This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What the heck is " beaverboard"? -- SeizureDog 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think some explanation of why it's called "American Gothic" is due. Perhaps people did not like the wording of my explanation. Okay, that is one thing. But the ideas should remain, I feel.
The text I wrote, which was removed, said: "Why is it called " Gothic?" Look at the windows in the background; They have the distinct look of gothic architecture. There are also hints in the clothing and perhaps facial expressions as well."
Isn't this something called "Carpenter Gothic?"
ok
This line just doesn't sit well: "The house, in Eldon, Iowa, is said to be the second most recognizable house in the United States, following the White House." It's not found in any of the external link sources, and I just don't see that being true. While I agree the farmers are very recognizable, I would suggest houses like Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater are far better known. Bobak 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's a proposal to expand this article on this important cultural icon. It's modeled on the "Mona Lisa" Wikipedia article.
1 History of the painting 1.1 The painting of "American Gothic" 1.2 The Art Institute of Chicago contest 2 Aesthetics 2.1 The painting's style 2.2 Wood's compositional objective 2.3 Interpretations of "American Gothic" 3 Role in popular culture 3.1 Evolving popular reaction and understanding of "American Gothic" 3.2 Parodies 4 References 5 External links
What do you think?
-- Dkwong323 04:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It sounds fine, as long as people have significant valid content to contribute under each of the section headings (which is the real question). AnonMoos 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is Conan's parody any more notable than a zillion other parodies? AnonMoos 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
While I'm on the quasi tirade soap box here, I might as well throw this one out too. If this article had a list of parodies then us non-American-Gothic experts would know what is "notable" and of "historical importance." But since there's nothing here then I implore ye American Gothic experts to educate the masses as to exactly what are notable and historically important parodies! Until you do (I'm looking at you Infromation since you apparently know of enough references to make said judgment of its notability and historical import) you are only stunting the article's growth. Occasionally I could agree that something is worse than nothing, but I definitely don't see this as one of those cases. I anticipate your responses and discussion eagerly. Really. Cburnett 06:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There was a classic Time Magazine cover a few years back (with a caption something like "Now everybody's hip, and that ain't cool", I'm sure you could find it with an online search) which was funnier than the Conan thing, and I bet it was seen by a lot more people, too... AnonMoos 18:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions that the woman symbolizes a "housewife" but doesn't mention that she is the daughter. Every reference I find says that the woman is posing as his unmarried daughter. See http://www.artic.edu/artaccess/AA_Modern/pages/MOD_5.shtml or http://www.arts.ufl.edu/art/rt_room/wood/gothic.html Larsroe 16:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Context of that letter is pressure from his sister about being portrayed as the wife of such an elderly gentleman, which caused her public embarassment. This caused Wood to later state that she was his spinster daughter, but this is incorrect - the painting was absolutely intended as a farmer and wife grouping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.156.195 ( talk) 20:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just sailed on in, and I usally don't get involved with art-related WP articles, as that's not really my area of interest. However, I noticed that for this rather famous work, there seems to be very little on the artistic significance, and why it's so famous. Is there a reason for this? Was such commentary removed before? I'd be glad to research it myself, but I get the feeling that if it hasn't been elaborated now, there's something I know before such an undertaking. MrVoluntarist 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to know more myself. The painting is obviously striking because of the direct gaze of the characters, the severity of their expression, their elongated faces, and the hint of aggression (and satan) implicit in that wickedly-pointy pitchfork. But all that's just my personal opinion and I think this article deserves some authoritative content from someone who knows what they're talking about. Csrster 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The woman is the farmer's unmarried daughter. The loose lock of hair and the brooche represent aspects of her doomed life, as does her glance, dress, lack of bosom and the drawn shades on the house. Her father warns people to stay away with the pitchfork. This is how Wood meant the painting to be understood and and why he gave it it's title. Unfortunately, people misinterpreted the painting from the beginning and Wood (being intelligent) decided not to interfere in the matter. Bill. June 18, 2007.
I took out all of the parodies except for one representative sample. My reasoning is that the section is a summary of a main article, and so any descriptions of parodies should be in the main article ( American Gothic in popular culture). Feel free to revert if anyone objects. Orpheus ( talk) 13:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The article says that the painting has "achieved an iconic status in mainstream culture as one of the modern world's most recognizable images". In the US, this may be true, and the article does offer evidence, but the painting is not particularly famous outside the US. The implication that it is of comparable general fame to the Mona Lisa or the Scream is ridiculous. I suggest that any references to mainstream culture, etc, be made specific to the US. DeanKeaton ( talk) 19:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the comment, "It is one of the most familiar images in 20th century American art and one of the most parodied artworks within Anglophone popular culture. However, the painting and its connotations are little-known outside the Anglosphere." This material is redundant with material that follows. Moreover, the use of "Anglophone" and "Anglosphere" are unhelpful from a cultural standpoint as this work flowed out of the context and values of Midwestern America rather than England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackerman ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If anyone follows the link in note three they will discover that this wikipedia page is, in many places, copied word for word from that article. I'm not sure what we're supposed to do when we find this degree of plagiarism as it's pretty bad. 99.58.200.186 ( talk) 14:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur. The Wikipedia article is clearly lifted from the article in Slate. It's plagiarized and needs to be rewritten. 74.196.205.92 ( talk) 00:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody know when the Country Corn Flakes commercial was filmed? AutomaticStrikeout ( talk) 20:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Also parodied for Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend, both on the cover (see here) and animated before/during the menu (see here). -- 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Grant Wood - American Gothic - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 7, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-09-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Doctor Who 3-03-Gridlock (2007), near 00m16s At the very start of the episode, Ma and Pa are seated in one of the camper-vans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.63.148 ( talk) 13:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing in the article that really indicates a relation to the protestant work ethic, and the talk page for it seems equally confused as to why the painting is included. Perhaps the article could make the connection more explicit? Or, of course, remove the reference to PWE if none is forthcoming. Systemchalk ( talk) 00:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
the actress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.207.162 ( talk) 19:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Gothic. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail.aspx?ID=8027When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on American Gothic. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Gothic. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph that deals with Sue Taylor's opinion i feel should be removed. I cannot find much about the person who made the claim besides that she is a professor at Portland State University. Does every college professor's opinion merit inclusion into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BE60:2B60:0:0:0:3E ( talk) 04:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. -- STC1 talk 00:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
If this is not notable enough- I don't know what is. STC1 talk 00:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
why isnt she listed in the psu notable staff then here on Wikipedia? If she met guidelines for notability then she would be notable
I had to dig to find an association with art with her in a google search. a simple search of "art sue taylor" doesnt yield anything about her and re: books she has written, I have written a couple books too. Its easy to publish a book of your opinions these days
Oh and by btw - this one is a link to Portland University website, I shared this in the First reply to you. Kindly check all my links. (
pdx.edu)
--
STC1
talk
18:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What the heck is " beaverboard"? -- SeizureDog 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think some explanation of why it's called "American Gothic" is due. Perhaps people did not like the wording of my explanation. Okay, that is one thing. But the ideas should remain, I feel.
The text I wrote, which was removed, said: "Why is it called " Gothic?" Look at the windows in the background; They have the distinct look of gothic architecture. There are also hints in the clothing and perhaps facial expressions as well."
Isn't this something called "Carpenter Gothic?"
ok
This line just doesn't sit well: "The house, in Eldon, Iowa, is said to be the second most recognizable house in the United States, following the White House." It's not found in any of the external link sources, and I just don't see that being true. While I agree the farmers are very recognizable, I would suggest houses like Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater are far better known. Bobak 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's a proposal to expand this article on this important cultural icon. It's modeled on the "Mona Lisa" Wikipedia article.
1 History of the painting 1.1 The painting of "American Gothic" 1.2 The Art Institute of Chicago contest 2 Aesthetics 2.1 The painting's style 2.2 Wood's compositional objective 2.3 Interpretations of "American Gothic" 3 Role in popular culture 3.1 Evolving popular reaction and understanding of "American Gothic" 3.2 Parodies 4 References 5 External links
What do you think?
-- Dkwong323 04:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It sounds fine, as long as people have significant valid content to contribute under each of the section headings (which is the real question). AnonMoos 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is Conan's parody any more notable than a zillion other parodies? AnonMoos 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
While I'm on the quasi tirade soap box here, I might as well throw this one out too. If this article had a list of parodies then us non-American-Gothic experts would know what is "notable" and of "historical importance." But since there's nothing here then I implore ye American Gothic experts to educate the masses as to exactly what are notable and historically important parodies! Until you do (I'm looking at you Infromation since you apparently know of enough references to make said judgment of its notability and historical import) you are only stunting the article's growth. Occasionally I could agree that something is worse than nothing, but I definitely don't see this as one of those cases. I anticipate your responses and discussion eagerly. Really. Cburnett 06:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There was a classic Time Magazine cover a few years back (with a caption something like "Now everybody's hip, and that ain't cool", I'm sure you could find it with an online search) which was funnier than the Conan thing, and I bet it was seen by a lot more people, too... AnonMoos 18:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions that the woman symbolizes a "housewife" but doesn't mention that she is the daughter. Every reference I find says that the woman is posing as his unmarried daughter. See http://www.artic.edu/artaccess/AA_Modern/pages/MOD_5.shtml or http://www.arts.ufl.edu/art/rt_room/wood/gothic.html Larsroe 16:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Context of that letter is pressure from his sister about being portrayed as the wife of such an elderly gentleman, which caused her public embarassment. This caused Wood to later state that she was his spinster daughter, but this is incorrect - the painting was absolutely intended as a farmer and wife grouping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.156.195 ( talk) 20:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just sailed on in, and I usally don't get involved with art-related WP articles, as that's not really my area of interest. However, I noticed that for this rather famous work, there seems to be very little on the artistic significance, and why it's so famous. Is there a reason for this? Was such commentary removed before? I'd be glad to research it myself, but I get the feeling that if it hasn't been elaborated now, there's something I know before such an undertaking. MrVoluntarist 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to know more myself. The painting is obviously striking because of the direct gaze of the characters, the severity of their expression, their elongated faces, and the hint of aggression (and satan) implicit in that wickedly-pointy pitchfork. But all that's just my personal opinion and I think this article deserves some authoritative content from someone who knows what they're talking about. Csrster 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The woman is the farmer's unmarried daughter. The loose lock of hair and the brooche represent aspects of her doomed life, as does her glance, dress, lack of bosom and the drawn shades on the house. Her father warns people to stay away with the pitchfork. This is how Wood meant the painting to be understood and and why he gave it it's title. Unfortunately, people misinterpreted the painting from the beginning and Wood (being intelligent) decided not to interfere in the matter. Bill. June 18, 2007.
I took out all of the parodies except for one representative sample. My reasoning is that the section is a summary of a main article, and so any descriptions of parodies should be in the main article ( American Gothic in popular culture). Feel free to revert if anyone objects. Orpheus ( talk) 13:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The article says that the painting has "achieved an iconic status in mainstream culture as one of the modern world's most recognizable images". In the US, this may be true, and the article does offer evidence, but the painting is not particularly famous outside the US. The implication that it is of comparable general fame to the Mona Lisa or the Scream is ridiculous. I suggest that any references to mainstream culture, etc, be made specific to the US. DeanKeaton ( talk) 19:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the comment, "It is one of the most familiar images in 20th century American art and one of the most parodied artworks within Anglophone popular culture. However, the painting and its connotations are little-known outside the Anglosphere." This material is redundant with material that follows. Moreover, the use of "Anglophone" and "Anglosphere" are unhelpful from a cultural standpoint as this work flowed out of the context and values of Midwestern America rather than England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackerman ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If anyone follows the link in note three they will discover that this wikipedia page is, in many places, copied word for word from that article. I'm not sure what we're supposed to do when we find this degree of plagiarism as it's pretty bad. 99.58.200.186 ( talk) 14:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur. The Wikipedia article is clearly lifted from the article in Slate. It's plagiarized and needs to be rewritten. 74.196.205.92 ( talk) 00:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody know when the Country Corn Flakes commercial was filmed? AutomaticStrikeout ( talk) 20:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Also parodied for Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend, both on the cover (see here) and animated before/during the menu (see here). -- 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Grant Wood - American Gothic - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 7, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-09-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Doctor Who 3-03-Gridlock (2007), near 00m16s At the very start of the episode, Ma and Pa are seated in one of the camper-vans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.63.148 ( talk) 13:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing in the article that really indicates a relation to the protestant work ethic, and the talk page for it seems equally confused as to why the painting is included. Perhaps the article could make the connection more explicit? Or, of course, remove the reference to PWE if none is forthcoming. Systemchalk ( talk) 00:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
the actress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.207.162 ( talk) 19:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Gothic. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail.aspx?ID=8027When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on American Gothic. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Gothic. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph that deals with Sue Taylor's opinion i feel should be removed. I cannot find much about the person who made the claim besides that she is a professor at Portland State University. Does every college professor's opinion merit inclusion into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BE60:2B60:0:0:0:3E ( talk) 04:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. -- STC1 talk 00:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
If this is not notable enough- I don't know what is. STC1 talk 00:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
why isnt she listed in the psu notable staff then here on Wikipedia? If she met guidelines for notability then she would be notable
I had to dig to find an association with art with her in a google search. a simple search of "art sue taylor" doesnt yield anything about her and re: books she has written, I have written a couple books too. Its easy to publish a book of your opinions these days
Oh and by btw - this one is a link to Portland University website, I shared this in the First reply to you. Kindly check all my links. (
pdx.edu)
--
STC1
talk
18:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)