Talk:Cubism

Picasso's use of text (JOU)

Currently, the article says Picasso, through this (Synthetic Cubism) movement, was the first to use text in his artwork (to flatten the space) - how valid is this? I'm having a hard time believing nobody before Picasso used text in artwork and I can't find mention of this anywhere else, not even my university art book, and I would think something like this would be a really major fact. 24.214.205.150 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Category

Add "Category:Visual art movements" to article when unprotected. Hyacinth 05:29, 15 Sep 2004tit (UTC)

move it back, i think

Modernism template

I've added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of help. I put a stub tag on it. Also, the movements of modern art are not linear, so I don't see the benefit in having "preceded by" and "followed by" in the template. [[User:Dystopos|05:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why was this changed?

Doing a research project on cubism (synthetic cubism specifically). Just wondering why the article was shortened to the little snippet it is now. Or am I missing something? Version with the full article is 13:12, 31 Mar 2005 though there may be a better version before that... I think it should be switched back, but I don't know. I'm not an expert on the subject, it just seems like the article was much more complete.--Quibbles 01:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The changer didn't say why they changed it. I've put it back in and copyedited it. There's still a lot more that could be written about cubism. If your research turns up some material to add, please do so. --sparkit (talk) 04:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the change and the edit. This is much closer to what I had in mind for this article. Hopefully I'll have time to add what I find in my research. thanks again.--Quibbles 06:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful addition to the article, Quibbles! Thanks! --sparkit (talk) 14:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)tit

Link re: Marevna's cubist paintings

There do not seem to be many representations of Marevna's paintings available on the internet; so I suppose one does not want to lose the links that one does find. Two links I left in working order when I originally supplied them, have since ceased to connect; but in both cases I have been able to trace them under a new address, which I have put in the article, tested and again left in woriking order. Hey everyone!

a) In case of Marevna's painting "Landscape with a Thistle", 1969, canvas, oil, 96x130, if the problems recurs, try: www.sovcom.ru/ and, having chosen the English language option in the top left hand corner, go to Help and search there for "Creator": Marevna.

b) Same in the the case of the second link, namely Marevna's portrait of Chaim Soutine, c. 1916/17, at the Erich Lessing Collection website. If it again causes problems, try: www.lessing-photo.com/ and see whether by searching for "Marevna, Maria" it is still possible to trace this image.

c) The link to the Korean site works, though it is a bit slow. A window comes up offering the installation of the Korean language; but it is possible to proceed and view the images without installing the language. The images are not numbered, so one has to count to 16 whilst scrolling down the page.

Portress updated at 02:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just so you all know, the 3rd St. Villager, a free Los Angeles paper, printed this article in their Issue #25 August 2005. JesseW 20:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

{{cited}} Diego Rivera was a very famous cubist painter.--71.28.246.73 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Impact of Cubism

The starting sentence states that "usually regarded as the most important and influential art movement since the Italian Renaissance." This is highly debatable, especially when taking into account how much cubism was influenced by impressionism (Cubism is just a further break from the realism that had predominated). Who regards it as the most influential movement? That should definitely be stated along with references. Cubism was made famous by artists like Ferdinand Leger and Pablo Picasso for deipcting an abstract and contorted view of reality similiar to other "realist" painters during the time the descriptions are modified, dark or illustrious variations of the modern world.Epachamo 00:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cezanne?

Paul Cezanne's article references his influences on cubists rather extenstively - should he be mentioned here?

I have contributed to the Cézanne article, particularly in reference to his influence on Cubism and 20th C art, and I'd be very happy to have a link to Cezanne in this article. In fact I'll put one in myself! Duncan Smith 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Cezanne is the FATHER OF CUBISM. Yes, he did it first. And to leave him out of an article about Cubism is the reason why no one should rely on Wikipedia for their information. Pookerella (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Link re: Marevna's cubist paintings

There do not seem to be many representations of Marevna's paintings available on the internet; so I suppose one does not want to lose the links that one does find. Two links I left in working order when I originally supplied them, have since ceased to connect; but in both cases I have been able to trace them under a new address, which I have put in the article, tested and again left in woriking order. Hey everyone!

a) In case of Marevna's painting "Landscape with a Thistle", 1969, canvas, oil, 96x130, if the problems recurs, try: www.sovcom.ru/ and, having chosen the English language option in the top left hand corner, go to Help and search there for "Creator": Marevna.

b) Same in the the case of the second link, namely Marevna's portrait of Chaim Soutine, c. 1916/17, at the Erich Lessing Collection website. If it again causes problems, try: www.lessing-photo.com/ and see whether by searching for "Marevna, Maria" it is still possible to trace this image.

c) The link to the Korean site works, though it is a bit slow. A window comes up offering the installation of the Korean language; but it is possible to proceed and view the images without installing the language. The images are not numbered, so one has to count to 16 whilst scrolling down the page.

Portress updated at 02:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just so you all know, the 3rd St. Villager, a free Los Angeles paper, printed this article in their Issue #25 August 2005. JesseW 20:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

{{cited}} Diego Rivera was a very famous cubist painter.--71.28.246.73 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Cubistic architecture

In Prague there are a few examples of cubistic architecture (the most famous is the house at the black mother of god, where now the museum of czech cubism is locate), shouldn't this unusual aspect of cubism being mentioned? Plch 00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) ops, I've just noted the picture, but I don't see anything in the text... Plch

Feel free to add it. :) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am an art historian, living in Prague (in Nusle), where I see this so-called 'cubist architecture' every day. On the one hand, I love these buildings. But on the other, I find it incredible how people accept this designation of 'cubist' so completely uncritically. I have never heard or read a coherent argument as to what, exactly, makes this architectural style cubist. In fact, it is no more cubist than any other randomly chosen architectural style. I know how dear it is for Czechs to have this claim to fame (despite earlier attempts in 'cubist architecture' in France). But while it is undoubtely aesthetically pleasing, cubist it is not! For quality reasons, and for pedagogical accuracy, I suggest the photos of the cubist buildings be removed. They can certainly remain in the article on Czech cubism - though this entry is in need of expansion and critical attention.

As an architect I would say that the czech cubist architecture is more of a decorative kind than true cubism. Similar to classisism, gothic, Art Noveau etc. Decorative patterns applied to a standard building to folow the current vogue. True cubist buildings, in the philosophy of analytical or synthetic cubism, is rather something in the line of deconstructivism or post-modernism. One of my teachers at architecture school, a true post-modernist, is very fond of cubism. 213.145.169.62 13:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe

It was a complete and clearly defined aesthetic.

Why I don't feel convinced? Am I just prejudiced (against cubism) or merely ignorant (in face of a genius)?
—6birc, 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. (Ignoring the question whether you can agree to a question or not.) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

As the two articles proposed, Analytic cubism and Synthetic cubism are both stubs, with little activity, I feel that their purpose may be better served in this article by merging the three under this title. This is only a tentative proposal, but my thinking behind it is that the viewing of all the related information will be easier with the topics together. Martinp23 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) I agree that the three should be merged as soon as possible. As it stands some of the information is conflicting. Daisy2 14:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The 3 Main Types Of Cubism

There were many types of cubism. The three main ones were these. There is ANALYTICAL CUBISM (1909-1912), SYNTHETIC CUBISM (1912-1919) and ORPHISM CUBISM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.109.143.194 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

As it stands now, there are two articles that link to each other, about two kinds. One of them (on Analytic) starts out saying there are two major branches, the other (Synthetic) starts out saying there are three major branches. Could you recommend a clear, complete, and consistent introductory statement for both? --Sukkoth 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Talk:Cubism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Contents [hide] 1 Category 2 Modernism template 3 Why was this changed? 4 Link re: Marevna's cubist paintings 5 Impact of Cubism 6 Cezanne? 7 Cubistic architecture 8 I can't believe 9 Merge proposal 10 A merge seems a very good idea 11 The 3 Main Types Of Cubism

[edit] Category Add "Category:Visual art movements" to article when unprotected. Hyacinth 05:29, 15 Sep 2004tit (UTC)

move it back, i think

[edit] Modernism template I've added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of help. I put a stub tag on it. Also, the movements of modern art are not linear, so I don't see the benefit in having "preceded by" and "followed by" in the template. 05:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) [edit] Why was this changed? Doing a research project on cubism (synthetic cubism specifically). Just wondering why the article was shortened to the little snippet it is now. Or am I missing something? Version with the full article is 13:12, 31 Mar 2005 though there may be a better version before that... I think it should be switched back, but I don't know. I'm not an expert on the subject, it just seems like the article was much more complete.--Quibbles 01:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC) The changer didn't say why they changed it. I've put it back in and copyedited it. There's still a lot more that could be written about cubism. If your research turns up some material to add, please do so. --sparkit (talk) 04:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the change and the edit. This is much closer to what I had in mind for this article. Hopefully I'll have time to add what I find in my research. thanks again.--Quibbles 06:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Wonderful addition to the article, Quibbles! Thanks! --sparkit (talk) 14:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)tit [edit] Link re: Marevna's cubist paintings There do not seem to be many representations of Marevna's paintings available on the internet; so I suppose one does not want to lose the links that one does find. Two links I left in working order when I originally supplied them, have since ceased to connect; but in both cases I have been able to trace them under a new address, which I have put in the article, tested and again left in woriking order. Hey everyone! a) In case of Marevna's painting "Landscape with a Thistle", 1969, canvas, oil, 96x130, if the problems recurs, try: www.sovcom.ru/ and, having chosen the English language option in the top left hand corner, go to Help and search there for "Creator": Marevna. b) Same in the the case of the second link, namely Marevna's portrait of Chaim Soutine, c. 1916/17, at the Erich Lessing Collection website. If it again causes problems, try: www.lessing-photo.com/ and see whether by searching for "Marevna, Maria" it is still possible to trace this image. c) The link to the Korean site works, though it is a bit slow. A window comes up offering the installation of the Korean language; but it is possible to proceed and view the images without installing the language. The images are not numbered, so one has to count to 16 whilst scrolling down the page. Portress updated at 02:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Just so you all know, the 3rd St. Villager, a free Los Angeles paper, printed this article in their Issue #25 August 2005. JesseW 20:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC) {{cited}} Diego Rivera was a very famous cubist painter.--71.28.246.73 06:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [edit] Impact of Cubism The starting sentence states that "usually regarded as the most important and influential art movement since the Italian Renaissance." This is highly debatable, especially when taking into account how much cubism was influenced by impressionism (Cubism is just a further break from the realism that had predominated). Who regards it as the most influential movement? That should definitely be stated along with references. Epachamo 00:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Cezanne? Paul Cezanne's article references his influences on cubists rather extenstively - should he be mentioned here? I have contributed to the Cézanne article, particularly in reference to his influence on Cubism and 20th C art, and I'd be very happy to have a link to Cezanne in this article. In fact I'll put one in myself! Duncan Smith 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC) [edit] Cubistic architecture In Prague there are a few examples of cubistic architecture (the most famous is the house at the black mother of god, where now the museum of czech cubism is locate), shouldn't this unusual aspect of cubism being mentioned? Plch 00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) ops, I've just noted the picture, but I don't see anything in the text... Plch Feel free to add it. :) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC) I am an art historian, living in Prague (in Nusle), where I see this so-called 'cubist architecture' every day. On the one hand, I love these buildings. But on the other, I find it incredible how people accept this designation of 'cubist' so completely uncritically. I have never heard or read a coherent argument as to what, exactly, makes this architectural style cubist. In fact, it is no more cubist than any other randomly chosen architectural style. I know how dear it is for Czechs to have this claim to fame (despite earlier attempts in 'cubist architecture' in France). But while it is undoubtely aesthetically pleasing, cubist it is not! For quality reasons, and for pedagogical accuracy, I suggest the photos of the cubist buildings be removed. They can certainly remain in the article on Czech cubism - though this entry is in need of expansion and critical attention. [edit] I can't believe It was a complete and clearly defined aesthetic. Why I don't feel convinced? Am I just prejudiced (against cubism) or merely ignorant (in face of a genius)? —6birc, 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I agree. (Ignoring the question whether you can agree to a question or not.) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC) [edit] Merge proposal As the two articles proposed, Analytic cubism and Synthetic cubism are both stubs, with little activity, I feel that their purpose may be better served in this article by merging the three under this title. This is only a tentative proposal, but my thinking behind it is that the viewing of all the related information will be easier with the topics together. Martinp23 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [edit] A merge seems a very good idea I agree with the previous writer and I support the merging of the Analytical and the Sythetic Cubism articles in to a single Cubism article. Merging Synthetic and Analytic Cubism into sections of one main article on "Cubism" is a fine idea. It helps in providing a complete picture of the artistic movement on a single page. As 'Analytic' and 'Synthetic' are opposing styles, it would do justice to both if they are placed and presented on the same page with Cubism. D.D. Can not an article be a Contents-link of another article? This would be a way to go through several levels of knowledge in a hierarchical mode. Both branches of cubism would be contents of Cubism, Cubism would be a contents-link of Modern Art and Impressionism, and both of these could be content-links in several other Art articles. This way you have the best of the two worlds, of keeping a significant body of knowledge at the level of article, and still keep integrated and complete articles of subjects encompassing other sub-subjects. GO here,here! well i am not sure. I think the main cubist page at the moment seems to be more architecturally based. maybe it wouln't benefit then if synthetic and analytical cubism were added as it is an art movement. either that or the cubist page has a huge edit.172.207.198.199 00:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC) [edit] The 3 Main Types Of Cubism There were many types of cubism. The three main ones were these. There is ANALYTICAL CUBISM (1909-1912), SYNTHETIC CUBISM (1912-1919) and ORPHISM CUBISM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.109.143.194 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC). As it stands now, there are two articles that link to each other, about two kinds. One of them (on Analytic) starts out saying there are two major branches, the other (Synthetic) starts out saying there are three major branches. Could you recommend a clear, complete, and consistent introductory statement for both? --Sukkoth 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cubism" [edit] Under the heading "Analytic Cubism" there is a line of random characters where there should be words finishing a sentence, a period, and more words beginning a new sentence. << ...Analytic cubists "analyzed" kjhshdjkhsajhdjkhajkColor was almost non-existent...>> Micharjuna (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page + History Personal toolsSign in / create account Navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article interaction About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact us Make a donation Help Search

   Toolbox

What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link

This page was last modified 00:07, 11 May 2007. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

conor grayson

Re-Cubism, I think along with these other observations, it is valid to mention relativity. How seeing the same object from multiple viewpoints and times correlates to thinking going on in physics and philosophy. After all art is not just a decorative activity though it could be argued that cubism did degenerate into that.Vapona 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Cubism, it's a complex and controversial subject and I don't think the article does it justice. I've taken the liberty of adding an external link to a recent essay on Picasso's part in its development. Hope this is okay. Daisy2 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Primitive cubism

In 1907 Pablo Picasso painted several studies and paintings that predict his more classical Cubist innovations culminating notably with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, considered the antecedent of Cubism. Picasso's 1907 paintings can be referred to as Primitive cubism. Modernist (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

cubism and its ideology

I tried to make the ideology section's sentences hang together a little more, and cut down on repetition. I believe I did so with out significantly altering its actual content; feel free to correct me if I have. Zweidinge (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cubism is a very interesting and unusual way of art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.252.25 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of Surrealist Movement

The intro to this article says that the second wave of Cubism died down in 1919, when "Surrealism became popular." But literary Surrealism (let alone Surrealism in the visual arts) didn't even start until 1923-1924. The first Surrealist manifesto was published in 1924.

Surrealism as a movement began to form long before Breton's manifesto was published in 1924. The movement began coming together out of the Dada movement formed during World War I initially as a protest against the violence of war. Giorgio de Chirico as an example was painting prototype surrealist paintings in Paris as early as 1914....Modernist (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom Geere?

who on earth is "tom geere" and why is he cited as a "[creator]" of cubism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodshotjanson (talk • contribs) 06:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch - it's called vandalism...Modernist (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Tesserism"?

As dizzying as cubist artwork can appear, I believe that it may even serve some mathematical purpose: visualizing the perspective of four-dimensional beings. Since cubism basically views a picture with depth from multiple angles at once (causing the dizzying effect), and such a viewpoint could be possible for four-dimensional entities.

Such a viewpoint could be incorporated into artwork. One difference between current cubism and "tesserism" (after the 4D equivalent to the cube, the tesseract) is that, in tesserism, viewpoints are also from the inside. It may look even more confusing, but still, it could possibly make it the slightest bit easier to comprehend such a perspective, from "anove".

--MethanalCHO (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)MethanalCHO

I just cut this image out and moved it here

Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico

Caves? Did you say caves?...Modernist (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"I (opinion) do not find anything Cubist about this building other than it is almost a cube. The reference included adds nothing, unless there is something buried deep within it. If we are going to consider every cube-like structure to be "modern cubism" then I will put on sack cloth, rub on ashes and retire to my cave. If this edit is okay, I'll probably be back for more. Einar akaCarptrash (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, caves. I shall dig out shots of mine shortly, but, yes, M, you have the idea. Carptrash (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

File:JuanGris.Portrait of Picasso.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JuanGris.Portrait of Picasso.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Revised article throughout

13:39, 13 April 2012‎ Coldcreation (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,131 bytes) (+13,285)‎ . . (Revised entire article.)

After having reviewed in detail the contents of the article on Cubism, it became evident that there were historical inconsistencies apparently based on outdated material. In addition, most of the information was extracted from the writings of Douglas Cooper ("The Cubist Epoch" 1970). It is felt that the writings of other art historians, too, should be taken into consideration on a topic so vast as that of Cubism and so important in the history of modern art.

Some modifications have already been made; including adding references, notes or citations where there were none, and adding new material based on the opinions of other art historians (as well as those of artists themselves, directly involved with Cubism).

These further modifications serve to broaden the scope of debate that defines Cubism beyond the notions presented by Kahnweiler (mostly in defense of the artists he represented). These notions, which include terms such as Analytic Cubism and Synthetic Cubism, are both restrictive and outdated. Restrictive because they refer primarily to Braque, Picasso and Gris, while excluding the Salon Cubists (e.g., Metzinger, Duchamp, Gleizes, Delaunay). Outdated because since these terms entered the arena (from the 1920s) it has since been noticed that Picasso, Braque and Gris, themselves, would often defy such classification in the work produced during these periods, i.e., the terms were restrictive even for the work they attempted to define. In other words, the stylistic history of Cubism is far too complex to be summed up by the description of two phases, even for those artists works that were classified as such.

Note too, the text originally under the heading of Analytic Cubism had nothing to do with Analytic Cubism. It was just a rehashing of chronological events that led to Cubism (a topic already covered in the article), followed by the source of the term "Cubism" (by Vauxelles) and an apparently aimless list of other Cubist artists.

While the text under the heading Synthetic Cubism attempted to elucidate what was meant the the term (e.g., "Synthetic Cubism is more of a pushing of several objects together"), it was limited to a small group of Cubists (again Kahnweiler's Picasso, Braque and Gris)

Now, subheadings under History include Conception and Origins, Technical and stylistic aspects, Early Cubism, Abstraction and the Ready-made, Intentions and Interpretations. These are followed by Cubist Sculpture (with an internal link to the main article), Cubism after 1918, and Architecture.

For now I've left virtually untouched the following sections: Cubism Today and Cubism in other fields. Though it should be noted that the Cubism Today section remains unreferenced.

Finally, for convenience, I've reworked this article in the Sandbox section and uploaded anew the entire article, while retaining its editing history.

Coldcreation 13:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldcreation (talk • contribs)

I have removed your introduction which borrows entirely from MoMA, otherwise your revisions seem worthwhile and valuable, good work; thank you...Modernist (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, very nice work. Kudos to you :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Section d'Or

A new section has been added to the Cubism article: Section d'Or, with an internal link to the main page (recently revised and expanded). Coldcreation (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Music

The lede mentions Cubism's influence on music, yet there is nothing in the article about it. Does anyone know of any examples of Cubist music that could be added? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Cubism has been considered the most influential art movement of the 20th century."

By whom?

According to whom?

It's a relatively bold assertion in the lede -- a reasonable person could disagree. A citation or else a rewrite is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.22.149 (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Futurism and Constructivism, variants of Cubism

I've just added this to the article (here with citations visible):

Variants such as Futurism and Constructivism developed in other countries. Cubism and early Futurist paintings hold in common the conjunction of subject-matter with simultaneity,(Christopher Green, 2009, Cubism, Meanings and interpretations, MoMA, Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press) while the roots of Constructivism were developed by Pablo Picasso in 1912; through the technique of constructing sculpture from separate elements.(Christina Lodder, 2009, Constructivism, Formation, 1914–21, MoMA, Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press)

The term "variant" (Webster dictionary: manifesting variety, deviation, or disagreement) is used but could be changed to another word if there is indeed a better word to use. Purism and Orphism are also variants mentioned in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this. Making the link with Futurist use of simultaneity is fine and sourced but that does not make Futurism a "variant" of Cubism and I note that neither of the sources make that claim. Constructivist sculpture may have been influenced by Cubism but is even less a "variant" of it. I think it is fine to make the links but not right to say that either are variants. As for the word, to my mind it implies a different version of the same basic thing and we cannot say that either Futurism or Constructivism are different versions of Cubism. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Philafrenzy I deleted the original sentence because "variant" is completely inappropriate. The Futurists and Constructivists were after very different goals than the Cubists, though it is clear that both were influenced greatly by Cubism. Futurism was a movement founded on entirely different principles from that of Cubism (which they explicitly laid a ridiculous number of times), although they specifically incorporated the Cubist vocabulary into their art in order to achieve their goals of visually representing speed, violence, and technological modernity. They even chided the Cubists for sticking to traditional subject matter (nudes, still lifes, etc.) in their otherwise modern paintings. Also, Futurism lasted much longer than Cubism, until the death of its leader F. T. Marinetti in 1944, though most art historians prefer not to address Futurism after WWI because things got a little fascist, so its lifespan may appear shorter. (Ed. Vivien Greene. Italian Futurism, 1909-1944: Reconstructing the Universe. New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 2014.)

I think specifically associating Picasso with Constructivism is misleading, since as far as I know, he had no direct contact with the majority, if any, of the Constructivists. That link from MoMA merely states that Picasso began a new type of assembly sculpture (in his Cubist works) that the Constructivists built upon (no pun intended). To note, the article on Constructivism does not mention Cubism once in the body.

Besides all of this, I don't think it's at all useful to mention either of these other art movements in the lead paragraph because they are not remotely central to the discussion of Cubism. I think the statements in the opening paragraph about Cubism's influence are sufficient. (Concerning Orphism, I think the use of the term "offshoot" that's used in its article is a good description, based on my minimal knowledge of the movement. I can't speak to Purism at all.) Helixer (hábleme) 04:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Philafrenzy and Helixer for your input, both to the article and to this discussion. Clearly, the word "variant" (as defined by the Webster dictionary: manifesting variety, deviation, or disagreement) does not contradict anything mentioned by either of you. Au contraire! Futurism and Constructivism (Purism and Orphism) were deviations of Cubism based on disagreements. They were different species of the same animal, if you will. Recall that Cubism itself was an offshoot (or variant) or combination of several tendencies, styles or ideas: including African and Iberian masks and sculptures, but especially of the later works of Paul Cézanne; who's various retrospective exhibitions in Paris leading up to 1907 influenced an enormous amount of artists. In effect, Cézanne's paintings—with their multifaceted areas emphasizing the plural viewpoint, and the simplification of natural forms into cylinders, spheres, and cones—launched the transition from Fauvism to a more radical form of representation (abstraction even), viz Proto-Cubism. Arguably, Picasso, Braque, Metzinger, Le Fauconnier, Gleizes, Léger, and R. Delaunay (followed by others) experimented early on (See Jean Metzinger, Note sur la peinture, Pan (Paris), October–November 1910) with the faceting of form that would later be called Cubism (in 1911). Though Picasso together with Braque (Gallery Cubists) were of a different 'camp' than Metzinger, Le Fauconnier, Gleizes, Léger, R. Delaunay (Salon Cubists) the works produced by each were related stylistically, thanks to Meztinger who associated with both groups. (Daniel Robbins, Jean Metzinger: At the Center of Cubism, 1985, Jean Metzinger in Retrospect, The University of Iowa Museum of Art, J. Paul Getty Trust, University of Washington Press, pp. 9-23) Certainly too, each or these groups had very different goals and principles. One major difference between the two groups was subject matter. Gallery Cubists preferred still-lives, landscapes, small towns and women (or men playing a guitar), while the Salon Cubists preferred vast scenes, ambitious subjects, epic panoramas of mountains, valleys, clouds and smoke, towns, bar scenes, cabarets and so on.

Italians, Russians, Czechs and others from around the world bore witness to the beginnings of Cubism. Picasso's works were seen at Le Bateau-Lavoir, Braques painting were seen at the Salons, until he and Picasso began exhibiting with Kahnweiler, and the others were highly visible at the Salon d'Automne and Salon des Indépendants. During these early years, 1907-1910, Gino Severini, amongst the Futurists, served (like Metzinger among the Cubists) as an intermediary between Paris and Italy. Both Gino Severini and Piet Mondrian developed a mosaic-like Cubo-Divisionist technique between 1909 and 1911. The Futurists later (1911–1916) would incorporate the style, under the influence of Severini's Parisian works, into their 'dynamic' paintings and sculpture.(Robert L. Herbert, 1968, Neo-Impressionism, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York).

The length of time that each movement would lest is irrelevant. And by the way, Cubism persisted well beyond World War I (in the Works of Gleizes, a Cubist all his life, R. and S. Delaunay, along with Braque and Picasso would produce Cubists works throughout their careers).

Though Cubism is not mentioned in the MoMA article, the constructions of Pablo Picasso in 1912 (through the technique of constructing sculpture from separate elements) were entirely Cubist.

In his Sources of Cubism and Futurism, art historian Daniel Robbins reviews the Symbolist roots of modern art, exploring the literary source of both Cubist painting in France and Futurism in Italy.(Daniel Robbins, Sources of Cubism and Futurism, Art Journal, Vol. 41, No. 4, (Winter 1981): pp. 324-27, Published by College Art Association) The revolution of free verse with which Gustave Kahn was associated, was a principle example of the correspondence between progress in art and politics; a growing conviction among young artists. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti acknowledged his indebtedness to it, as a source of modern artistic liberty. Marinetti, before writing his seminal Futurist manifesto, frequented the Abbaye de Créteil, where many influential poets, and the Cubist painter Albert Gleizes, were residents.

I'll be back shortly to elaborate further on the variants such as Constructivism, Suprematism, De Stijl (Neoplasticism), Orphism and Purism. I apologise for going into such detail, but it's important to delve into the roots of Cubism (and indeed of modern art in general) to grasp the ties or connections, the variants of Cubism, that quickly spread across the globe during the crucial years, and particularly after 1911, when the term Cubism came to fore. For these reasons, and others, it is important and useful to mention these other art movements (off-shoots or variants) in the lead paragraph. Coldcreation (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Many Russians that would later form part of the Constructivist movement, were in fact students of the Cubist artists Jean Metzinger and Henri Le Fauconnier at Académie de La Palette in 1912. In the fall of 1912 Liubov Popova and Nadezhda Udaltsova enrolled at La Palette following the advice of Alexandra Exter. According Udaltzova, Jean Metzinger encouraged the students to the visit gallery and salons where Cubist works were exhibited. (Academies in Paris, Kubisme.info (Dutch)) Metzinger's students at La Palette included Serge Charchoune, Jessica Dismorr, Nadezhda Udaltsova, Varvara Stepanova and Lyubov Popova. (Waterhouse & Dodd Fine Art, Jean Metzinger)(Mark Antliff, Patricia Dee Leighten, A cubism reader: documents and criticism, 1906-1914, University of Chicago Press, Aug 1, 2008)

Lyubov Popova began studying in the studios of le Fauconnier and Metzinger at La Palette in December 1912 at the age of 23. Nadezhda Udaltsova writes in her diaries that Popova's "sketches are not bad except that all her figures are distended" (Note: She was not yet a Constructivist). (InCoRM, International Chamber of Russian Modernism, Liubiv Popova, Biography (pdf))(Adaskina and Sarabianov, “Liubov Popova”, Amazons of the Avant-Garde, Royal Academy, p. 187) Popova continued her work at La Palette until May, while Udaltsova returned to Moscow around February.

Also, important to the foundations of Constructivism were Académie Alexander Archipenko and Académie Russe de Peinture et de Sculpture.

Aristarkh Lentulov, from 1910 to 1911, studied under Le Fauconnier both at his private studio and at La Palette. There he became acquainted with painters such as Gleizes, Metzinger, Léger and R. Delaunay. After absorbing Fauve and Cubist principles he developed his own style of painting with bright colors. After his return to Russia in 1912 he became a major influence on what would become the Russian Cubo-Futurism. (Evgeniĭ Fedorovich Kovtu, L'Avant-Garde russe, 2007)(20th century, Avant Garde, fin de siècle, Streets)(Evgeniĭ Fedorovich Kovtun (Evgueny Kovtun), Russian Avant-Garde (Art of Century), 2007, ISBN 978-1-78042-793-5). Constructivism was a post-World War I development of Russian Futurism.

Alexander Rodchenko was one of the founders of Russian Constructivism. He was married to Varvara Stepanova (who studied Cubism under Metzinger and Le Fauconnier, see above). Rodchenko's work was heavily influenced by Cubism and Futurism, as well as by Malevich's Suprematist compositions. (Milner, John, "Rodchenko, Aleksandr", Oxford Art Online)(Mrazkova, Daniela and Remes, Vladimir "Early Soviet Photographers." Museum of Modern Art Oxford, Oxford, 1982, ISBN 0-905836-27-8)

Kazimir Malevich described himself as painting in a "Cubo-Futuristic" style in 1912.(Honour, H. and Fleming, J. (2009) A World History of Art. 7th edn. London: Laurence King Publishing, pp. 794-795. ISBN 9781856695848) In March 1913 a major exhibition of Aristarkh Lentulov's paintings opened in Moscow. The effect of this exhibition was comparable with that of Paul Cézanne in Paris in 1907, as all the main Russian avant-garde artists of the time (including Malevich) immediately absorbed the cubist principles and began using them in their works. Already in the same year the Cubo-Futurist opera, Victory Over the Sun, with Malevich's stage-set, became a great success. In 1914 Malevich exhibited his works in the Salon des Indépendants in Paris together with Alexander Archipenko, Sonia Delaunay, Aleksandra Ekster, and Vadim Meller, among others.

Alexandre Mercereau, French symbolist poet and critic associated with Unanimism and the Abbaye de Créteil (mentioned above). His work inspired the revolutionary artistic movement of the early 20th century known as Cubism. According to Gleizes, Mercereau is responsible for having introduced him to Metzinger, R. Delaunay and Le Fauconnier in 1910—the same year that Mercereau curated and included these artists in a Moscow exhibition, probably the first Jack of Diamonds Exhibition. Prior to meeting, Gleizes and Metzinger had been linked by Louis Vauxcelles' disparaging comments on "des cubes Blafards"(Louis Vauxcelles, Gil Bias, March 18, 1910. Quoted in John Golding, Cubism, London, 1959, p. 22. See Toison d'Or, Moscow, 1908, nos. 7-10, p. 15) which likely referred to Metzinger's Portrait of Apollinaire and Gleizes' L'Arbre (The Tree) (1910) at the Salon des Indépendants. Mercereau had previously included Gleizes' Les Brumes du Matin sur la Marne in a Russian exhibition of 1908. The Russian avant-garde (futur Cubo-Futurists, Suprematists and Constructivists) had seen at these exhibitions this radically new form of art.

Recall, during the Summer of 1908 Gleizes and Mercereau organized a great Journée portes ouvertes at the Abbaye, with poetry readings, music and exhibitions. Participants included the Italian Symbolist poet, and soon principle theorist of Futurism, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, as well as the Romanian sculptor Constantin Brâncuși.

The following year, 1909, Sergei Shchukin opened his home on Sundays for public viewings, introducing French avant-garde painting (including Cézanne and Cubists works by Picasso, indentified as bearers of the "constructive" tradition counterposed to Impressionism and Expressionism) to the Moscovites. (His mansion in Moscow became the State Museum of New Western Art). (Maria Gough, The Artist as Producer: Russian Constructivism in Revolution, University of California Press, 2005)

The issues regarding influences during the crucial years (roughly between 1907-1912) are quite complex. But at the same time, the roots of these divers movements point right to Paris and the artistic developments of two principle groups of artists, the so-called Gallery Cubists and the Salon Cubists. Coldcreation (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Philafrenzy and Helixer, do you see now that, indeed, Constructivism and Futurism (amongst the other splinter groups mentioned above) are direct descendants, off-shoots, or variants of Cubism? Or, shall I continue my exposé. Coldcreation (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I would use much more vague terminology. I disapprove of the term "variants". I would resort to terminology such as "stylistically-related" imagery. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read the detailed reply properly and will reply when I have. I don't think however that we can say that Cubism and Futurism/Constructivism are stylistically related either. More later. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It can be argued, and effectively has, that early Cubism (Proto-Cubism) was not solely stylistically responsible for the variants to come. Cubism was also a social, cultural, psychological, political, philosophical, mathematical, geometrical, pseudo-scientific endeavor, the repercussions of which had no boundary. Anyway, it would have been highly unlikely that Futurism, Constructivism, or other variant mentioned above, would have surfaced following the Proto-Cubist epoch in their own isolated mold, independently from what had been transpiring in Paris.

On stylistic fronts, the geometric faceting visible in Futurist and Constructivist works is a tribute to (or stylistically-related to) the faceting seen in the 1909-1912 works of Picasso and others. Where the faceting in Cubism was attributed to (by Metzinger and Gleizes in Du "Cubisme", 1912) the physical rotation of the artist (observer) around a subject (resulting in multiple perspective, or simultaneity), for the Futurists it was the model whose motion would be captured by a stationary observer. In both case, motion and time are involved and 'seen' in the final product (painting or sculpture). Clearly this modus operandi represents two sides of the same coin, or variants of a concept that began, or a continuation from where Cézanne had left off, at the Bateau-Lavoir, Montparnasse, Puteaux, and Courbevoie. Coldcreation (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There are well-known examples (even at the time they were produced) of the conceptual and stylistic overlap, the blurring of distinction between Futurism and Cubism. Two of the most notable examples are Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 (Marcel Duchamp, 1912) and Au Vélodrome (Jean Metzinger, 1911-12). Coldcreation (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Variants definitely seems ok; responses to can work as well; although those movements (Constructivist art, and Futurism) are very close to Cubism in both scope and subject. Prior to the 1940s cutting edge contemporary art was characterized by forms in space and clearly Cubism and its variants defined cutting edge contemporary art. Things began to change with Surrealism and then Abstract expressionism becoming dominant by the 1940s...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of an exploration of the sources User:Coldcreation has presented, I don't think the reader benefits from the stronger assertion that these art movements are variants of one another as compared to merely being stylistically linked. Such an exploration could take place in a paragraph within the article rather than casually dropping such an assertion in the lead. Though they may be variants there are surely differences. We should also be mindful of not implying too close a relationship between the three different art movements. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

True enough. The sourced material can be elaborated on in the text of the article, so as to justify the mention in the lead...Modernist (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Bus stop, you write "Though they may be variants there are surely differences." By definition, variants mean they are different. Variant, Webster dictionary: manifesting variety, deviation, or disagreement. There is no problem in using this word. Variant is not a "strong word". And, these movements are not merely "stylistically linked". The links are much deeper than that. As mentioned above, there are also, to varying degrees, social, cultural, psychological, political, philosophical, mathematical, geometrical, pseudo-scientific links between each of these movements. On a family tree, Cézanne (according all of the Cubists) represents the root, Cubism is the trunk, and from there many branches emerge, of which Futurism, Abstract art, Orphism, and later Suprematism, Purism, Constructivism and so on. The fact that there were variations, deviations, disagreements, stylistic and compositional difference, ethical changes, more or less abstraction, subjective or objective modifications, divers color harmonies or discordances, takes nothing away from the fact that these movements were variants (or offshoot, or offspring) of Cubism. Coldcreation (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In 1915, Kazimir Malevich laid down the foundations of Suprematism when he published his manifesto, From Cubism to Suprematism. The title of this manifesto is revelatory that Suprematism came out of Cubism. Though I still have not read the text itself. Coldcreation (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should read "Variants such as Futurism and Constructivism developed in other countries." I think it should instead read "Related art movements Futurism and Constructivism developed in other countries." In the final analysis the names of art movements are representative of the individual works of art found under the umbrella of that art movement. It is slightly dismissive of one work to call it a variation (or a variant) of another work. One is implied to be derivative of the other. If this is to be said, there should be more said about this. That should not just be dropped in, in a one-word assertion in a lead. Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I will gladly add to the main body of the text, if it helps the reader understand the intricate connections between the wide variety of art produced at the time. But I disagree that the term 'variant' is dismissive or takes anything away from Futurism or any other off-shoot of Cubism. Coldcreation (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The source of the term "variants"

After searching for a while to find the source of that phrase that includes the term "variants" I found that Coldcreation introduced that phrase into the article here. The source further below brings the reader to the MoMA article: Christopher Green, 2009, Cubism, MoMA, Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press, where it is written :

Term derived from a reference made to ‘geometric schemas and cubes’ by the critic Louis Vauxcelles in describing paintings exhibited in Paris by Georges Braque in November 1908; it is more generally applied not only to work of this period by Braque and Pablo Picasso but also to a range of art produced in France during the later 1900s, the 1910s and the early 1920s and to variants developed in other countries.

Bold added. Though the variants are not name in the MoMA text, at least not in the introduction. I will see in the main article if they are mentioned. Coldcreation (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Green writes: Indeed, Cubist construction was as influential as any pictorial Cubist innovation. It was the stimulus behind the proto-Constructivist work of both Naum Gabo and Vladimir Tatlin and thus the starting-point for the entire constructive tendency in 20th-century modernist sculpture. (Source, MoMA)

Recall that Naum Gabo wrote with Antoine Pevsner in 1920 a 'Realistic Manifesto' proclaiming the tenets of Constructivism. In the manifesto Gabo criticized Cubism and Futurism as not becoming fully abstract arts and stated that the spiritual experience was the root of artistic production. Vladimir Tatlin was also regarded as a progenitor of Russian post-Revolutionary Constructivist art with his pre-Revolutionary counter-reliefs, three-dimensional constructions made of wood and metal. Coldcreation (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And here, Green writes of the relation between Delaunay’s City of Paris (1910–12; Paris, Pompidou) and Léger’s The Wedding (c. 1911; Paris, Pompidou) and Futurism:

The subjects themselves again carry strong overtones of ideas derived from Bergson and Unanimism: for Romains the city was a Unanimist entity, a psychological as well as a physical fact, where responses to the past and the present interpenetrate; an event like a wedding was seen as a powerful emotional occasion through which the past is precipitated into the future with collective force. The conjunction of such subject-matter with simultaneity aligns Salon Cubism with early Futurist paintings by Umberto Boccioni, Gino Severini and Carlo Carrà; these Italian works, though themselves made in response to early Cubism, led the way in the application of techniques of simultaneity in 1911–12.

Coldcreation (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, the variants developed in other countries to which Green refers are Futurism and Constructivism. The former; made in response to early Cubism, where past and future collide with collective force. And for the latter; Cubist construction (notably that of Picasso) was the stimulus behind the proto-Constructivist work. Coldcreation (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "Unique Forms of Continuity in Space" a variant of Cubism? Is "Proun Vrashchenia" a variant of Cubism? Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Webster's defines variant first as an adjective ("manifesting variety, deviation, or disagreement") and second as a noun: "something that is different in some way from others of the same kind : one of two or more different ways to spell or pronounce a word ... one of two or more persons or things exhibiting usually slight differences ..." Our article uses "variants" as a noun. Webster provides examples of the term's usage as a noun, which demonstrate that the term is usually used when there are only minor differences between two or more things of the same kind.

I'm not sure Green intends to call Constructivism and Futurism variants of Cubism. The quote from MoMA can be reduced to: "[Cubism is a] term ... generally applied not only to work of this period by Braque and Pablo Picasso but also to a range of art produced in France ... and to variants developed in other countries." It seems that all Green is saying here is that the term is used to describe not only certain French art but also certain art produced outside of France. But Marinetti and Balla are not usually referred to as Italian Cubists; and Green does not call the Italians Cubists where he is quoted above: "the conjunction ... aligns Salon Cubism with early Futurist paintings by Umberto Boccioni, Gino Severini and Carlo Carrà; these Italian works, though themselves made in response to early Cubism, led the way ..." (my bolding). Elsewhere on the same page Green names one of the artists he has in mind when he writes of Cubism's variants in other countries: "The other Cubists, by contrast, especially Jacques Villon’s Czech neighbour, František Kupka, and those grouped together as Orphists by Apollinaire ..."

(This may be a stretch so I've struck it, but the Prague-based Czech Cubists fit the bill, and Green may simply be saying that there are others to whom the label "cubist" is commonly and/or loosely applied, e.g. Precisionists.)

Editors who are objecting to "variants" have a point; the term could mislead, as it will be interpreted by most many readers as meaning that Cubism, Futurism, and Constructivism are as alike as "labor" and "labour". Modernist's suggested wording ("responses to") or Green's term (Cubism was a "stimulus") would prevent this ambiguity. Ewulp (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I find "Cubism cannot definitively be called either a style, the art of a specific group or even a movement. It embraces widely disparate work; it applies to artists in different milieux; and it produced no agreed manifesto. Yet, despite the difficulties of definition, it has been called the first and the most influential of all movements in 20th-century art."[1] Bus stop (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Replacement paragraph

While I agree with art historian Christopher Green that these divers movements represented "variants" of Cubism (or at the very least, were influenced by), I have formulated another wording to describe the diversification that quickly transpired following the advent of Cubism (as there seems to be consensus not to use that term). By the way, an excellent book dealing with this topic and others, for those interested, is Christopher Green, ‘’Cubism and Its Enemies: Modern Movements and Reaction in French Art, 1916-1928’’, Yale University Press, 1987. Perhaps more so than any other author, Green delves into the exceedingly complex web or overlap (and dissent) among these more or less far-reaching variants of Cubism. It is a detailed study of post-World War I Cubism and its antecedents. Coldcreation (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Would anyone object to the insertion of the following paragraph into the lede or elsewhere (to replace the phrase where Green's term "variants" appears):

In France, offshoots of Cubism developed, including Orphism, Abstract art and later Purism. In other countries Futurism, Suprematism, Dada, Constructivism and De Stijl developed in response to Cubism. Common threads between these disparate movements include the association of mechanization and modern life, the conjunction of subject-matter with simultaneity, the faceting or simplification of geometric forms, the representation of multiple perspective, and the technique of constructing sculpture from separate elements.

(comment) The edit above by Coldcreation solves the problem nicely I think, although I wonder if the third sentence is blurring too many distinctions. If so, what do you think of this edit, which incorporates the last 2 sentences of the current lede (with trims for brevity) into your revised version:

In France, offshoots of Cubism developed, including Orphism, Abstract art and later Purism.[1][2] In other countries Futurism, Suprematism, Dada, Constructivism and De Stijl developed in response to Cubism. Early Futurist paintings hold in common with Cubism the conjunction of subject-matter with simultaneity,[3] while the roots of Constructivism were developed from Picasso's technique of constructing sculpture from separate elements.[4] Other common threads between all of these disparate movements include the association of mechanization and modern life, the faceting or simplification of geometric forms, and the representation of multiple perspective.

You know the subject better than I do, but there's my suggestion which you can refine as needed. Ewulp (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Replacement wording along these lines is the correct solution in my view. It is more helpful to the reader than the bald statement that F & Co are variants. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The new wording in the above paragraph's are working better - kudos to Coldcreation, Bus Stop, Ewulp and Philafrenzy...Modernist (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds improved to me. One thing is, I don't know what "conjunction of subject-matter with simultaneity" is. Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. Tisdall & Bozzolla in their book ‘’Futurism” have the Italian Futurists (is that redundant?) preparing for a large exhibit “in apparent ignorance on that revolution happening beyond the Alps.” Someone goes to Paris, sees what is going on there (Cubism) , the whole bunch go to Paris, toss out their now antiquated work and begin afresh to create the Futurism we know and love. Carptrash (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's redundant. Futurism is Italian by definition. Secondly, the exhibition you refer to is likely the 1912 show, around the same time as the Section d'Or show (this was retrospective-like exhibition of several years worth of Cubist painting from a multitude of artists). Italian artists had know about Cubism for at least a year prior to that show, especially through the works of Gino Severini; the first to come into contact with Cubism following a visit to Paris in 1911. So even if many Futurist artists never stepped foot in Paris they knew what was happening. The burgeoning of modern art in Paris was not isolated inside its 20 arrondissements. Coldcreation (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

One more point to add: Filippo Tommaso Marinetti launched the movement in his Futurist Manifesto, published on 5 February 1909. The manifesto did not contain an artistic programme, which the Futurists attempted to create in their subsequent Technical Manifesto of Futurist Painting. This committed them to a "universal dynamism", which was to be directly represented in painting. By then, Cubism was well underway. Coldcreation (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

My redundancy question was more a rhetorical one than any thing else, but thanks for responding to it anyway. The time frame that i was referring to above was 1911 at which time Severini, "returning to Milan (from Paris) was horrified to find his fellow Futurists lagging far behind the stylistic innovations of Paris." (Tisdal & Bozzolla) Carptrash (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Simultaneity

Jean Metzinger, in 1910, was the first to perceive an identity, or overlap, among the intentions and common characteristics of four artists about whom he was writing an article: R. Delaunay, Le Fauconnier, Picasso and Braque (five if we include Metzinger himself). In this article Metzinger writes about the literal moving around an object to create different views of the subject, or mobile perspective—that is simultaneity—giving the specific contribution of each as fundamental qualities held in common by these artists. (Metzinger, ‘’Notes sur la peinture’’, Pan, Paris, October-November 1910, 651-652) and (Daniel Robbins, Jean Metzinger: At the Center of Cubism, 1985, in Jean Metzinger in Retrospect, The University of Iowa Museum of Art, J. Paul Getty Trust, University of Washington Press, p. 10).

Both motion and time were said to be involved in the process of revolving around the object. It was the artist (the observer) who chose the coordinate system and the direction of motion, thus permitting the viewer (or spectator) to see the finished product from several different vantage points.

The change in the time element was implied simply by virtue of the artist's displacement around the subject matter (e.g., a landscape, the model, a still life). The succession of images created by such a motion around the object was akin to a motion picture, dynamic and changing in time.

For the Futurists, as pointed out above, the situation would be slightly different. It was the dynamic motion of the object under study, captured from the static (or stationary) viewpoint of the artist that would be transferred onto canvas (or assembled into a three-dimensional sculpture).

Indeed, placing the word “simultaneity” so early on in the article without first defining it may pose a problem for the reader, as it did you. I will modify that sentence to make it clearer.

“Multiple viewpoints” may be a good replacement. Both multiple viewpoints and simultaneity are explained further down in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempted rewrite: "Styles relating to Cubism include Orphism, Abstract art, Purism, Futurism, Suprematism, Dada, Constructivism and De Stijl. Common themes running running through these styles include the depiction of subject matter from multiple viewpoints, the reduction of subject matter to shapes resembling geometric facets, the taking up of subject matter depicting modernity and its characteristic mechanization, and the concern with speed or motion—especially seen in the works of the Futurists. Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll have great difficulty finding a source to backup that kind of wording. The paragraph in the main page right now is sourced multiple times. It gives an accurate account, albeit simplified, of the complex interconnections between the diverse 'isms' that followed in the wake of Cubism. Coldcreation (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything you disagree with or that you think is incorrect? Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for example your use of the word "style". These ism's are movements, not styles. Every artist in every movement had their own style. Then you lump all of these "styles" together and list what you think are "common themes" among all of them. That is an erroneous over-simplification. Dada, for example, does not involve multiple viewpoints, nor does De Stijl. Above you wrote that you didn't understand the phrase "conjunction of subject-matter with simultaneity". That has been added to in the main page for a better understanding. Is there anything you disagree with in the main article right now? Coldcreation (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks. Tell me if this is better: Art movements relating to Cubism include Orphism, Abstract art, Purism, Futurism, Suprematism, Dada, Constructivism and De Stijl. Common themes sometimes, though not always, seen in these styles include the depiction of subject matter from multiple viewpoints, the reduction of subject matter to shapes resembling geometric facets, subject matter indicative of mechanization at the heart of modernity, and sometimes attempts to depict speed or motion. I've left out "conjunction of subject-matter with simultaneity" because I think it is poor writing. Be aware that the first sentence of the article is contradicted by a good quality source. It reads: "Cubism is an early-20th-century avant-garde art movement that revolutionized European painting and sculpture, and inspired related movements in music, literature and architecture." A good quality source reads: "Cubism cannot definitively be called either a style, the art of a specific group or even a movement."[2] I don't think we always have to be sticklers for the distinction between style and movement and related terms. I think that sometimes distinctions between such terms can be blurry. Bus stop (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bus stop, following the lengthy discussion above, a number of editors arrived at a solution that they all appeared to accept (except you). The text accepted is based both on references from MoMA and The Met. Both the general concept and the specific terminology used are generally accepted amongst art historians and defined further with the main text of the article, if at first unclear to the general public. In your new proposal, you still lump together all these movements regardless of the country of origin. The fact that several Cubist concepts spread quickly throughout Paris, and ultimately abroad (i.e., across the globe), is a testament to the importance of Cubism in the history of art. That is why Cubism has been considered the most influential art movement of the 20th century (and perhaps even of all time). You persist on using the term "styles" in the place of movements. Other words, such as "relating", "themes", "reduction", "resembling", "attempts" seem out of place, or misused. Would I have worded the actual text differently? Yes! But consensus has spoken and I accept that. I wish you would too. In any case, thanks for your contribution here and in discussions elsewhere in which I've seen you participate. I've always read your arguments with the utmost attention, and will continue to do so. Cheers. Coldcreation (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You are misusing a source. The source reads "conjunction of such subject-matter with simultaneity".[3] That source first enumerates certain types of subject matter. You have omitted the word "such" and you have omitted reference to the types of subject matter the source mentions. Bus stop (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Those types of subject matter are discussed in the main body of text. No need to complicate the lead further. Coldcreation (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason Christopher Green writes "Cubism cannot definitively be called either a style, the art of a specific group or even a movement" is because every artist labeled as Cubist has his or her own style (even Braque and Picasso, though their styles were very similar at certain times, especially between 1909 and 1911). Cubism cannot definitively be called art of a specific group, simply because there were (from its beginnings) two main groups, the Gallery Cubists and the Salon Cubists (or Kahnweiler's artists, and the Section d'Or, respectively). He writes Cubism cannot definitively be called a movement because he sees (as I do) the other movements, e.g., Orphism, Futurism, etc., as variants of Cubism. Thus, there are various movements that fall under the general Cubist label, or were from a greater or lesser extent derived from Cubism. He also realizes and describes the differences between each. Coldcreation (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is axiomatic that each artist has a style. (Yes, there are exceptions.) From our perspective of 100 years after most of these artistic activities, many of our references are merely to spheres of activity. We simply require terms of reference. We don't necessarily require accuracy that is up to taxonomic standards. Bus stop (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, art historians (and anyone else interested) have at their disposition a vast quantity of literature published during the crucial years of Cubism. These include writings by the artists directly involved in the movement, art historians, art critiques, poets, journalists and so on. All of the terms and concepts (and many more) discussed on this Talk page and in the main article were published at the time. That is what "our perspective" is founded upon, not some vague post-hoc interpretation or rationalization merely to spheres of activity. And we do necessarily require accuracy! Coldcreation (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

On this score, I would recommend for you: Mark Antliff and Patricia Leighten, A Cubism Reader, Documents and Criticism, 1906-1914, The University of Chicago Press, 2008. Coldcreation (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've modified the sentence regarding simultaneity once again. This time it should be clearer to the layperson. If there are any objections please feel free to voice you opinions. :-) Best. Coldcreation (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have removed the nonsensical wording "conjunction of subject-matter with simultaneity". Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. And you brought up a good point. Thanks. :-) Coldcreation (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing nonsensical about the wording "conjunction of subject-matter with simultaneity", as long as the reader knows what is "subject-matter" and "simultaneity". It's the combination of both that Cubism and Futurism had in common, that's all. Anyway, I hope it's clearer to you now. Coldcreation (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The point is that Cubism rapidly spread across the globe and in doing so evolved to greater or lesser extent. In essence, Cubism was the starting point of an evolutionary processes that produced diversity, i.e., the antecedent of diverse art movements. And before that Cézanne, Seurat, African and Iberian masks and so on. As noted in the main article, the impact of Cubism was far-reaching and wide-ranging, that is why it's important to include that short paragraph in the lead. Coldcreation (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A problem with the term "simultaneity" is that there is more than one type of simultaneity evident in the two paintings referred to in the paragraph that you are using as a source. I want to emphasize that I think paraphrasing is important. There is nothing magical about the terminology that sources use for visual phenomenon that characterize Cubism. Furthermore I think I find that sources vary in the language they employ to describe these visual effects. It is difficult to describe what one can see. I think there is a cliche about that. Google Image searches for Delaunay "City of Paris" and Léger "The Wedding" allow us to see the two paintings the source refers to. I was unfamiliar with these paintings. The type of simultaneity the source refers to is what I will refer to as the implantation of motifs where they do not naturally belong. I am not suggesting that language. I am simply trying to communicate here on the Talk page. There is also another kind of "simultaneity", not mentioned in that paragraph, in that source. This might be called a simultaneity of perspective, in which the viewer is granted multiple views of an object, as though the viewer were able to witness the object from more than one vantage point. The reason why I am explaining all this, is because it is background material to establishing connections between 'isms being referred to. I find it problematic to simply say in the lead that "Early Futurist paintings hold in common with Cubism the fusing of the past and the present (different views of the subject pictured at the same time, also called multiple perspective, or simultaneity)..." In my opinion that is not crystal clear. My solution is to leave the details out of the lead. In my opinion you describe the material called for in the lead quite well in your Talk page post immediately above, at 05:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC). The reader can read that and not get stumped. Bus stop (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Here below are two works: one by Fernand Léger, Les Fumeurs (The Smokers) (not The Wedding, but very similar in style) and the other by Robert Delaunay, La Ville de Paris (The City of Paris). Incidentally, I photographed the latter work at the Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris and uploaded it to Commons. The former was upload by Coldcreation (but not photographed).

Question Bus stop: Where do you see "more than one type of simultaneity" within these works?

• 
  Fernand Léger, 1911-1912, Les Fumeurs (The Smokers), oil on canvas, 129.2 x 96.5 cm, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
• 
  Robert Delaunay, 1912, La Ville de Paris (The City of Paris), oil on canvas, 267 × 406 cm, Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris

Coldcreation (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Let’s expand the scope of investigation further, to include both Cubist and early Futurist works: Where do you see, Bus stop, "more than one type of simultaneity" within these works?

• 
  Jean Metzinger, 1911-1912, La Femme au Cheval (Woman with a horse), oil on canvas, 162 x 130 cm, Statens Museum for Kunst (National Gallery of Denmark)
• 
  Albert Gleizes, 1912, Le Dépiquage des Moissons (Harvest Threshing), oil on canvas, 269 x 353 cm, National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo
• 
  Henri Le Fauconnier, 1912, Les Montagnards attaqués par des ours (Mountaineers Attacked by Bears), oil on canvas, 241 x 307 cm, Rhode Island School of Design Museum
• 
  Gino Severini, 1912, Dynamic Hieroglyphic of the Bal Tabarin, oil on canvas with sequins, 161.6 x 156.2 cm (63.6 x 61.5 in.), Museum of Modern Art
• 
  Pablo Picasso, 1912, Violon, verre, pipe et encrier (Souvenir of Le Havre), oil on canvas, 81 x 54 cm, 81 x 54 cm, National Gallery in Prague, Czech Republic
• 
  Georges Braque, 1912, The Violin (Mozart-kubelick), oil on canvas, 46 x 61 cm, private collection, Basel, Switzerland
• 
  Juan Gris, 1915, Nature morte à la nappe à carreaux (Still Life with Checked Tablecloth), oil on canvas, 116.5 x 89.3 cm
• 
  Carlo Carra, 1912, Woman on the Balcony, (Simultaneità, La donna al balcone), Collezione R. Jucker, Milan, Italy

Coldcreation (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You ask "Where do you see 'more than one type of simultaneity' within these works?" Before directly trying to tackle your question, allow me to ask you a question: Is this a correct definition of "simultaneity" as it relates to Cubism? How about this source? Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Both definitions you link have inadequacies, or gross over-simplifications. For example the first link (arthistory.about) states:
  

Picasso demonstrates how we know an object conceptually, rather than perceptually. The theory that we perceive the world in terms of a simultaneous intersection of past and present experience comes from the French philosopher Henri Bergson.

The contradiction there is that if we know an object conceptually, rather than “perceptually”, how is it that we “perceive the world”, if we can’t reason (or know an object) perceptually.

The best would be for you to read that from which the Cubists were inspired: Henri Bergson’s Duration philosophy. He writes, in The Creative Mind: An Introduction to Metaphysics:

Let us take our mind off the space subtending the movement and concentrate solely on the movement itself, on the act of tension or extension, in short, on pure mobility. This time we shall have a more exact image of our development in duration. […] If the state which "remains the same" is more varied than we think, [then] on the other hand the passing of one state to another resembles—more than we imagine—a single state being prolonged: the transition is continuous. (Henri Bergson)

Bergson seems to have accepted time as it really is through placing oneself within “duration” where freedom can be identified and experienced as pure mobility. This duration and mobility, in part, appears to have been a liberating catalyst for the Cubists.

And in the second link (visual-arts-cork) it is written:

The forms in Jean Metzinger's Tea Time (1911, Philadelphia Museum of Art), which suffers the unfortunate secondary title 'Mona Lisa with a Teaspoon', are broken into large facets or planes. […] But he must represent all these views at once. This is the famous "fourth dimension' in painting. […] the fourth dimension is movement in depth, or time, or space-time, by the simultaneous presentation of multiple aspects of an object.

Firstly, the secondary title of Meztinger’s Tea Time (Le goûter) is Femme à la Cuillère (Woman with a teaspoon), not Mona Lisa with a Teaspoon. It was André Salmon who dubbed it as such in an article he had written. But that’s beside the point. Not to be confused with the fourth dimension of Einstein or Minkowski that leads to spacetime, the Fourth dimension in art is a concept elaborated upon by the French mathematician Maurice Princet. Though Cubists were inspired by Princet, his non-conventional precept of space had more to do with projecting 3-D images with a chimerical 4th spatial dimension onto a 2-D canvas than simultaneity.

In this link, there is a mixing of two different concepts: that of simultaneity, and that of the Fourth dimension in painting. Let's just stick with the definition of simultaneity at the top of this subsection (reproduced below):

Both motion and time were said to be involved in the process of revolving around the object [event, or whatever the subject-matter chosen]. It was the artist (the observer) who chose the coordinate system and the direction of motion [and number of time-frames captured], thus permitting the viewer (or spectator) to see the finished product (as one event) from several different vantage points. The change in the time element was implied simply by virtue of the artist's displacement around the subject-matter (e.g., a landscape, the model, a still life, etc.). The succession of images created by such a motion around the object, event or subject-matter, was akin to a motion picture, dynamic and changing in time.

Simply put, even grossly so, simultaneity is expressed by the literal motion around an object to create different views (the total image) at once (projected onto canvas), i.e., the concept of observing a subject from different points in space and time simultaneously (multiple or mobile perspective) "to seize it from several successive appearances, which fused into a single image, reconstitute in time" developed by Metzinger. Coldcreation (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There are two distinctly different ways that reliable sources use the term "simultaneity" when speaking of Cubist imagery in paintings. An object or other form such as a human figure can be seen from two different vantage points. Normal vision does not allow for this; one would have to move around that object in order to see it from a different vantage point. For instance one can view a goblet as seen at eye level. At eye level one might see what could be called its profile. But when viewing it at eye level one could not see into it. One could not see its contents. But when viewed from above, one could catch a glimpse of some of its contents. Some of our reliable sources are using the term "simultaneity" to refer to the inclusion of both views in the same painting. Indeed Cubism includes more than one perspective of objects and other entities such as human faces. But at least one source uses the term "simultaneity" in a different sense. Consider this source: "Delaunay’s City of Paris (1910–12; Paris, Pompidou) and Léger’s The Wedding (c. 1911; Paris, Pompidou), both shown at the Salon des Indépendants in 1912, give form to this concept of simultaneity by presenting different motifs as occurring within a single time frame: Delaunay brings together the quais on the Seine, the three Graces, a view across the roofs and the Eiffel Tower, while Léger unites a wedding group with fragmentary views of a village setting. The subjects themselves again carry strong overtones of ideas derived from Bergson and Unanimism: for Romains the city was a Unanimist entity, a psychological as well as a physical fact, where responses to the past and the present interpenetrate; an event like a wedding was seen as a powerful emotional occasion through which the past is precipitated into the future with collective force. The conjunction of such subject-matter with simultaneity aligns Salon Cubism with early Futurist paintings by Umberto Boccioni, Gino Severini and Carlo Carrà; these Italian works, though themselves made in response to early Cubism, led the way in the application of techniques of simultaneity in 1911–12." That is of course the source that you've been using. But as used by that writer, "simultaneity" refers to fragments of visual entities: "the quais on the Seine, the three Graces, a view across the roofs and the Eiffel Tower", or: "a wedding group with fragmentary views of a village setting." This use of "simultaneity" involves not just different perspectives on the same entity but different motifs. These motifs are no more seen simultaneously by normal vision than the different perspectives of a goblet are seen simultaneously in normal vision. But my point is that "simultaneity" is used differently in each of these two different sorts of instances. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The usage of 'simultaneity' in both cases are identical. The difference has only to do with the subject matter. In one case an indoor scene with a model and a tea cup, in the others a vast landscape or event(s).

In the first example, which sounds like Meztinger’s Le goûter (Tea Time), the woman is shown both staring at the viewer and gazing off to her left. She is seen both straight on and in profile position. The tea cup is visible both from the top and side simultaneously, as if the artist physically moved around the subject to capture it simultaneously from several angles and at successive moments in time. The Cézannian volumes and planes (cones, cubes and spheres) extend ubiquitously across the manifold, merging the sitter and surroundings, light appears to come from multiple directions, the sitter, both draped and nude are seen from more than one angle, as the tea cup. The painting becomes a product of experience, memory and imagination, evoking a complex series of mind-associations between past present and future, between tactile and olfactory sensations, taste and touch (Goûter means both snack and taste, gustatory perception, but also Taste (sociology)). The combination of frames captured at successive time intervals is given play, pictorially, in simultaneous conflation of moments in time throughout the work.

The paintings by Delaunay and Léger are set outdoors (and perhaps indoors simultaneously, e.g., the nudes). Like Tea Time, these works presenting different motifs as occurring within a single time frame. Wether the artist walks around a city or a wedding, capturing images or motifs along the way, or wether the artist walks around an apartment or model, capturing images of motifs along the way, the end result is the same. Simultaneity has been achieved. And that is the case wether two views have been captured, or several views have been captured. That is the case, too, wether the artist depicts one event, or many. Painters before Cubism, with few exceptions, were constrained to paint subject matter from one angle, from one point of view, with what they saw (what you call normal vision), or imagined, in front of them, using highly realistic linear perspective developed during The Renaissance as a guide. Unlike artists before them, the Cubists moved around their models, subjects or events, capturing not just one vision but many, capturing what they hoped (or claimed) would be the full essence of their subject matter, if not all of its characteristics and properties. They vacated classical perspective along with its limitations and replaced it with creative intuition. Coupled with the notions discussed above, that is why Cubism was so revolutionary and caught on so quickly. As the old dictum goes: The sky became the limit. Anything imaginable became possible, and even things that were unimaginable. :-) Coldcreation (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you still see, Bus stop, "more than one type of simultaneity" within the works above? Coldcreation (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Small known objects depicted in paintings should be considered differently than large unknown outdoor areas as concerns the inclusion of more than one vantage point being depicted. Of course I hear your argument that the same sorts of departures from normal vision are taking place regardless of scale. But scale does matter if for no other reason than that such larger, landscape-like areas, are unknown. Unlike a goblet or a teacup, a clump of trees does not have a set form. The MoMA website refers to these sorts of entities as "motifs". Have you found any source supporting specifically that the term "simultaneity" applies equally in Cubism regardless of scale? I'm troubled that different sources seem to have their own understanding of this. These may not be the greatest sources but this source and this source do not mention "simultaneity" taking place on the larger scales, and this source, the MoMA website, only mentions "simultaneity" taking place on the larger scales. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, one major difference between the two groups [Gallery Cubists and Salon Cubists] was subject matter. Gallery Cubists preferred still-lives, while the Salon Cubists preferred vast scenes, ambitious subjects, epic panoramas of mountains, valleys, clouds and smoke, towns, bar scenes, cabarets and so on. Both groups were still practicing Cubism. Simultaneity was a key ingredient of both groups. So scale makes no difference. The Futurists too, early on, often preferred vast scenes, and so were more in line with the Salon Cubists. Thus, simultaneity, a key ingredient of these three groups, applies regardless of scale. Coldcreation (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Simple question: What is "simultaneity"? Of course we are talking about Cubism, the title of the article. Let us pretend that succinctness matters. Can you just define the term as it applies to Cubism? I find your responses educational. I am clearly not as knowledgeable as you about this subject matter. Perhaps you or others feel you have already defined the term. If it is an important term, the reader deserves a well thought out and as simple as possible definition. And I think that paraphrasing is fine as long as generally supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• The term simultaneity is already defined, and sourced, in the article.

In the lead:

[...] the fusing of the past and the present, representing different views of the subject pictured at the same time, also called multiple perspective, or simultaneity.

And in the main body of text:

The concept developed in Du "Cubisme" of observing a subject from different points in space and time simultaneously, i.e., the act of moving around an object to seize it from several successive angles fused into a single image (multiple viewpoints, mobile perspective or simultaneity), is a generally recognized device used by the Cubists.

And yet again:

One of the major theoretical innovations made by the Salon Cubists, independently of Picasso and Braque, was that of simultaneity,[3] drawing to greater or lesser extent on theories of Henri Poincaré, Ernst Mach, Charles Henry, Maurice Princet, and Henri Bergson. With simultaneity, the concept of separate spatial and temporal dimensions was comprehensively challenged. The subject was no longer considered from a specific point of view at a moment in time, but built following a selection of successive viewpoints, i.e., as if viewed simultaneously from numerous angles (and in multiple dimensions) with the eye free to roam from one to the other.[21] […]

This technique of representing simultaneity, multiple viewpoints (or relative motion) […] presenting different motifs as occurring within a single temporal frame.

Coldcreation (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Cubism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cubism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nytimes":

• From African art: "The New York Times | When Artifact 'Became' Art". nytimes.com. Retrieved 2014-12-12.
• From New York City: Berger, Joseph (July 19, 2010). "Reclaimed Jewel Whose Attraction Can Be Perilous". New York Times. Retrieved July 21, 2010.
• From Philadelphia Museum of Art: Pogrebin, Robin (October 19, 2006). "Philadelphia Museum Job Sends Gehry Underground". New York Times.
• From Baigneuses (Metzinger): New York Times, October 8, 1911

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This PDF file from Baigneuses (Metzinger): New York Times, October 8, 1911 seems to work for me. It does take a few seconds to appear though. There is a free preview at The New York Times. Coldcreation (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem accessing any of the above mentioned links. They do not appear to be orphaned at all. Coldcreation (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cubism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081112092816/http://fondationgleizes.fr/pdf/fag-chronologie-gleizes.pdf to http://www.fondationgleizes.fr/pdf/fag-chronologie-gleizes.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115151153/http://www.smk.dk:80/en/explore-the-art/the-royal-collections/french-art-1900-1930/highlights/jean-metzinger-woman-with-a-horse/ to http://www.smk.dk/en/explore-the-art/the-royal-collections/french-art-1900-1930/highlights/jean-metzinger-woman-with-a-horse/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fondationgleizes.fr/albert-gleizes-oeuvre.html,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cubism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313233214/http://www.kubisme.info/kt324a.html to http://www.kubisme.info/kt324a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527200900/http://www.bloodaxebooks.com/titlepage.asp?isbn=1852241543 to http://www.bloodaxebooks.com/titlepage.asp?isbn=1852241543

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

IMGSIZE

@Coldcreation: WP:IMGSIZE says not to use px values "Except with very good reason" (boldfaced there for emphasis). What is the very good reason for this change, please? I can't make sense of your edit summary. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary, one of the images (almost panoramic) File:Salon d'Automne 1912, Paris, works exhibited by Kupka, Modigliani, Csaky, Picabia, Metzinger, Le Fauconnier.jpg, appeared very small (after your edit). I just adjusted some image sizes further. Coldcreation (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Coldcreation: What is your user preference for "Thumbnail size" set to? |upright=1.6 yields 352px for all unregistered readers and all registered readers who have not changed their user pref. I saw no perceptible change after my edit. If you saw something smaller than 350px, it must be because your user pref is set to a value smaller than the default, unlike upwards of 95% of readers. The px value defeats the user pref completely, which is why IMGSIZE strongly discourages its use for thumbnails. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, good questions. I have no idea what my preferences are set to, nor how or where to set them. Any suggestions? Coldcreation (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I found Preferences. I have 800x600px for Image size (for description pages) and 180px for Thumbnail size). I've never changed these so I assume they are default sizes. If there are more optimal setting sizes I should change to let me know. Thanks. Coldcreation (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Coldcreation: 220px is what the vast majority of readers are using. If an editor does a lot of work with layout I recommend they use 220px. If you make that change you then might want to take a new look at layout in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks. I will switch to 220px and check out the layouts of several articles. What about 800x600px for Image size (for description pages)? Is that optimal for laptops? Coldcreation (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Coldcreation: I don't know about "optimal", but it's the default value, it's what I have it set to, and I use a laptop exclusively. Seems to work ok for me. But it has no effect on rendering of articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW the images looked fine on my desktop in both versions...Modernist (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Navboxes

It is WP:UNDUE to slap all the navboxes for all the practitioners on the botton of this article, the same way you wouldn't do the same for all the practitioners of a genre of music or literature, etc, etc. Likewise this article should not be linked from individual artists' navboxes. And while we're on the subject, {{Modernism}} is also a horrendous mess, and should probably be deleted, or at the very least split to its components. {{Cubism}} itself isn't much better: "influences" and "influenced"? Really? --woodensuperman 11:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The navboxes clearly belong, are educational, and enhance the article......they need to remain included in this article...Modernist (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. I'm sorry, but that is not good enough. They do not belong, or enhance the article, they are cluttering it up and are causing WP:UNDUE issues. They must not remain in the article. --woodensuperman 12:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There are 108 arists in Category:Cubist artists. If each of these had a navbox and all of these were transcluded on this article, think what a mess it would be! Do you not see the problem here? --woodensuperman 12:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• But the 108 don't - duh! The only ones included -Picasso, Braque, Metzinger and Gleizes...for anyone who knows the subject they are the initial purveyors of the art form and will remain...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No, but they could have. It is selective to only pick certain "pioneers" of the form to include the navboxes of, thus causing WP:UNDUE issues. --woodensuperman 12:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 20th-21st Century Art, Performance and Media

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 March 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saiap1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ceiap (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What is a movement? And what is an edit war?

An IP is edit warring apparently because they do not believe there is any such thing as Cubist literature, music, or architecture. Also, they've done some damage needs to be fixed, and I trust somebody will take care of it: they insist on placing the stray word "collage" at the top of the article, and they've disguised a block quote from the October 11, 1918 New York Times so it will not be recognized as quoted material. (This looks to me like inadvertant copyright violation and an exception to the 3-revert rule per WP:3RRNO, but I'lll let someone else revert it for the third time.)

The question of whether various Cubist-related developments in the arts can be called "movements" is settled or not settled by checking reliable sources. One such source is LeRoy Breunig, The Cubist Poets in Paris: An Anthology (1995), which makes a good case that there is such a thing as Cubist poetry and that it has the characteristics of a movement ([https://www.amazon.com/Cubist-Poets-Paris-Anthology-Modernist/dp/0803212240 blurb here). Richard L. Admussen, in "Nord-Sud and Cubist Poetry" (The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Autumn, 1968), writes: "the expression literary Cubism may be said to be an inadvisedly chosen term which, nevertheless, in its way, characterizes better than any other term the works found in Nord-Sud." Ozenfant, in Foundations of Modern Art (1952, p.18), writes of Apollinaire that "he was generally styled Cubist". Also see Wylie Sypher, "Gide's Cubist Novel" (The Kenyon Review, Spring 1949); Marilyn Gaddis Rose, "Gertrude Stein and Cubist Narrative" (Modern Fiction Studies, Winter, 1976-77); Marianne DeKoven, "Gertrude Stein and Modern Painting: Beyond Literary Cubism" (Contemporary Literature, Winter, 1981); etc. The term "literary Cubism" is certainly in use.

Christopher Green and John Musgrove write in "Cubism" at Grove Art Online that "the term is not specifically applied to a style of architecture except in former Czechoslovakia", where it is. (Radomíra Sedláková, in "Czech Cubism" -- also at Grove Art Online -- defines the title subject as "Term used to describe a style in architecture and the applied arts" developed in Prague before the first World War.) All of the above rather contradicts the IP's edit summary that "there is no cubist music, architecture, or literature", at least with regard to literature and architecture.

The Grove "Cubism" article goes on to say: "Cubism cannot definitively be called either a style, the art of a specific group or even a movement. It embraces widely disparate work; it applies to artists in different milieux; and it produced no agreed manifesto. Yet, despite the difficulties of definition, it has been called the first and the most influential of all movements in 20th-century art." In short, although it is not definitively a movement, it has been called the most important movement in 20th-century art. Wikipedia follows sources; if something is routinely described by historians as a movement, we are free to call it a movement.

The changes the IP has made in the first two sentences of the article are defensible and I may even agree with some of them, but is poor form to introduce important changes by edit warring, and the unrelated format damage mentioned above still needs to be reverted. Ewulp (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

agree! Music may be a stretch though. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Good points are made and deserving of regard. I still maintain that attaching cubist to art movements is a stretch, but given that others think differently, I have made an edit to account for cubist art movements and cubist related movements without one canceling out the other. There was no insistence (an unfortunate characterization) to have a stray word be left, and this typo has been fixed. Appreciation for the error being pointed out. 5ive9teen (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialogue, but the new edit ("Outside of the visual arts, cubism resulted in art movements classified as cubist, as well as other cubist related developments, in music, ballet, literature, and architecture") is needlessly prolix & awkward. The previous edit was better all around. Ewulp (talk)

I've made an edit for simplicity. Also moved the mention of collage from the first sentence where it seemed premature – a reader unfamiliar with the subject could get the impression that the invention of collage is the primary reason Cubism is notable. For what it's worth, the Cubism article in Encyclopedia Britannica first mentions the word "collage" near the end of the fourth paragraph; the Heilbronn Timeline of Art History doesn't mention collage (papiers collés) until the fourth paragraph. We don't have to copy everything they do, but they are useful as a model of what experts in the subject consider to be a proper inverted pyramid. Ewulp (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead

Recent edit is not good. There is no mention whatsoever of prints in the body of the article, and the lead should summarize the article. And there's no need to bloat the lead sentence by mentioning every individual art medium influenced by Cubism. An examination of reliable sources on the broad subject of Cubism will show that the emphasis is overwhelmingly on painting; some entire books on Cubism do not mention prints even once. In a general survey Cubist sculpture, collage, prints, drawing, ceramics, fiber art, industrial design, mosaic, and much else may or may not be given a mention in their proper place but the lead sentence should emphasize the important points and not run on and on. Ewulp (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

(New section started and liberty taken to move a reply to it) The editor, perhaps unwittingly, has made an argument to remove sculpture from the lead. The EB says cubism was also a reduction to flatness and 2d. This Greenberg fetish has been long debunked by Steinberg. I suggest we look instead to scholars and art historians, such as Richardson (egregiously unrelied upon so far), Rubin and Steinberg. Since I do not have access to the EB entry on cubism, regardless of its dubious value, I will hazard to guess the 1st 4 paragraphs also do not mention the tangential and secondary effects of cubism on other art forms. I also will suggest for the sake of comity for no one to shout edit war off of one revert and to do so when making a 2nd revert begs hurling accusation in return, but I won’t. Naturally a discussion is warranted and I’m happy to join. I suggest we start with whether collage is lead worthy. Of course I will gather citations to make the case here on the talk page. Gotta wonder tho, how did this article never include cubist prints? This is an oversight I will attempt to amend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5ive9teen (talk • contribs) 23:24, May 23, 2024(UTC)

• • The lede should be simple and direct regarding painting. In my experience referencing Cubism refers to the innovations regarding the paintings by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque, joined by the work of Metzinger, Gleizes, Juan Gris and others and the innovations made by the paintings of Paul Cezanne. Initially an enormous step forward in the world of painting. Other forms (sculpture, etc.) eventually are introduced later...Modernist (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes to that. For the record, I did not "shout edit war off of one revert"; a look at the article's edit history will reveal that 5ive9teen (although not signed in, hmmm) had reverted my edits twice on May 17, before I posted here on the 18th. Eliminating the word "sculpture" from the first sentence was not unwitting. Of course collage is lead-worthy, and it is in the lead section as it should be, just not in the very first sentence of the article where this editor demands it be included, along with printmaking, sculpture, and by next week who knows what else. Let's talk about Rubin. A search of Rubin's Picasso and Braque: Pioneering Cubism shows that the word "print" appears only five times in the entire book, the first being on page 71, and three of those instances are irrelevant (as in, "Permission to print excerpts has been granted by..."). The terms "printmaking", printmaker" and "printmakers" are not in the book at all. "Etching" and "drypoint" appear only after page 80 and page 176 respectively, and mainly in picture captions, not in the body text. So perhaps the first sentence of our article need not mention printmaking. EB does not claim "a reduction to flatness", it says Cubism "emphasized the flat, two-dimensional surface of the picture plane" and describes "planes [that] appear to move beyond the surface of the canvas rather than to recede in depth". I don't think this has been debunked; also see Berger, The Moment of Cubism, p. 24, where a Cubist painting is described as "two-dimensional insofar as one's eye comes back again and again to the surface of the picture." This is how Cubism is usually described, and we follow sources. EB of course does mention the effects of Cubism in other media, in paragraph five: "Though primarily associated with painting, Cubism also exerted a profound influence on 20th-century sculpture and architecture..." We have influence in other arts covered in our first sentence; it can't get any more advanced placement than that. Ewulp (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)