Jump to content

Talk:Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Note: There is a temptation to refer to this as "the New York Guggenheim". However, see the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation; there are at least two other entities that could be called "the New York Guggenheim" (the SoHo and waterfront museums), although neither is in operation at this time. In text, I suggest we prefer using "the Solomon R. Guggenheim" wherever possible. Thanks. --k.lee

I've replaced the external-view photo with a larger one. As the old one was nice (and wasn't so cluttered with cars and street furniture) I've not deleted it, but left it linked from the image page of the new one. I've also added a section on how difficult it is to hang art in the Guggenheim, and (admirably, IMHO) resisted the temptation to call the Guggenheim the worst museum on earth, with all the style and character of a public toilet in Romford and suitable only for the same purpose. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It'd be nice to also have a bit of positive views/explanations to balance the immense criticism present in the article. --Menchi 21:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Negativity?

This article centers on criticisms of the shape of the museum. I think we deserve to see the positive or at least the original purposes of the design.

What artists have been featured here? What does the museum itself (not its architecture) attempt to accomplish?

Are there pop culture references to be displayed? (I think of the recent USPS Stamp featuring architectural works.) --Spesek 16:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

like a coffin

I recall the PBS series on Wright quoting the architect as saying that the Guggenheim was going to make the Met look "like a coffin." Can't find the quote on the net. Can anyone provide a source and the full quotation? I think it would be a great addition to the article. Bgruber 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

the show was on last night here, here's the full quote:

Wait 'til you see the blueprints for the Guggenheim. it's going to stand almost directly across from the Metropolitan Museum; it's going to make the Metropolitan look like a protestant barn.

here's an online article that contains the quote. Here's a really good one from Time magazine in 1959. I'll try to work it into the article when i get a chance. If someone else would like to do it first, go ahead. Bgruber 19:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To anonymous user who added information about artificial light

I think your contribution is quite good, but it would be great to have a citation. Normally I would have left the article alone and left a message on your talk page, but since you're anonymous I decided to revert and leave you a message here. I hope you don't take offense. Bgruber 05:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hang "proud"??

The line "meaning that canvasses must be mounted proud of the wall's surface" doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

I can interpret "proud" to mean standing off of the wall (being that it's a curved surface) but I'm not sure if it's clear enough.

The wiktionary entry for proud/pride doesn't seem to include this usage of the word. Is there a better way to say this? Mondochrome 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

History/criticism

Although the rotunda is generously lit by a large skylight, the niches are heavily shadowed by the walkway itself, leaving the art to be lit largely by artificial light.

I beleive the building was originally lit with skylights along the outside of the spiral, but they were replaced with artifical light to allow the museum to control the level of UV light reaching the artwork. This fact in the article is unsourced. Can anyone confirm/deny this? j.reed (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Main image

It's located in New York, the major US city; it's one of the major museums. How is it that the headline image is so poor? I'm thinking of File:Guggenheim museum exterior.jpg, which (a) is tilted (b) is 800 pixels wide (c) has a taxi, some streetlights, the back of a car, a crane, and some pedestrians in the way (d) is underexposed, and has a blown-out sky. I understand there are only so many places to stand, but how is it that a major, major museum in the heart of New York has such a poor image? Are there no New York Wikipedia editors with cameras? 151.55.138.144 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Classic art

The article should mention that the museum has one floor dedicated to classics. And that it prohibits photos everywhere, including in the floor filled with public domain works. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:Reliable source? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

News articles about the museum

See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Need better lead image. I'll try to get one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Article expansion

I have been working on expanding the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation article, and I have brought some of the new material here from that article. I plan to import more of it over the next weeks to provide a continuous history. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

New material under the heading "Critics"

This rather confusing material quoted below was thrown into the article with a citation that cannot be easily verified. 1)Is it correct? 2) What exactly does it mean? 3) Is it important enough to add to the article? Where in the article does it belong? Surely this heading is not helpful:

German born Hans Haacke exibition was censored by Guggenhein Museum in 1971. The exhibition included critics of the art museums connections including questionable real estate deals. [ref]Ulla Karttunen Aktivistinen taide, aikamme rappiotaide ? Magazin Taide nr 4 2008 page 42 (in Finnish): ”Saksalaissyntyinen Hans Haacke kuuluu viime vuosikymmenten merkittävimpiin taiteilijoihin, mutta hänen näyttelynsä Guggenheimmuseossa joutui ennakkosensuurin kohteeksi, niin kuin jotkut myöhemminkin. Haacken teoksissa on esitetty tieto taidemuseoiden taustayhteyksistä, muun muassa kyseenalaisista kiinteistökaupoista. Haacken teoksissa on arvioitu ”täysin vailla taiteellista laatua” oleviksi, ”koko taiteen käsitettä vastaan” hyökkääviksi. (toisin kuin esim Turkmenistanin pyhää kirjaa -- Ruhnama, ihmisoikeuksien loukkauksen välikappaletta, kiitetään ”taiteellisesta laadusta” ja ylistetään ”mestariteokseksi”.[/ref]

-- Ssilvers (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me. Someone has used Google translate and has pasted the result verbatim - delete it. Jack1956 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Jack. There's no harm in keeping the stuff on this talk page, whither Ssilvers has moved it, but it certainly doesn't belong in the article. It's not only inadequately referenced but, I fear, not notable enough for inclusion on the main page. Let it sit here, though, for anyone who may be interested, I'd say. Tim riley (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"The Collection" and "Library and Archives" sections

An editor wishes to add the following:

The Collection

The Guggenheim Collection is comprised of several very different, private collections. Central foundations are:

This section is redundant, as these collections are already discussed, with appropriate references, elsewhere in the article. Where each collection is discussed above, appropriate context and citations are give. In addition, this proposed new section is sourced only to the Guggenheim's own website, and in any event, the citation needs to have more information per WP:CITE. It may be that some of this information should be added to the penultimate sentence of the LEAD section of the article.

The editor also wishes to add the following:

Library and Archives

The Guggenheim Museum Library and Archives includes books and documents that help inform curator's understanding of contemporary artists and prepare for future exhibitions. The library and archives also house the institutional records of the Guggenheim museum, and can be accessed by making a private appointment. The Guggenheim library and archives are located in the Hudson Square area of Lower Manhattan.

Again, this proposed new information is referenced only to the museum's website. I am not sure whether this material is of significance, because no third-party references are offered. If it is of significance, there must be references to it in third-party WP:Reliable sources. This museum gets lots of press, so I am sure that if there is anything of interest in this paragraph, it has been reported on in the media or in third-party materials about the museum. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Information should not be added that is not properly referenced. As stated above, if this material really is significant there should be reliable sources available either online or offline to substantiate the addition. Jack1956 (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


Additions

The Collection The Guggenheim Collection is comprised of several very different, private collections. Central foundations are: 

* Solomon R. Guggenheim's collection of nonobjective painting.
* Peggy Guggenheim's collection of Abstract and Surrealist painting and sculpture.
* Justin Thannhauser's array of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist, and early modern works.
* Count Giuseppe Panza di Biumo's holdings of European and American Minimalist, Environmental Art, and Conceptual Art.
* Major gifts have also been contributed by the Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation and the Bohen Foundation.[1]
Sure, these sections are discussed in other parts of the article, but the Collection is a separate part of the institution, and I think its description currently gets lost in the 'early years' section and 'the building' section- I know I was confused by by Justin Thannhauser's collection was described in the building section- this does not make organizational sense. Moreover, Peggy Guggenheim's collection is currently not mentioned in the article, neither are Count Giuseppe Panza di Biumo's holdings, nor Robert Mapplethorpe's.
Citations I can provide:
Peggy Guggenheim's collection is described in the article about that collection: Peggy Guggenheim Collection. It is also discussed in the article on the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. Now, I am beginning to feel that you are confusing the articles on the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, where all the collections are described, and the article on the NY museum, which does not house the Peggy Guggenheim collection at all. The article on the NY museum should only discuss that museum. For more general information about the Guggenheim museums, see the Foundation's article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor also wishes to add the following:

Library and Archives

The Guggenheim Museum Library and Archives includes books and documents that help inform curator's understanding of contemporary artists and prepare for future exhibitions. The library and archives also house the institutional records of the Guggenheim museum, and can be accessed by making a private appointment. The Guggenheim library and archives are located in the Hudson Square area of Lower Manhattan.

  • Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum Library and Archives Catalog
Again, the Library and Archives are discreet institutions which have sepearate projects, and staff than the museum on the Upper East Side, and they have received press for their projects. (see below)

:Citations I can provide:

OR drohowa (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

These citations show that some archives are online. They don't explain what part they play in the New York museum, which is what this article is about. Note that there are about a dozen articles releated to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

SSilvers, thanks for the link. I have read that article, and I think it's section on the collection is good, but I would still like to see the collection as an independent subsection from the institution. If you look at other museums such as the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art or most of the more complete museum articles, there is a separate section for 'collection' and 'collection highlights' that way, as people begin writing more about works in the collection, those works can be listed on the page. See also the Morgan Library & Museum.

The library and archives, also I believe should be described because they are departments within the New York institution that have particular histories of their own. I think this would be easier for anyone studying the history of the institution. OR drohowa (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The "collections" section is redundant in part, and inappropriate in part – as it includes some items that are discussed at length in the article, and some items that are not appropriate for the NY Museum's article at all, such as the Peggy Guggenheim Collection. That is discussed in its own article and in the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation article. OR's thoughts about improving the organisation of the article are fair enough, but this does not, I think, meet the case. Perhaps we can discuss that issue under a separate heading. Meanwhile, the citations given by OR here should be considered in the context of the citations already given in the article – some of these references, perhaps, can profitably be added where the collections are currently discussed in the article, and if they contain any important information about the collections that is not already discussed, that information should be added and properly cited. That would require someone to read those sources carefully and compare them to the current text. Otherwise, I agree with Ssilvers that a brief mention of the most important collections could well be added to the penultimate sentence of the lead section of the article. The library and archives paragraph does not, on the face of it, appear to contain any important information. It goes without saying that the museum has an archive for its records, and that the curators would use such materials to prepare for future exhibitions. This article doesn't really need to discuss those activities of the curators that are the normal business of museum curators. If it is of interest, it would need to explain much more clearly the importance of these materials to the NY Museum and/or the Foundation. Furthermore, the paragraph does not give the sources in-line, so that readers can see what statements are derived from which sources. The sources given, in any case, mostly seem merely to suggest that the archive exists, not what its importance, function and relationship with the museum/foundation are. As Jack1956 observes above, any material added should be cited (in-line) to reliable third-party sources to substantiate the additions. – Tim riley (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Guggenheim and GLAM-Wiki

Hi, continuing this discussion again. I am a Wikipedian-in-Residence and GLAM-Wiki organizer, and have been discussing with Guggenheim staff editing practices, and their plans to incorporate Wikipedia editing into some of the work of the museums staff and the archival/library staff, and possibly other departments. I believe that they are interested in writing articles on archival collections or items within the library and archives, and possibly also adding pages on exhibitions etc. I'm letting you know this because it is likely that they are going to be making changes to this page, and if you are administering the page in some way, you will want to know that they are involved in the Wikipedia:GLAM project, and will be aided by Wikipedians, including myself. I know editing the institutional page is not the focus of GLAM projects, but they may make changes to this page in order to direct visitors to the other articles they add, for example, if a lot of articles are added about items within the archive, I think that that warrants a discreet section called Archives should be added. OR drohowa (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great. Once there are related, well-referenced articles, it will be easy to add well-referenced summaries of key information to this article. Before you help the museum staffs, however it is important for you to learn how to use citations in Wikipedia. Every citation should give the following information, to the extent available: Author's name, title of article (and title of work in which it appears if it is part of a larger work), date of publication, publisher name, url, page number and accessdate. See WP:CITE, and more generally WP:RS, especially the part about self-published sources (WP:SPS). You should also review Wikipedia's manual of style: WP:MOS. And since you will be working with institutions that have a commercial interest in promoting themselves on Wikipedia, you need to understand our guideline on conflicts of interest: WP:COI. Most importantly, please make sure that copyrighted text is not copied into Wikipedia, except for directly quoted material used sparingly, per WP:QUOTE. See WP:COPYVIO. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Critics: Real estate deals

Ssilvers please explain yor removal [1]. I would like to have more data about the questionable real estate deals of Guggenheim in the article. This article also point out that Guggenheim has sensored art. Please tell more of this in the article.

German born Hans Haacke exibition was censored by Guggenhein Museum in 1971. The exhibition included critics of the art museums connections including questionable real estate deals.(ref. Ulla Karttunen Aktivistinen taide, aikamme rappiotaide? Magazin Taide nr 4 2008 page 42 (in Finnish): ”Saksalaissyntyinen Hans Haacke kuuluu viime vuosikymmenten merkittävimpiin taiteilijoihin, mutta hänen näyttelynsä Guggenheimmuseossa joutui ennakkosensuurin kohteeksi, niin kuin jotkut myöhemminkin. Haacken teoksissa on esitetty tieto taidemuseoiden taustayhteyksistä, muun muassa kyseenalaisista kiinteistökaupoista. Haacken teoksissa on arvioitu ”täysin vailla taiteellista laatua” oleviksi, ”koko taiteen käsitettä vastaan” hyökkääviksi. Toisin esim Turkmenistanin pyhää kirjaa -- Ruhnama, ihmisoikeuksien loukkauksen välikappaletta, kiitetään ”taiteellisesta laadusta” ja ylistetään ”mestariteokseksi”.

Watti Renew (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 10:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Karol Vail

Please note that someone started an article about the new Director of the Peggy Guggenheim Collection, who is also Peggy Guggenheim's granddaughter, Karole Vail. You can contribute to the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karol Vail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wright's original design

From Wright' Wikipedia page:

Its unique central geometry was meant to allow visitors to experience Guggenheim's collection of non-objective geometric paintings with ease by taking an elevator to the top level and then viewing artworks by walking down the slowly-descending central spiral ramp. Unfortunately, when the museum was completed, a number of important details of Wright's design were ignored, including his desire for the interior to be painted off white. Furthermore, the Museum currently designs exhibits to be viewed by walking up the curved walkway, rather than walking down from the top level.

From the museum's page:

He originally wanted to design a square building, the baroness preferred a round shape though. He also wanted it to be painted in bright red, she wanted it to be in white.

So, did he want it red or white inside? red or white outside? Square or round? Both versions should be consistent.

My father worked for Transit Mix which supplied the concrete and managed this project. He said that the architects insisted on a special concrete that would be perfectly white rather than the usual off-white color. That they had to keep it separate from all the other concrete in the yard. He always thought it was funny, because within a few years they had painted it white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.94.128.58 (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Uncited section; edit warring

I have deleted a paragraph headed "Controversy" which an editor keeps adding. It wholly fails to meet Wikipedia's criteria, being full of personal opinions, and containing no citations or supporting evidence. If what the paragraph says is accurate many of us would share the recent editor's abhorrence, but an unreferenced paragraph of WP:POV is not acceptable under WP's rules. Tim riley talk 07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. The editor has been edit warring to add the information and should, instead, present his or her sources here. Since this exhibit has not yet opened, see WP:CRYSTAL. See also WP:WEIGHT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
BTW, the museum decided not to include the criticized videos in the exhibit, "Art and China after 1989: Theater of the World," which opened without them on October 6, 2017. CNN noted: "... disturbingly, few in the art world have voiced a defense of the artists' right to show their work. Ai Weiwei, veteran artist-activist and an individual often on the sharp end of Chinese government censorship, was moved to declare that 'pressuring museums to pull down artwork shows a narrow understanding about not only animal rights but also human rights.' ... After the Tiananmen Square massacre ... many Chinese artists found themselves unable to exhibit, and many others emigrated. ... works from art's past, and the possibility of learning about the history of a particular period and perspective in art, becomes less available to us." "Should the Guggenheim have pulled controversial animal artworks?". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Architectural inspiration?

This is a request for the opinion of other users.@Yhesum: claims in recent edits that the work of "G. Momo was clearly the inspiration for Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim". After having examined the sources posted (and others), there appears to be no corroboration with that claim. While some have compared the Guggenheim Museum structure with the Bramante Staircase, there is no clear indication that Frank Lloyd Wright had ever seen, or been inspired by Giuseppe Momo's work. It looks therefore like a case of WP:ORIGINALSYN. Coldcreation (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This is pure speculation, and "frankly" dubious. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Moving this here from my Talk page:

Dear Ssilvers ...I do not understand your aversion for my little paragraph which is, at least for a trained architect, very useful to understand architectural evolution and inspiration. At first the source was missing, granted I diligently added them up later on for precision sake. Now you are telling us the sources are speculative and/or irrelevant. Well I am sorry that Guido Montanari of the Politecnico di Torino is not an expert in Hair (the show) or Lee F. Mindel recipient of twenty-eight AIA awards for architecture, seven Interior Design Magazine Best of Year awards for residential and commercial interiors; eighteen design awards from the Society of American Registered Architects is not an connoisseur of Kinky Boots. Even George L Hersey the Yale professor is wrong. So can you please explain what it is so objectionable in accepting the very evident similarities between the two projects which are for any trained architects quite palatable mentioned by the very relevant sources and experts in architecture ( not theatre) ? Have you actually taken the time to look at the two buildings? The oculus is almost identical, the spiral of the ramp extremely similar, the conclusion of the last ramp into the last floor by curved radius identical. Perhaps I imagine you are American and thinking that this might disparage FL Wright, you could not be more wrong if thinking that. Architecture is as any form of Art a progress, a process that improves the past and predict the future. This “philology” of the architectural language is one of the most essential part of architecture. And yes should be relevant and can be speculative and accurate at the same time. An oxymoron? no just art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Museum#cite_note-Rebaybio-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhesum (talk • contribs) 02:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Dear WP:EDIT WARrior: Even if any of the mountain of stuff you shoved into article is valid, the point requires no more than a sentence. This is not an article about architecture, it is about a museum. Certainly it should go into the Design section and not have a new heading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mr Silver, I think you are quite right I also believe the paragraph should be a footnote at the bottom of the architectural/design section. However, may I remind you that when I did try that earlier on today the paragraph was also removed for a lack of references, when I did add them it was once more erased. I am quite happy to shorten it again and put it back in the design section. Alternatively, if more acceptable for your editorial taste I could create an ex novo page on the architecture of the Building. Either way I think it would be a lacuna not to have this little yet very important piece of information (not a mountain of stuff) mentioned about the building. Every article about St Peters tells the story of its inspiration that comes from the Brunelleschi Duomo di Fiorenza, the Rucellai Sepulchre from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre Jerusalem, Versailles from Château de Vaux-le-Vicomte, the English terrace houses from the King’s Bench Walk, Temple, London etc. Yhesum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhesum (talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

First, let me say that you came very close to being blocked for Edit Warring. We do not work that way at this encyclopedia. If you make a change, and someone disagrees with you, *immediately* take the discussion to the Talk page and present your evidence there. Do not make the change again until an agreement or consensus has been reached. See WP:BRD. Your implication that other editors must do what you tell us to do because you are an expert in architecture is invalid, and your sarcasm was not appreciated or appropriate in presenting your arguments here. In fact, if you persist along those lines, you will develop a bad reputation here, and it will be less likely that people will take your arguments seriously in the future. This encyclopedia is written by WP:CONSENSUS, not by stubborn reverting, bullying and sarcasm. You should read these guidelines before you edit again, as they may help you behave in a way that will avoid you being blocked from editing at this encyclopedia for unacceptable behavior, such as you exhibited today. Another relevant guideline is WP:PROPORTION, which explains that, when we add information to an article, it should be proportional to the rest of the article. In this case, the article is about a museum. It already has a "design" section, and adding another section about the inspiration for the design would be out of proportion. I must also note that you made numerous spelling errors in what you wrote in the article. You need to be much more careful to proofread your contributions.
Second, I have read some of the sources that you cited, and they merely *speculate* that the Momo design inspired Wright, because the writers are struck by similarities between the two. Apparently, Wright never said so, and I don't see that you have presented any evidence that Wright was even aware of Momo's staircase, let alone studied it. Therefore, the most we can say is that these writers and academics have made such a speculation. It doesn't matter what we, as encyclopedia editors believe; we cannot reach beyond what our sources actually state. See our key policy, WP:OR, for more information about this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mr Silver, Thank you for your re-editing of the paragraph “on inspiration”. I would only adjust two small items yet important for conveying the information. On the first point may I suggest changing the wording of “some architectural writers” which seems to me a little generic and dismissive of the merits of the professor architects with “architecture academics” or “several professors of architecture”. Second point, the picture showing Giuseppe Momo’s Spiral from above does not help comparing the buildings similarities. The one I previously inserted was a picture showing the Vatican ramp from below looking up. This point of view encompasses the three main similarities item we are discussing. Which are the helicoidally spiral ramp, the glass oculus, and the balcony attachment to the ramp. Feel free to advise or modify. On the guidelines, I am afraid I know nothing about them. Until yesterday, I did not even know of the existence of the “talk” page, which alone took me a while to figure out. I rarely edit or propose articles online. I only do so in within my area of expertise when I really see a lacunose gap. On the “speculative” as I tried explaining architecture as a form of art and can be very speculative. We do not know Salvator Mundi was painted by Leonardo as a fact but the experts can speculatively agree it might be. Same thing with with Palazzo Piccolomini in Pienza and its influence by Leon Battista Alberti we don’t know for a fact this but most architecture scholars agree on it.

Off course no architect not even Wright would admit been influenced by this or that or one or the other that never happens. We do know Frank travelled to Rome and stayed there for a period in the early 50s. We know also hat there is no architect in the world that would not visit “la Fabrica di San Pietro” if in Rome visiting Rome. As for the sources, they are from expert academicians in the field of Architecture. Without irony or spite if you truly believe you know better than a professor of art and architecture of Yale or a professor at the Polytechnic di Torino about architecture by all means use your power of erasing and blocking and let this be the end of it. I will only add that I now realise why most professors I know at the athenaeum refuses to edit or consult Wikipedia. That is a great shame. Yours truly without malice or sarcasm, Yhesum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhesum (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about comparing the buildings similarities. It is about the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Also, it is insulting to suggest that Wright would not have admitted being influenced by a building or architect. The fact is, only a couple of people have noted any similarity between the two projects. Blowing this up to anything more is nonsense. Good day. Coldcreation (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The article maybe about Solomon R. Guggenheim as a museum but the “Design” chapter contained within it clearly talks in length about the architectural design and process and possibly, to avoid confusion and inexactness should be renamed “Architecture” instead of “Design”. Comparing buildings and delineating influential works, is the profession of many architectural academics namely at Yale and Torino Polytechnic “not a couple of people”* which as part of the design process is intrinsically part of the architecture advancement. As I said on an earlier comment if the consensus is that this page is not to talk about the architecture of the building perhaps, the creation of another page is in order especially considering the importance of it. When you suggest that I have being insulting, telling me, “Wright would not have admitted being influenced by.” you are misunderstanding my meaning entirely. Architects are always influenced by a multitude of factors and certainly among these are the architectural movements, other architects (dead or alive), building and materials, proportion of existing streets and many other aspects. In addition, nobody, unfortunately I would add, ever asked Wright that question. I am certain such a great master would not have been “offended” by such a legitimate and interesting architectural question. The more I read remarks like yours the more I feel that somehow maybe for a misplaced sense of patriotism or the misconception in a belief that great architects are unique and take all they ideas from themselves and saying otherwise would diminished their artist’s talent. Let me assure you that this is not the case. Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the gems of 20th century architecture, which makes even small information such as these the more important. Good day to you.

*remark I note to be sarcastic and worthy of blockage on this site according to your esteemed colleague Mr Silver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhesum (talk • contribs) 19:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I've gone through all the literature on this topic. It is nothing but speculation. I'm still waiting for the opinions of other editors to see if there is any consensus on the removal from this article of Momo's stairs. My opinion is that it should be removed. Coldcreation (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, guys. Yhesum, I have modified the text to specify that the writers are architecture professors. I'll defer to Coldcreation on the image; I'm not sure why she or he prefers one over the other, but you should discuss it with him/her. Thank you for contributing to the Talk page. Even though the above has been contentious, because we got off on the wrong foot due to the edit warring, I think you will see that if you engage on Talk pages in the future (instead of reverting), you will find people willing to discuss article improvement, and usually a good compromise is eventually reached, sometimes with more people focusing on the issue and making helpful suggestions. On the talk pages, you need to stick more to the *topic* and stop talking about your assumptions about why other people are making whatever arguments they are making. That is not helpful at all. I must admit that I have not read all of what you wrote above (see WP:TLDR), but please note that Wikipedia is not art. It is an encyclopedia that presents a summary of facts about the world. Again, please read WP:OR. As for this Guggenheim article, the Design section is probably too long, per WP:PROPORTION, and since you have background in architecture, you may be in a good position to suggest ways that we could streamline it and still retain the most essential information. As for academics, the reason that many of them do not contribute here is that they are underpaid people and want to get paid for their writing. They do not want to give it away to Wikipedia for free. Wikipedia is not only the biggest encyclopedia in the world (by a factor of 20), it is also the best, as many studies have shown, and it is free for all to use; people who have little or no access to libraries especially rely on it. So when you contribute to it, you are doing a good deed. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Quick note: As noted in the edit summary, I changed the image because this one is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons and is considered one of the finest images. Coldcreation (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I should note that I am still not sure whether the sentence that we have added about the similarity of the two designs (and the image illustrating the same) is helpful to this article, and I would welcome other opinions by additional editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
"... opinions of other editors ... on the removal ... of Momo's stairs" – IMO the current brief text and the picture are fine now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Michael Bednarek. I don't know that the short remaining addition adds a great deal to the article, but it seems to me harmless and unintrusive. Tim riley talk 15:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ssilvers, Thank you very much for taking the time refining the wording and changing the illustration of the “inspiration” piece. I think the material is now sufficiently informative for people interested in architectural derivations to further research the topic at their own leisure. Yhesum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhesum (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Signatures and the bold part in the 1st line below the edit window: "Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

How is the name pronounced in English?

goo-gen-hym —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.10.63 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In IPA, [ɡuːɡənhaɪm]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it also appeared in Men in Black the movie as The perp (the guy with blinking pupils) and Agent J got into a chase at a building that looks just like the museum (it had the interior of the museum when J entered it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, near the beginning of the movie... AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
If you think this is an encyclopedic (non-trivial) item to mention, please describe how it appears, and give a WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Cremaster

I do disagree. The museum press release (cited) makes clear the Guggenheim thought Barney and his films were significant and worthy of much attention. DonFB (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The museum PR department is definitely not the arbiter of what is encyclopedically significant about the museum. This film does not even have a WP article, let alone Academy awards or unusual box-office success. The proposed mention appears to be trivial rather than noteworthy, and you have, so far, failed to make any kind of case for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree: this is trivia. Will it be deemed noteworthy enough in five years for inclusion? That's just too doubtful (I don't see details of other temporary exhibitions from previous years, for example). Just because a PR department does its job in putting out fluff pieces, it doesn't mean we just act as a further mouthpiece for them. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
If it's trivia, so too is inclusion of The International, which has no Oscars either and was no box office smash. The Cremaster Cycle, which includes summaries of the five installments, is a Wikipedia article and is linked in the text, so the argument that the film "does not even have a WP article" is misleading at best. The Guggenheim gave a lot more attention to Cycle (exhibition, 500-page publication) than it did to The International, as seen in its terse PR for the latter. Numerous mentions of Cycle-museum in 3rd party sources also, eg: New York's art happening of the year. The latest reversion appears purely arbitrary and does not stand up to these points. DonFB (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Ssilvers and SchroCat about the Barney film. I concur, too, with DonFB about the mention of The International, which looks like a hangover from one of the "Trivia" sections that Wikipedia articles used to have before we collectively decided not to have them. Tim riley talk 08:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Matthew Barney is notable, the film(s) is/are notable, and the fact that one was filmed at the Museum is indeed notable. See here for example: The Cremaster Cycle. Coldcreation (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the The International is trivial; it probably survived the purge of this section by User:Finnusertop on 5 October 2016 only because it was the only item with a citation (where it's mentioned only in passing). However, I agree with DonFB and Coldcreation that author and work, Matthew Barney and The Cremaster Cycle, are notable, but they shouldn't be mentioned under a section heading "In popular culture". The article lacks a section on major exhibitions, and this could possibly be woven into that. Until such a list is added, the section could be renamed "Cultural impact". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
PS: Ssilvers reverted too much; a fix by GreenC bot for a now defunct HighBeam article got inadvertently thrown out as well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, that mostly-excised former Pop Culture list is an eye-opener. I would like to see most of that stuff included, assuming it were all properly referenced, as stated in that old RFC. This means I support inclusion of both International and Cremaster. I compared those two to show the faulty reasoning of Ssilvers in deleting Cremaster. I doubt anyone questions that the museum is an icon, not merely in NY, but in the world's eyes, at least among people who are moderately aware of art and culture. A Pop Culture section for a high-brow museum might seem untoward to some editors, but I believe such information is encyclopedic, and the museum has, so to speak, earned it, much like places such as the Empire State Bldg or Eiffel Tower (though a separate Pop article is not yet warranted). DonFB (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That material was justifiably removed. Sources that support that those things happened are not enough; it needs sources that confirm that they were notable, i.e. tertiary sources that discuss them, which I think is true for Barney's work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not only that, but that discussion needs to be summarized here. Merely listing appearances is not encyclopedic content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Here is a tertiary source which refers to the museum's appearance in the movie. In saying "tertiary sources that discuss them," however, I'm not sure if "them" refers to the movie itself, or "those things [that] happened." I've already cited an independent secondary source specifically discussing the significance of Cremaster at Guggenheim; there are plenty of others. This review points to the "most widely known section of Cremaster 3, a scramble up the rotunda of the Guggenheim Museum." Someone said this article does not include info about other temporary exhibitions, and I would not say that the Cremaster exhibition deserves such special treatment in the article, to the (current) exclusion of all other exhibitions. But as an event in the Pop Culture of the building, the movie is certainly worth a mention, as I've documented. DonFB (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

[Left] Based on Riley's and Bednarek's comments above, I have removed the whole section as too trivial. It is not important to the museum or its collection that some films mention the museum. If the museum is the main setting of award-winning or blockbuster films, or an important film were to explore the museum's history or collections, then that would merit a mention in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You've stated your own ad hoc rules (immediately above and near the top) for inclusion of items in a Pop Culture section for this article. I remind you that there is no policy or guideline about the content of pop culture sections. The Manual of Style, however, contradicts your personal opinion that such items should be "important to the museum" by saying that "Media coverage of a topic is generally encyclopedic information, helps establish the topic's notability, and helps readers understand the subject's influence on the public". I endorse the idea that "Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines," as explained in wp:IPC. I also refer you to wp:WPPC for a refresher on others' thoughts on the issue. It's my view—and I think it is self-evident and supported by what I quoted above—that it is not trivial, minor or unrelated to mention two commercially-released movies (Int'l,Cremaster) that featured major and well-publicized scenes in the museum, the subject of this article. DonFB (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
DonFB, I'm not sure the consensus is with you on this one. Just because something is known, doesn't mean it necessarily has to be included. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with SchroCat. The matter is not black-and-white, but on the whole I think it would be appropriate, for the present at least, to stick with the Silvers version. We can always revisit, needless to say. Tim riley talk 19:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. DonFB (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 protest at the Guggenheim

An entry was removed from the history section of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum article that documents that there was a recent protest, and its background, namely the link of the museum to the Mortimer Sackler family and their connection to the opioid epidemic. The reason given for the removal is that this is "not of encyclopedic importance". I am not sure that reported events like this that reflect on an institution should be cursory dismissed in the article. Ekem (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. It was deleted no more cursorily than it was added. The real question is whether it is of encyclopedic importance. Was the protest successful? That is, did it result in the change of the name? If so, it might be worth noting that the name was changed after a protest in the museum. But the fact that there was a protest is not, surely, super important in the context of the history of the museum. As I said in my recent edit, see WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I'm quite sure that a protest against the name of a small wing does not add to the coverage of the Guggenheim in an encyclopedia. This belongs into the article(s) on OxyContin, Purdue, and Sackler, which so far don't mention this. Even the protest's organizer's article, Nan Goldin, mentions only her similar protest at the Met, which in turn doesn't mention it. Neither should this article. A good test whether to include material in an article is to ask: Will this be of interest to any reader curious about the Guggenheim in 10 years' time? If the name of the wing gets changed, I think it will. A one-off protest, not against an exhibit or misbehaviour by prominent staff, is not. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
As this is currently on my watchlist....commenting. I would agree that a one-off protest could be excluded without undue harm to the article's integrity. A series of protests, if they happen, even without causing a name change, should likely be included. If the name does change due to protest, it's a no-brainer to include text on such events. It's true that a degree of Recentism is at play here. But I shudder to think what a debate would look like over the question of whether people will care in 10 years. Instead of trying to answer that imponderable, the appropriate thing, in the interest of covering contemporary unprecedented significant events at the museum, would be to include information about a series of protests, if they happen, and decide 10 years later whether that information needs to be retained in the artcle. DonFB (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, then. Let's see how things evolve.Ekem (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Unesco

The World Heritage Committee of Unesco has just announced (a week ago, I just found out about it now) The Museum has been recommended for World Heritage site status. The official vote isn't until next month sometime, but i think that a paragraph or two is warrented (this is the second time it's been put up for a vote)...Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph? No, if it becomes a World Heritage site, we can say so in a short sentence. If not, then there is nothing noteworthy to say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive

Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

Thank you! Remagoxer (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There are some sources and information at Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation that should be used to improve this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I have just rearranged this article's sections, moving the architectural details to their own sections and adding some information about the museum's development. I plan to elaborate on these details later, but I'm happy to discuss if these changes to section hierarchy are controversial. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think that is good. I'm a little worried that it has too much about plans that were abandoned, so if you can streamline that, I think it would be helpful. Also, ref name cites do not need quotes, unless they are more than one word. It would be more efficient to just say, for example, <ref name=Stern807/> when you want to point to pages 807–808 in Stern's book.-- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
That sounds good. I actually have references such as 
<ref name="Stern (1995) p. 812">{{harvnb|ps=.|Stern|Mellins|Fishman|1995|p=812}}</ref>
pasted on my computer, since I use them across multiple articles, but I'll see what I can do about condensing the reference names. I'll work on streamlining the abandoned plans as well, since the section about the museum building's planning is becoming quite long. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I think we should split out two additional sections:
  • We should probably create a "Collection" section and/or an "Exhibitions" section. Currently, the collection is described as part of the history section. As a result, the description of the collection is quite fragmented. Specific parts of the collection, such as the Thannhauser Collection, are also described into multiple places.
  • We should also have a section for critiques/critical reception. Currently, criticism of the building is described as part of the "Critique and opening" section.
In addition, the page should probably have a "Governance" section, similar to The Cloisters#Governance. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Directors or foundation?

In the Difficulties section near the beginning of the article, we say that "the directors" acquired property. Do we mean "the foundation"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to write the Guggenheim Foundation. My bad, thanks for catching this. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Critique

I think it would be better if the Impact/critique stuff were at the beginning of the Architecture section, with Landmarks at the end of the Architecture section, which would help with the chronology. Putting it at the very bottom is like when detective Columbo says, "There's just one more thing...." Plus the Attendance section presumes that you have already read the critique section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That works for me, and I have done just that.
Incidentally, I started writing a Collection section in a hidden comment just below the Attendance section. I haven't unhidden it yet, partly because it's incomplete, and partly because some of the text in the Collection section duplicates information in the History section. However, I think some of the stuff in History can be moved to the Collection section once I finish that off. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Before doing that, just give a think as to whether it is more logical to keep it in history to show how the collection grew amidst other events in the museum's history, or whether it is more logical to collect it all together as a separate item. If you have considered this with some deliberation, I'll follow your lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I was just mentioning this in case anyone objected to me splitting the Collection section. I did consider splitting that section earlier today, but I'll have to think about it a little more. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Quote in the Design Process section

The following quote is in the Design Process section and is attributed to Paul Goldberger: There were only two common models for museum design: Beaux-arts Palace ... and the International Style Pavilion. Unfortunately, I can't find the original source for this, and the reference link is dead.

This is especially strange, since I can find plenty of sources for Goldberger's other quote: socially and culturally acceptable for an architect to design a highly expressive, intensely personal museum. In this sense almost every museum of our time is a child of the Guggenheim. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that someone made that up out of thin air. I see it here. -- Could it have come from Brittanica ore one of the other sources cited there? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
While I don't doubt that the quote is genuine, I think it would be much better if we find the original source. Sadly, the first quote wasn't in Britannica or the other sources listed on the linked page. It may have been in either The New Yorker or The New York Times, where Goldberger worked as an art critic, but I could not find the quote in either of these publications. That's why this situation is so strange, since normally, the sources of Goldberger's quotes are very easy to identify. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's a bold and nifty quote, but the second quote does really cover the situation. What if we add a cite needed tag and, if no one comes forward within, say, a year, axe it? Or, given that the article is quite long, feel free to delete if it doesn't strike you as being so sharp. I can live with either approach. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Your latter suggestion sounds good, so I'll remove the first quote. The article is pretty long already, so we should go with the other quote ("socially and culturally acceptable ... child of the Guggenheim"), which seems more impactful to me, anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Shared collection

In the Lead, we mention that the collection is shared with other Guggenheim museums, but I don't see that anywhere in the body of the article. Epicgenius, can you add that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers, sure, I have just done that. By the way, I'm not sure if the works in the permanent collection belong to the foundation and are rotated out between NYC/Bilbao/Venice, or if they belong to the NYC museum and are loaned out to the other locations, or if something else is going on. But the Guggenheim's website seems to imply that the private collections described in this article all belong to the NYC museum. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Either way, they are in the permanent collection of the NY museum and "loaned" to the other museums. I think that NY has also exhibited some of the other museums' collections in the past, too, but I'm not sure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Museum/Archive_1&oldid=1219882818"