-ends as well as andirons by all sorts of sculptors that are both utilitarian household objects as well as being considered "sculpture," so there is to me no clearly defined line, but I find objects such as Paul Revere's creamers to be 3D art and still not "sculpture." However, as in instant reply in sports, I need "clear and irrefutable evidence" [or something] and not just my opinion before over ruling your decision. Carptrash 02:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I find many museums classify these "non-sculptural" objects as decorative arts. Rmhermen 05:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Representative?

I wonder how representative these images and names are of U.S. sculpture. I immediately notice the lack of Gutzon Borglum, Alexander Calder, Claes Oldenburg and perhaps Dale Chihuly. In monumental sculpture - I don't know why Lorado Taft's sculpture is there and there are no iconic images like Lincoln who is in another section, not a single mounted general, no French's Minute Man, Rudolph Evans' Jefferson, Prometheus or Atlas at Rockefeller Center or Marshall Fredericks' Spirit of Detroit. No image of Stone Mountain, Crazy Horse or Mt. Rushmore - a fairly unique American technique. No art deco section. The Late 20th century revival has two images - one from 1954, hardly late in the century. Rmhermen 05:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I just removed

Rod Patterson since I tend to do that with red links added by non-registered users. There is also a picture of his work in the gallery that is not visable because it's not entered right. Carptrash 01:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I also just went into the Public monuments section and removed the pictures of museum works by Taft and MacMonnies and replaced them with a couple of detail shots from actual public monuments by Taft and MacMonnies. Carptrash 06:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sculpting Mountains

Does Mount Rushmore, Crazy Horse Memorial, and Stone Mountain fall under "Sculpture" if so I think these would be excellent additions, as examples of Sculpture of the United States. I can add them - but I didn't know what section they would come under. Lmielke359 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They are sculpture (opinion) and might as well be their own section. Carptrash 14:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I added a section called "Carving mountains" to the Public Monuments section. However, I am not a sculptor and know very little about sculpture as a discipline so this section may need to be cleaned up - especially to fit with the prose in the rest of the article. A citation would also be nice for this section. Are there any other mountain sculptures in the US that I missed? Lmielke359 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit and reference help Carptrash. Lmielke359 00:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mother and Child.gif

The image Image:Mother and Child.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Crazy horse memorial comparison.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one

who feels that the "decorative arts" stuff at the start of the article does not really belong? 'cause I am seriously considering removing it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been threatening to do something like this for a while.

Now I have done it. I feel that this whole section does not belong in a sculpture of anything article. How about you?

It doesn't really bother me to have a small decorative arts section, Don Judd always credited Shaker furniture as an influence on his work.

I've added some major modernist figures like Di Suvero, Rickey, Tony Smith, Donald Judd, Nevelson, et.al. and we should also cover minimalism, Land Art, and Post-modernism etc...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Decorative art

The art of the silversmith reflected the spiritual values of the prosperous Puritan, and these simple but elegant objects took their place in fashionable homes.

• 
  Coffee pot, 1770, Philadelphia, Joseph Richardson (1711-1784)
• 
  Sauceboat (1740-1758), Boston, Jacob Hurd (1720-1758)

In reading this article

and especially looking at the images, one could easily get the impression that most of the sculpture in the US of A is located in museums, particularly ones in Chicago. I'm looking to change this but everyone, feel free to jump in. Carptrash (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sentence not supported

Hi, Modernist. First, I'll gently remind you that the custom on Wikipedia is BRD: you made a Bold edit, I made a Reversion that you disagreed with, whereupon you should have opened a Discussion on the Talk page.

So let's discuss. (I've left the sentence in while we chew it over, but I have corrected the punctuation.)

You say that no citation is required for the following sentence, because the article supports it: "American sculpture in its many forms, genres and guises has continuously contributed to the cultural landscape of world art into the 21st century." Would you kindly point out just where the article says that, and where the citations are? I see a lot of discussion about how world art contributed to U.S. sculpture, but not vice versa. PRRfan (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

See the articles on Minimal art, Postminimalism, Site-specific art, Land art, Abstract Expressionism, and use WP:UCS...Modernist (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's unconvincing. You say "the article supports the sentence," then you point to other articles? PRRfan (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This article discusses those articles I mention. But you know what - I really don't have time for this nonsense...Modernist (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll delete the sentence, which remains unsupported, and we can renew this discussion when your time permits. Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Learn about American sculpture and art in the world today and then maybe we can have a conversation...Modernist (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Leave the lede alone. You have not made your case. Get consensus for removal...Modernist (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, found a bit more time for discussion? Good. Then, I'll once again invite you to point out where the article backs up the sentence -- or, of course, to add relevant context and citations.PRRfan (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have already stated the article and the links supports the lede, read the article. Get consensus before removing the lede...Modernist (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Asserting is far from demonstrating. Kindly point out where the article makes the case for a continuous U.S. contribution to the world art landscape. I see only one relevant clause, supported only by a nearby "see also" link to a single movement, abstract expressionism: "...America led the rest of the world into a more iconoclastic and theoretical approach to modernism." PRRfan (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Minimalism as an important worldwide movement began in NYC in the early '60s. Minimalism by the late 1960s morphed via various figures like Hesse, Flavin, Serra, Smithson, Turrell into - Postminimalism which spread and influenced European art, Land art was also an outgrowth of American minimalism and conceptual art via Heizer, De Maria, Andre and others. David Smith. Calder, Noguchi and others also led the sculptural vanguard in the 1940s and 50s. It led to a generation of American welded sculptors with counterparts in England via Anthony Caro, and others, the American counterpart to Caro might be Mark di Suvero who also greatly influenced along with Serra site-specific sculpture...Modernist (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

American pop artists like Oldenburg and Segal also re-invigorated the use of imagery in vanguard sculpture worldwide. Basically American art dominated the last 50 years of the 20th century...Modernist (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. But that's not the point. The point is that a sentence you added to the lead is not supported by text or citations in the article. I would invite you to add such text, along with relevant citations, to the article, which would then begin to support your assertion.PRRfan (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty pathetic, as the statement is obviously true, and an understatement, but I suppose a citation from somewhere is needed, even though it is clearly Subject-specific common knowledge. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

File:IwoJimaMemArlington.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:IwoJimaMemArlington.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I just plucked

this out of the "turn towards abstraction" section.

especially as exemplified in its application by the totalitarian and genocidal regimes of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union,

A part of me want to remove pretty much all of that section, because, did the US really lead the rest of the world towards whatever it is we are claiming? Carptrash (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:MoonSmith.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MoonSmith.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MoonSmith.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SMITH CUBI VI.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I just cut Jose De Creeft out

of the "Paris Years" section because although he did go to Paris he was a generation or so younger than the others in that section and really was not a part of what was going on then. That section starts with "After the Civil War" and De Creeft was not even born until the late 1880s. I'll find someone else to replace him with. Carptrash (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2019 (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:

• USMC War Memorial Sunset Parade 2008-07-08.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed from Gallery of Modernist American sculpture section

I took out works by Henry Moore, Picasso, and Sir Anthony Caro because they are not American. I left Jacob Epstein. Carptrash (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2020 (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:

• Jerry Harris.sculpture.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)