![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I found a better link for the picture but I need someone sober to make it display.
PBS - DuChamp It's larger and prettier, featured image applicable. -Lizard Wizard
Under the Homage heading, perhaps the poem Nude Descending a Staircase, by X. J. Kennedy, should be added. This was also the title of one of his award winning books of poetry, published in 1961. See http://www.xjanddorothymkennedy.com, for instance. 64.48.129.20 12:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a field of photography that looks very similar (long exposure + strobe light + moving person, like here: [1]). Problem is, I don't know the official name of it, searched for about 15 minutes. It looks like it has been invented by Harold Eugene Edgerton (no pics or a official term in that article, though). The most often used term is "stroboscopic motion photography", which I used in this article here now. But everybody is welcome to correct it (and create an article about it :-D). Thanks. Peter S. 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In the article is written:
But in the reference, Tomkins says that he claimed that he didn't remember seeing Muybridge's work. Should this sentence be removed? Chabacano 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The article says that the painting caused "a huge stir during its exhibition at the 1913 Armory Show in New York following a press copy of an abuse scandal". What does this mean? What abuse scandal? 87.114.231.151 ( talk) 12:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This tag was added in 2009. Time to get off the page. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in German. (December 2009) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm adding a talk page discussion about this issue because from inspecting the edit history I see that this has been removed before and reverted multiple times. My main argument is notability. There is no evidence this is a notable work of art that deserves to be included on the page.
User:Randy Kryn provided the most comprehensive argument in favour of this image so I'm going to quote his edit comment and preemptively respond to it:
Firstly, the fact that an image has appeared on an article for over a year is no reason for retaining it. There have been many cases where things have appeared on Wikipedia pages in conflict with Wikipedia policy for years until being discovered and corrected. The fact that "nobody has complained" seems moot since there have now been multiple attempts to remove the image, but it's also not a Wikipedia policy or really an argument in favour of the image.
The strongest argument here is that other articles contain user-created images. Indeed, WP:IMAGEOR provides an exception to the "no original research":
In this case I don't think this applies: there is no published idea or argument that is being illustrated by the image; it is simply a user-created homage to the artwork described in the article. We also have no shortage of images in the article that serve as better illustrations by established artists.
Why not do a gallery with a few of these?Because I could find hundreds of such images. The internet is awash which fan art. Vexations ( talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
the image being discussed is unique and probably important as to connecting the two most important artworks of Duchamp's legacyNo it's not. It's neither unique not important. I gave you an example of a work by artist whose work is in major museum collections that has been discussed in scholarly sources which do what you claim " connect[..] the two most important artworks of Duchamp's legacy". The one you want to include hasn't been discussed in any sources anywhere. That we neglected to remove it was an oversight, not an endorsement. Vexations ( talk) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I found a better link for the picture but I need someone sober to make it display.
PBS - DuChamp It's larger and prettier, featured image applicable. -Lizard Wizard
Under the Homage heading, perhaps the poem Nude Descending a Staircase, by X. J. Kennedy, should be added. This was also the title of one of his award winning books of poetry, published in 1961. See http://www.xjanddorothymkennedy.com, for instance. 64.48.129.20 12:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a field of photography that looks very similar (long exposure + strobe light + moving person, like here: [1]). Problem is, I don't know the official name of it, searched for about 15 minutes. It looks like it has been invented by Harold Eugene Edgerton (no pics or a official term in that article, though). The most often used term is "stroboscopic motion photography", which I used in this article here now. But everybody is welcome to correct it (and create an article about it :-D). Thanks. Peter S. 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In the article is written:
But in the reference, Tomkins says that he claimed that he didn't remember seeing Muybridge's work. Should this sentence be removed? Chabacano 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The article says that the painting caused "a huge stir during its exhibition at the 1913 Armory Show in New York following a press copy of an abuse scandal". What does this mean? What abuse scandal? 87.114.231.151 ( talk) 12:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This tag was added in 2009. Time to get off the page. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in German. (December 2009) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm adding a talk page discussion about this issue because from inspecting the edit history I see that this has been removed before and reverted multiple times. My main argument is notability. There is no evidence this is a notable work of art that deserves to be included on the page.
User:Randy Kryn provided the most comprehensive argument in favour of this image so I'm going to quote his edit comment and preemptively respond to it:
Firstly, the fact that an image has appeared on an article for over a year is no reason for retaining it. There have been many cases where things have appeared on Wikipedia pages in conflict with Wikipedia policy for years until being discovered and corrected. The fact that "nobody has complained" seems moot since there have now been multiple attempts to remove the image, but it's also not a Wikipedia policy or really an argument in favour of the image.
The strongest argument here is that other articles contain user-created images. Indeed, WP:IMAGEOR provides an exception to the "no original research":
In this case I don't think this applies: there is no published idea or argument that is being illustrated by the image; it is simply a user-created homage to the artwork described in the article. We also have no shortage of images in the article that serve as better illustrations by established artists.
Why not do a gallery with a few of these?Because I could find hundreds of such images. The internet is awash which fan art. Vexations ( talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
the image being discussed is unique and probably important as to connecting the two most important artworks of Duchamp's legacyNo it's not. It's neither unique not important. I gave you an example of a work by artist whose work is in major museum collections that has been discussed in scholarly sources which do what you claim " connect[..] the two most important artworks of Duchamp's legacy". The one you want to include hasn't been discussed in any sources anywhere. That we neglected to remove it was an oversight, not an endorsement. Vexations ( talk) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)