Talk:Sculpture

Art Deco sculpture

Why is there no Art Deco sculpture? Socialist realism sculpture is also lacking. 95.180.55.184 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

How flat can an artwork be an still be considered a "sculpture"?

Is there some consensus on this? The article describes sculptures as "three dimensional" but what about flat surfaces with plane carvings like these, coins or a cameo carvings like these?★Trekker (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes those are technically sculpture. See intaglio, relief etc in the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find "intaglio" in the article so I searched for it. Do you mean Intaglio (printmaking)?★Trekker (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Not prints, where the final product is 2D, but Engraved gems etc. Reverse of cameos. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Relief#Low relief or bas-relief would be considered sculptural. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!★Trekker (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

the bull

Artlover8789, do you want to discuss why you think a photo of the bull sculpture should be added to the article? I'm personally ambivalent on it, but if one is added, it should be a better image, rather than one that is more of people than the sculpture. For example:

File:Wall Street Bull, Lower Manhattan, New York City, U.S.A.jpg

bull sculpture

Schazjmd (Talk) 21:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Recently added to Artlover's talk page, but better belonging here, I suppose,

If you are serous when you wrote,

"What is the issue? I am adding "Charging Bull' to the lead of sculpture as it is arguably the world's most iconic sculpture? If you can please let me know a sculpture which attracts the millions of people each year Charging Bull does, I would happily agree that Charging Bull should come second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artlover8789 (talk"

As to your claim that this is one of the most iconic statues in the world, NYC already has the Statue of liberty, Lawrie's Atlas and Manship's Prometheus - all icons, all magnets, and all in New York City. There are probably more there, much less in the rest of the world. I suspect that the other image was picked because this work is being promoted NOT as an important work of sculpture but as a tourist attraction.Carptrash (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd I agree with the photograph you have chosen. It is better than the ones with the crowds. I think it is acceptable to say that Charging Bull is much more famous and important than the Angel of the North. How about we place your Charging Bull photo above the Angel of the North? --Artlover8789 (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Artlover8789, I'm not familiar with this article so I defer to the editors who've been involved with it previously. If this article is like others on Wikipedia, I'm sure a lot of discussion (and compromises) went into choosing the images. Let's see what Carptrash, Modernist, and Johnbod think about including the bull. Schazjmd (Talk) 22:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This is THE article about Sculpture. It is trying to give a good cross section of all the sculpture in the history of the world. The Charging Bull, in my view, does not belong here. Carptrash (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bull does not belong in this historical article, This article does not need that image...Modernist (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

And going over and stuffing it in the Modern sculpture is not going to help either. What is the deal with you and that work? Carptrash (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ditto for the Art article. This is not one of the world's great masterpieces. Carptrash (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears that Artlover has added the bull photo to 10 articles today, some in a context that makes sense and some very tangential. Hardly any participation in this discussion either. Looking over the excellent images already in the article, I agree with you both that the bull statue isn't needed. Schazjmd (Talk) 00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Carptrash & Schazjmd. Thanks, both. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"3D painting" as a form of sculpture

@Jmg38: I noticed that the phrase 3D painting redirects to a section of this article. Is "3D painting" a type of sculpture, or is it something else? Jarble (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Jarble, the only articles using links to "3D painting" were referring to this. I should have fixed those articles, rather than change the redirect. I have corrected the former and reinstated the latter. Thanks for the nudge. Jmg38 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Poorly written

This is very poorly written. Needs major editing. 47.229.161.253 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Spiral-jetty-from-rozel-point.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

"Three dimensional art" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Three dimensional art and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 8 § Three dimensional art until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seed of コスモ (alternative account of Sonic678) 20:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Too many images

The article has almost 300 images in it! It makes sense that this would have more than the average article, but this isn't wikicommons! it would improve the article to focus on fewer per MOS:IRELEV, "too many can be distracting" Tom B (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion! I think some have gone. I'll remove the tag - they are certainly not an "indiscriminate collection". Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)