Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Edwards

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images

[edit]

The sculpture images should probably be replaced with a free-use alternative, since it's unlikely that copyrighted images of the sculpture qualifies as "fair use" when it should be relatively simple to create a replacement. Extraordinary Machine 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, any images of the sculptures would have to be used under a fair use claim, because the sculptures themselves are copyrighted until 95 years after their creation or 70 years after Daniel Edwards's death. —Angr 09:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Sentence Query

[edit]

The first sentence of this article is "Daniel Edwards is a controversial sculptor". It seems to me that this is a bit unfair; it brands the man as being merely "controversial" and implies that he is a "controversial sculptor" in the same way that Salvador Dali is a "surrealist painter". I propose the following first sentence: "David Edwards is a sculptor whose works often address popular culture and celebrity in ways which have aroused controversy". I think this is more fair to the man, and also gives a hint of why his works are controversial. If no one objects within a day or so, I'll make this change, or feel free to use or adapt my suggestion. --JovanPanić 21:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. That sounds like a fine and prudent change. Darkfrog24 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs notability

[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Notability (people), an article about a Creative professional should contain references establishing notability and hopefully state why the artist is notable in its text. If this artist's notability consists of the controversy he generates with his art then it may come under the guidelines:

  • The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
    • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
    • Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.3
    • Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.

The article could also cite one of the following criteria that pertains to artists:

  • The person's work either:
  • (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument.
  • (b) has won significant critical attention.
  • (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

His pieces address celebrity and popular culture in ways that have often stirred controversy

That's interesting but debatable. You're assuming that art is supposed to be something that you hang on your wall and forget about or use as a paperweight. The statement above has many cultural assumptions. So, assuming that his pieces "stir controversy" is implicitly defining what is or is not art. Sources, please. What you are trying to say, is that the pieces elicit strong reactions from his audience, most likely his American audience, which says more about the U.S. public and their set of cultural assumptions about art than it does his art or how the artist chooses to create his work. So many artists have done what Edwards has done that it begs credulity to suggest that his pieces "stir controversy". Yes, that's the typical reaction, but this is the general human reaction to what is labeled "controversial" subjects. The notion of "stirring controversy" is purely a temporal sensation; Ultimately, what we are dealing with is the average human reaction to something new or different - fear, aversion, pain, and surprise. They said the same thing about Igor Stravinsky, Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano and how many others? Frankly, if it isn't controversial, it probably isn't art. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the necessity for provocation: Art history is also filled with examples of great works that were embraced from the outset, as well as those that elicited no response whatsoever, and were just plain ignored. Disclosure-- I used to know the subject, and painted the portrait of him. JNW (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And I personally enjoy your painting very much. You have captured the artist at work, in his natural environment; the artist as visionary and creator. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done at an institution where we were colleagues. I liked his bust of me, we talked of exchanging works... JNW (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get back on topic, the opening can state that he is an American sculptor whose pieces address celebrity and popular culture, period. The controversy bit is, as you suggest, rather meaningless without a cite. JNW (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starpulse.com is the source for the baby poop statue?

[edit]

C'mon, the article actually says "although the actual poop isnt 'for real,'" quite casually at the end of their 90 word "article" on this sculpture. If everyone agrees that he did in fact use real fecal matter in his painting, why does one crappy site's misinformation cause for speculation on the subject? Starpulse.com? Maybe they have accurate information on Kim Kardashian's birthday party, but perhaps not on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.226.141 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork in question is a bronze casting. Poop would NEVER make it thru the process. I know, I have cast a few of Dan's sculptures. This article fails to mention the many monuments that he created, (and that I cast, assembled, patina and delivered) such as the Kennedy/King memorial and the Union Workers Memorial in Indianapolis. Some of the best work that I've had the pleasure of participating in. Chad Phillips 63.208.139.55 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daniel Edwards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 04:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Edwards&oldid=1199928083"