I am nominating this one because it is, in my opinion, one of
Clement Meadmore's best works. This photo is also located in the
Columbia University article.
I took this photo and released it into the public domain.
Nominate and support. -
Haon 03:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Do you have a larger version? —
Cryptic(talk) 03:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Yes, I just uploaded it. -
Haon 12:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose, it's a bit overexposed. Look at the concrete and grass underneath the sculpture. That and the fact it's not a particularly spectacular subject.
Oppose vote was removed, can be replaced after comments phase.
Phoenix2 01:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I know that we've had the copyright status of pictures of sculptures discussed before. Can someone summarise for us the outcome?
Mark1 00:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)reply
( − ) Oppose Overexposed grass is a problem - and I've never been a fan of that kind of abstract art --
Fir0002 07:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Ordinary; also some parts overexposed.
Enochlau 09:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't think I will ever understand why people thought this kind of art was interesting in the least. --
Deglr6328 00:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose, neither striking nor informative for the articles it illustrates. Also has overexposure. -
Mgm|
(talk) 12:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I would support if it had been cleaned before the photo was taken, over-exposure can be easily fixed with a photo editor... --
Wulf 20:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this one because it is, in my opinion, one of
Clement Meadmore's best works. This photo is also located in the
Columbia University article.
I took this photo and released it into the public domain.
Nominate and support. -
Haon 03:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Do you have a larger version? —
Cryptic(talk) 03:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Yes, I just uploaded it. -
Haon 12:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose, it's a bit overexposed. Look at the concrete and grass underneath the sculpture. That and the fact it's not a particularly spectacular subject.
Oppose vote was removed, can be replaced after comments phase.
Phoenix2 01:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I know that we've had the copyright status of pictures of sculptures discussed before. Can someone summarise for us the outcome?
Mark1 00:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)reply
( − ) Oppose Overexposed grass is a problem - and I've never been a fan of that kind of abstract art --
Fir0002 07:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Ordinary; also some parts overexposed.
Enochlau 09:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose I don't think I will ever understand why people thought this kind of art was interesting in the least. --
Deglr6328 00:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose, neither striking nor informative for the articles it illustrates. Also has overexposure. -
Mgm|
(talk) 12:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I would support if it had been cleaned before the photo was taken, over-exposure can be easily fixed with a photo editor... --
Wulf 20:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Not promoted Raven4x4x 05:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)reply