Talk:Stone sculpture

Proposal for improvement

I think there is too much on the technique and the tools, and not enough on the results of the carving. History, notable sculptors, reliefs, ornaments, sculptures integrated in buildings(gargoyles, caryatids, corbels etc) and free sculpture; something about the difference between sculptures in for instance bronze and stone: advantages of this material, disadvantages, (expression?); something about most common types of stone used for sculpture (white marble, limestones, granites, sandstones, +examples. More ideas are welcome, so we can build this into a great article...! --Satrughna (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

i seem to be dealing

with more tools and technique, but I had to move this sentence here:

The roughing-out stage requires direct contact with the stone at a 90 degree angle, but with refining strokes the sculptor holds the tool at an angle of 45 degrees or less

to talk about, or failing that, to be left out. Carptrash (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of carved stones

I agree that we could use more focus on finished carvings, but I am a carver myself so forgive me for focusing on technical stuff.

The section I just added on types of stone could use some additions if anyone has a better reference book than I do. Actually, any referencing whatsoever would be nice, no?

I also deleted the section that name-dropped that gallery and that sculptor. If we tried to list all the galleries that feature stone carvings, we'd be in trouble. And to list all the sculptors who've ever worked stone in an unusual way? Sisyphean. A section discussing genuinely notable sculptors would be cool, though. Tdimhcs (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Too many pictures, not enough text

I'm deleting some images. When there is more text we can put them back in, or, better yet, find less common ones. Tdimhcs (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I just cut this out

, but some monumental size specimens have been recently carved by an American company Sculptures in Stone.

It seems a lot like self-promotion to me. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Confused definition

The article seems confused about whether 'stone sculpture' refers to the activity of sculpting stone, or the end result. The opening sentence says it's the result, but the rest of the article relates to the activity/process. Obscurasky (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well this seems still to be an issue - both in 2017 and now I have tried to adjust this, and indeed I believe all the art history content on the page is added by me (sorry, that was on the page before he removed it). But Obscurasky keeps reverting this - I'm very puzzled as to why. Please explain. Btw, restoring stuff (by others) you have removed, and adding more stuff of the sort you requested isn't "edit-warring", and it isn't helpful to pretend it is. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. As I wrote previously, confusion arises here because 'stone sculpture' can be taken to mean either an object (a stone sculpture), or an activity (the practice of stone sculpting). So the question that really needs addressing is; Should this page be describing what the practice of stone sculpting is, or what an actual stone sculpture is?

As there is already a page called stone carving, and as there is no other page to describe what a stone sculpture is, I contend the page should be the latter Obscurasky (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I was so surprised to see you blanket-reverting all changes in that direction, as I've said above! Please address the point. Johnbod (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Some of your changes, particularly those to the lead and your removal of the hat-note, can be interpreted as fundamentally altering the topic covered by the article; changing it from (physical) stone sculptures to the activity of stone sculpting.

It's good to see then, that we do agree the page should be describing "what an actual stone sculpture is" - and this would include its history, types, techniques used, and its identification as a branch of sculpture. The lead however should, first and foremost, be describing what an actual stone sculpture is, before moving on to identify it as a branch of anything. Obscurasky (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry, this is nonsense. The version you have reverted to, unbelievably, doesn't even link to sculpture in the lead (an article of which I am the main author btw), and you have removed the art history I added - perhaps you didn't bother reading it. There is actually not all that much useful that can be said about stone sculpture in a general top level way in terms of art history (if you think differently, feel free to add). You have removed the links I added to various more specific articles. Normally the various materials of sculpture are initially taken together, as style generally affects all of them. I could go through the various changes your edit warring has produced, but I don't think there's much point - you just seem to have done a blanket revert out of pique. Stone carving is actually more prominent in your version of the lead than mine. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, please always assume good-faith. Secondly, It makes no difference whether you are the 'main author' of an article or not - it certainly doesn't mean your opinion counts for more than anyone else's. I see you've gone ahead and made the changes you wanted, without consensus and in full knowledge that your edits are disputed. I'm assuming good-faith, but as an experienced editor you should know that's not how Wiki (or the world) works.

Just to be clear, the version I reverted to was not how I would want the article to remain, and I note your 'permission' to add to the article, and I will make some minor alterations soon. Obscurasky (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, dear. You seem stuck on the difference between "a" stone sculpture (object) and the encyclopaedic concept of "Stone sculpture". If you want to talk about objects, pick an individual one or group. The "branch of sculpture" is Stone sculpture, not stone carving, which as you rightly point out above, is an activity or technique. We don't need the hatnote when the other article is linked in line 1 of the lead. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"oh, dear" - please don't be patronising.

I am not 'stuck' on this. You said yourself (above) that you agree the page should be about 'what a stone sculpture is' and my edit is intended to provide clarity in this respect; so that people don't confuse it for a page about 'stone sculpting'. That subject is already covered here; Stone carving#stone sculpture, but if you feel it needs its own page please create one as there is no other page describing what a stone sculpture actually is. I'm going to reinstate my edit (which is actually a reinstatement of what has existed for several years). If you disagree with it, please discuss it and state your reasons on this talk page before making changes. Obscurasky (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think it is time to invite others to comment here. If I gave the impression above that the article should begin "A stone sculpture is ..." this was due to inattention. This is not the best encyclopaedic way of approaching a general topic of this sort. It should begin "Stone sculpture is ...". I've just noticed, btw, that the photo of a pub wall you insist on keeping was taken by you, in your local stamping ground. You should check WP:COI. I don't agree it's "a good visual illustration that not all stone sculptures are created by carving", firstly because it's so untypical, and secondly because the stones clearly have been roughly shaped by a carving process. It would ok in the gallery, but shouldn't be very prominent. There's no point in a hatnote that just repeats the first line below - I doubt many people are likely to suffer from the confusion you fear anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you're trying research me - which is a bit disconcerting. Let's concentrate on the article. How do you feel about my suggestion of creating a new article? What about Stone sculpture (process) or Stone sculpture (activity)? Obscurasky (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You must expect your contributions to be looked at. I can't see any point at all to Stone sculpture (process) or Stone sculpture (activity) - obvious POV forks to Stone carving. I wish I could work out what you are actually after. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I was about to join in (my last comment here was 2012) but feel that I have a conflict in interests. Carptrash (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

How so? Please do. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"I wish I could work out what you are actually after" - I think I've been very clear. It was you who confused the discussion (and me) by agreeing the page should be about 'what a stone sculpture is' but then editing in a different direction. I'll start a new heading hear and attempt to re-boot this discussion. Obscurasky (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Article topic

There has been confusion about the topic covered in this article - something which I think stems from the fact that the term 'stone sculpture' can be used to mean either; the art of shaping objects in stone, or, the works of art which are created by that activity (see here: Sculpture (disambiguation)). For several years, the use of a hat-note in this article has made it clear that the page was principally about 'visually interesting objects made of stone', ie; the works of art themselves (the end product) and not the art form used to create them.

It appears Johnbod wishes to alter the scope of this article; so that it focuses on the art form used to create stone sculptures. While it should be noted that the subject is already covered here; Stone carving#stone sculpture, I'd be happy to see such a page, but I don't want to lose what we already have.

My suggestion is to have two article pages, but I can't think of names that don't suffer the same problems of ambiguation - and even then it would still need to be decided which topic is covered on this page. Obscurasky (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There mostly certainly is confusion, but I'm afraid it is all on your part! I realize you are not used to writing about art, but you have to get the terminology right. For example, you seem (just above) to think art form is a technique/activity term. It isn't used that way; it's a term for the type of finished artwork or objects. This is why it is so confusing discussing with you. You entirely mistake my intentions, read my additions the wrong way, and are unable to articulate what you actually want for the article. What I have been trying to do is to get the article to focus more, in a normal encyclopaedic way, on the topic of stone sculpture(s) as finished works of art. The reverse of what you claim. But you keep reverting me. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You're correct; I'm not used to writing about art. I'm not used to other editors being so patronising either.

Nor do I 'keep reverting' you. I made two minor edits to your lastest version; which were accompanied by clear explanations outlining my reasons for my doing so. You reverted one and objected to the other.

It's good to see, however, that we are apparently singing from the same hymn sheet. All edits which improve this page are to be welcomed, but no single editor should have a veto on what's included or how it's written. I'm assuming an editor of your experience would agree with that? Obscurasky (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, so long as you realize this applies to you also. You have in fact completely reverted my changes twice. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)