Talk:Art Deco/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Style Moderne

The article begins with "Art Deco (/ˌɑːrt ˈdɛkoʊ/), or Deco, also known as Style Moderne, is a style of visual arts, architecture and design that first appeared in France just before World War I." While it is true that le Style Moderne appeared before World War I, I think, SiefkinDR, a source is required that confirms Art Deco was also known as Style Moderne, and that they were not two separate things. The wiki article on Art Nouveau states: Before the term "Art Nouveau" became common in France, le style moderne ("the modern style") was the more frequent designation. (Duncan, Alastair. Art Nouveau. World of Art. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1994. ISBN 0500202737)
It may be more precise to write Art Deco evolved from le style moderne. Various books cite this term as associated with Art Nouveau, rather than Art Deco, such as:

It seems Style Moderne was more associated with the Fin de siècle. See Leora Auslander, Taste and Power: Furnishing Modern France, University of California Press, Jun 4, 1996, ISBN 0520920945. Coldcreation (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

SiefkinDR, what are your sources telling you about the term Style Moderne? Was this synonymous with Art Deco, as implied in the first sentence of this article? Or, did Art Deco evolve in part from the Style Moderne, i.e., was Style Moderne (as Art Nouveau, Cubism etc.) a precursor to Art Deco, as those sources linked above appear to claim. Coldcreation (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence in the book Art Deco 1910-1939 by Charlotte Benton and others is: "L'art deco est le nom que l'on donna au style "moderne", mais non moderniste, du XX siecle qui connu un rayonnement mondial pendant l'entre deux guerres et laissa sa emprunte sur presque tout les domaines visuels, des beaux-arts, a l'architecture, de la decoration, a la mode et au textile, cinema, a la photograph." That's translated from English, but I have only the French version. Let me see if I can find some other citations on this. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
There's also this, from the Larousse on-line article on Art Deco:

Parmi les « modernes » – influencés par l'industrie et la technologie et tournés vers l'avenir – se remarquent particulièrement Pierre Chareau, l'Irlandaise Eileen Gray, Pierre Legrain, Francis Jourdain et surtout Robert Mallet-Stevens, dont le pavillon du tourisme met en scène une asymétrie provocante. Sa tour-manifeste en béton armé est aussi audacieuse que le pavillon de l'Esprit nouveau de Charles Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, dit Le Corbusier, et que le pavillon de l'URSS, dû à Konstantine Stepanovitch Melnikov, qui associe l'acier au verre et au bois.

This article makes the distinction on between the modernes, la Mallet-Stevens, from the traditionalists, like Ruhlmann, within Art Deco. I don't see a connection between moderne and Art Nouveau, but I can keep looking. My point is that Deco wasn't called Deco until much later; from the sources I've seen, it was generally called "style moderne" to distinguish it from the traditional historic styles. If that's not clear, I can probably word it better. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the term Style Moderne for Art Nouveau, I haven't seen examples of examples of that, except in some countries outside of France. The term Art Nouveau was used in Belgium and France from the 1880s The site of the Metropolitan Museum says "Art Nouveau style was particularly associated with France, where it was called variously Style Jules Verne, Le Style Métro (after Hector Guimard’s iron and glass subway entrances), Art belle époque, and Art fin de siècle. " (49.85.11).
Here's another citation, from the Financial Times, which is actually a very nice definition

"The style moderne, as it became known in France during its development in the 1910s and 1920s, reached its zenith at the great Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, held in Paris in the summer of 1925. Two principal characteristics dominate French Art Deco: its simultaneous expression of both modernity and national historical precedent, and its alliance of art and craftsmanship."

Again, if there's confusion, it can be clarified, but as far as I can see Style moderne is a correct term in French for Deco before it was called Deco, with the understanding that some Modernistes were more modern than others. . Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure the Financial Times is a reliable reference for the association between the terms Art Deco and Style Moderne. A book on Art Deco would be much better, of course. Also, there is a huge difference between Style Moderne and style "moderne" (from Art Deco 1910-1939, Benton et al). The latter is simply a style which is modern. For example Crystal Cubism, Futurism, Orphism were all moderns styles. The bas-reliefs of Bourdelle were in a modern style, but were neither called Art Deco, nor Style Moderne (before 1925). Unless a reliable source can be found on the topic, a clarification is in order, or simply, maybe Style Moderne should be removed from the lede, and explained in the "Naming" section where the term is already repeated. Coldcreation (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The Benton and Wood book seems pretty clear to me, and it's one of the most cited sources in English and French. Or there's this from the Encyclopedia Britannica on Line: Art Deco, also called style moderne , movement in the decorative arts and architecture that originated in the 1920s and developed into a major style in western Europe and the United States during the 1930s. Its name was derived from the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, held in Paris in 1925, where the style was first exhibited. Art Deco design represented modernism turned into fashion. Its products included both individually crafted luxury items and mass-produced wares, but, in either case, the intention was to create a sleek and antitraditional elegance that symbolized wealth and sophistication.' That seems good definition from a reliable source to me. I apologize, but I don't quite see the point that you're trying to make. Cordially. 19:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The Art Deco article in Encyclopædia Britannica was updated on 28 September 2016. You introduced the term Style Moderne (as a synonym for Art Deco) on 26 August 2016. Britannica most certainly extracted the Style Moderne term from the Wikipedia article. It is thus not a reliable source. All of the literature I've examined to date claim that Style Moderne is closely related to Art Nouveau, not Art Deco. You have yet to provide a reliable source that explicitly states Style Moderne is synonymous with (also called, or also known as) Art Deco. Until that source is produced, I will remove the term from the lede. Coldcreation (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's the Oxford English Dectionary definition of "moderne": Relating to a popularization of the art deco style marked by bright colours and geometric shapes. It's flattering to think that the Oxford English Dictionary and Britannica both copy their definitions from our Wikipedia articles, but I don't think it's very likely. I think there's abundant documentation, between Benton/Wood, the OED and Britannica that style moderne is a term for Art Deco. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, I wouldn't dismiss the Financial Times citation. It's an excerpt of the book "French Art Deco" by Jared Goss, published by Thames and Hudson and the Metropolitican Museum of Art in 2014. Goss is the Associate Curator of the Metropolitan Museum of Art for 19th Century, Modern and Contemporary Art.
There are four sources that "Style Moderne" primarily refers to Art Deco; the OED, Britannica, the Benton and Wood book, and the Jared Goss book. I'm sure there are more. That seems pretty convincing to me. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I think I've discovered the source of confusion about Modern Style and Art Nouveau. I read in the French article on Art Nouveau that in Britain around 1900 Art Nouveau was often called "Modern Style" in order to avoid using the French term. That seems the best explanation. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly: Style Moderne has been around since 1900. Art Nouveau: "Before the term "Art Nouveau" became common in France, le style moderne ("the modern style") was the more frequent designation." (Duncan, Alastair. Art Nouveau. World of Art. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1994, pp. 23-24. ISBN 0-500-20273-7). It is thus not synonymous with Art Deco, but with Art Nouveau. "Moderne" and "Style Moderne" have not the same meaning. Notice how Brittanica does not provide citations. They all get there info from Wikipedia now days. And, apparently, they do not always verify the source given. Coldcreation (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
With all respect, I believe you're mistaken here. There are four sources, Britannica, Larousse, jared Gross of the Metropolitan Museum, and the Benton and Wood book, that say Art Deco was called Style Moderne. It's quite probable that Duncan is also correct that Art Nouveau was also sometimes called style moderne, after the English term modern style, but that doesn't contradict the four sources that say that Style Moderne was the term used in France for Art Deco. The term moderne was used for anything that was new. I also think you would get a very astonished response from Britannica, Larousse and the Metropolitan Museum if you said they "all got their information nowadays from Wikipedia." They don't. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There are not four sources that say "Style Moderne" primarily refers to Art Deco; (a) The Oxford English Dictionary (just as Larousse) defines the term "moderne", not "Style Moderne". (Their definition of moderne appears not to come from Wikipedia). (b) The first sentence of Encyclopædia Britannica most certainly does come from Wikipedia. That they provide no source doesn't help undermine this probability. Britannica claims cannot be verified. This is unreliable by Wikipedia standards. (c) The Benton et al book Art Deco 1910-1939: reads L'art deco est le nom que l'on donna au style "moderne". They are talking about a style called "moderne", not a style called "Style Moderne". (d) Financial Times appears to be the only source that actually mentions style moderne (though in lowercase) as a term relating to Art Deco. Yet the dates mentioned of its development (1910s and 1920s) is in stark contradiction with many other sources (e.g., see above) that mention the style moderne (in both upper- and lowercase) as early as the Exposition Universelle de 1900, in relation to Art Nouveau. Coldcreation (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question above, as to the point I'm trying to make: When Wikipedia makes one mistake, or arrives at a false conclusion or erroneous interpretation, the ramifications can be widespread, if not devastating (in art historical context). Case and point: You arrived at the conclusion that Art Deco was also called Style Moderne, based on a source (Benton et al) that in effect said Art Deco is a name given to a style formerly called moderne (L'art deco est le nom que l'on donna au style "moderne"). Now several websites, including Encyclopædia Britannica, have promulgated (or mirrored) the same unfounded assertion, that the two terms are synonymous. We can correct the Wikipedia article, but the damage is already done; we cannot correct the misinformation in those articles outside of our purview. Sincerely, Coldcreation (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Coldcreation, I'm sorry to say that I think you're wrong about this. If the curator of Metropolitan Museum writes: "The style moderne, as it became known in France during its development in the 1910s and 1920s, reached its zenith at the great Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, held in Paris in the summer of 1925," I think that's an accurate statement from a reliable source. The same with Britannica; I don't give any credit at all to the idea that they copy from Wikipedia, they 've been among Wikipedia's greatest critics. What evidence do you have of that? There is a lot of confusion between the terms modernist and modern, but the sources I've seen say Art Nouveau was known as Art Nouveau in France and Art Nouveau or Modern Style in England. Attacking the sources you don't agree with isn't the way to go. Cordially,SiefkinDR (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the terms modernist and modern. There is a problem, however, with the term Style Moderne. Depending on the source consulted, the answer as to its meaning now, and how it was used at the time (before Art Deco) is different. There should be no hurry to adopt the meaning of one reliable source over another. In fact, since alternative meanings do exist for Style Moderne−some relating to Art Nouveau, some to Art Deco−there is no reason to confuse the reader.
As for sources and their inspiration from Wikipedia: before, Wikipedia was treated (mostly by competitors) as unreliable. Now, even museums such as the Museum of Modern Art in New York have replaced their artist descriptions with links to Wikipedia articles. The simple reason for this is the accuracy and reliability of the information and the availability and reliability of the sources provided. See here for example: Jean Metzinger at MoMA, or Picasso at MoMA. That is not to say that Britannica and the likes are all inspired by, or copy Wikipedia. The only evidence in the case of Britannica is the first sentence almost verbatim that of Wikipedia (before I removed the contentious term Style Moderne) and they revised their article approximately one month after you added the contentious term. Neither Britannica nor Wikipedia had provided a corroborating source backing the notion that "Art Deco" and '"Style Moderne" were synonymous. I have provided reliable sources that show they are not, you have since that they are. The term is still therefore contentious. Why insist on using the term "Style Moderne" if not all art historians agree on its usage? Coldcreation (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
That Britannica would copy text from Wikipedia is not at all surprising: even the the Defense Department 'plagiarized' Wikipedia, according to top lawmakers. The chances that both Wikipedia and Britannica would make the same mistake citing "Style Moderne" is dubious enough, let alone that the first sentences were quasi-identical. Coldcreation (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Cold Creation: The definition in Britannica has almost nothing in common with that in Wikipedia, except the general facts found in all sources and the mention that Art Deco was known as Style Moderne. There's no evidence at all that it was copied from Wikipedia. You've ignored the citations in Larousse, in the Oxford English dictionary, and in the article from the Curator of the Museum of Modern Art. How do you explain those? Your stubbornness in the face of stated facts is very impressive; you would make a good defense attorney. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You edited the Art Deco article here at Wikipedia, 26 August 2016:

"Art Deco or Deco, also known as Style Moderne, is a style of visual arts, architecture and design that first appeared in France just before World War I; it became very popular in the 1920s and 1930s."

Art Deco, Encyclopædia Britannica was updated on 28 September 2016. They write:

"Art Deco, also called style moderne , movement in the decorative arts and architecture that originated in the 1920s and developed into a major style in western Europe and the United States during the 1930s."

The definition in Britannica is strikingly similar to that in Wikipedia. It really makes no difference to me whether Style Moderne comes from you, from Britannica, or some other source. The fact is, the term was unsourced both here and at Britannica. I challenged it. You failed to produced reliable sources (except for one, the Financial Times article. Your other sources mentioned the term moderne, or a "moderne" style, which differ). I have provided numerous sources demonstrating that Style Moderne was in use as far back at 1900, well before the advent of Proto-Art Deco, and synonyms with Art Nouveau. Unless you would like to explain this controversy of terms in the article, I suggest we keep it out, so as not to engender confusion, or misinformation. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. Coldcreation (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

For some reason I can't fathom, you're ignoring the citations from reliable sources that say very clearly that Art Deco was commonly called Style Moderne in France; Larousse, Britannica, the curator of the Metropolitan Museum, and others. The definition in Britannica sounds "strikingly similar" to the one you deleted from Wikipedia probably because it was based on similar reliable sources, not because it was plagiarized from Wikipedia.
You're also ignoring the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines "moderne" as: "Relating to a popularization of the art deco style marked by bright colours and geometric shapes," not as a term for Art Nouveau..
The idea that Art Nouveau was called Art Nouveau in France is also based on reliable sources; Mr. Bing called his shop "Art Nouveau" well before 1900 and that helped popularize the name. That's found in all of the standard sources. Where did the term "Proto-Art Deco" come from? I haven't seen that term used anywhere. What is it? When there are two conflicting points of view, you either find a compromise or state both points of view; you don't accuse other editors of misinformation and inventing facts, you find a compromise. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Larousse says nothing of the kind. Britannica cites no source. Neither had you. Oxford English Dictionary defines "moderne", not "Style Moderne". The idea that Art Nouveau was also called Style Moderne is noncontroversial. You now have multiple reliable sources as testimony. The idea that Art Deco was called Style Moderne is controversial, even if for the only reason that so too was Art Nouveau. We already discusses Proto-Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my paper 1976 Britannica says of Art nouveau ". . . in France it was called Modern style, reflecting its English origin", and of Art Deco "also referred to as moderne". Awien (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Awien, that's a very useful citation, and it illustrates nicely the different views on the subject. I think the best way to deal with this is to compromise, and to present the different versions with citations in the Naming sections of both the Art Deco and Art Nouveau articles. Then readers can decide for themselves. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Modern'style (Art nouveau): Le Dictionnaire Pratique de Menuiserie - Ebénisterie - Charpente, Par J. Justin Storck, édition de 1900. What is useful about Awien's post is that he cites a source that states Art nouveau was called Modern style. Art Deco was simply modern. The source I just posted shows the use of the term Modern'style back in 1900 as equivalent to Art Nouveau.
There is really nothing to compromise about here. Even the term modern refers to Art Nouveau. The term Art Nouveau first appeared in the 1880s in the Belgian journal L'Art Moderne. "In Russia, Saint Petersburg and Moscow were the two centers of production for Stil’ modern."(Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, Metropolitan Museum of Art). In Spanish Modernismo, in Catalan Modernisme, in Russian Модерн (Modern). Art Nouveau achieved further recognition in Italy with the Esposizione Internazionale d'Arte Decorativa Moderna of 1902, Turin. Before the term "Art Nouveau" became common in France, le style moderne ("the modern style") was the more frequent designation (Duncan, Alastair. Art Nouveau. World of Art. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1994). At the outset of World War I, Art Nouveau—expensive to produce—morphed into a more streamlined, geometrically rectilinear modernist style—cheaper to produce—that became known as Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the literature is very clear, the terms Style moderne (Modern style) are synonymous with Art Nouveau. It can be argued that Art Deco evolved from Style moderne, or that Style moderne was precursor to Art Deco. It cannot be said that Art Deco is also called (or also known as) Style Moderne. The preponderance of evidence from reliable sources present in the literature (current and from the epoch) is unequivocal. There is no ambiguity. The only source that appears ambiguous, at first glance, is the Financial Times article, by Jared Goss:

The style moderne, as it became known in France during its development in the 1910s and 1920s, reached its zenith at the great Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, held in Paris in the summer of 1925.

In his book, French Art Deco, Thames & Hudson and Metropolitan Museum of Art, 4 November 2014, Jared Goss, author of the Financial Times article writes:

Shortly after [Paul] Iribe's death in 1935, Louis Cheronnet, editor in chief of Les Échos d'art, described him as "...a precursor. Even before the war, it was he who laid the foundations for the simplification that is the true sign of today's art; and yet no one better represented that sort of art précieux—the refinements of which have their source both in the eighteenth century and in the style moderne of 1900—which had its last hurrah at the Exposition of 1925." (Goss, p. 105)

According to Louis Chéronnet, quoted in Goss (2014), style moderne existed in 1900 (without doubt as Art Nouveau) and ended in 1925. This coincides with what I have stated above that Art Nouveau was called Style moderne and that it morphed, or evolved—with the advent of Cubism and other influences—into Art Deco. While it is correct, then, to say Style moderne was also called Art Nouveau, it would be incorrect to say that Art Deco was also called Style moderne, since by 1925 it had its "last hurrah". Recall, this is when Art Deco began to flourish world-wide. Clearly, Art Deco picked up where Style moderne (Art Nouveau) left off.

The Jared Goss source is not at all ambiguous. What is ambiguous is the title of the Financial Times article ("Style moderne: What is French Art Deco?"). The only inconsistency (or inaccuracy) of Goss, is his claim that style moderne "became known in France during its development in the 1910s and 1920s". The literature shows Style moderne became known in France (and elsewhere) around 1900.

Art Nouveau (also called Style moderne), with Cubism en passant, evolved into (or laid the foundation for) a geometrical style later referred to as Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Art Deco. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

First Art Deco skyscraper?

Dear Deco editors. One editor added some text and an image stating that the Guardian Building in Detroit was the first Art Deco skyscraper. I modified this to being an early example (1929) of Art Deco, but while the interior is certainly lavish (and its featured prominently in another section below, with a better picture) I don't think it was the first Deco skyscraper. Does anyone else have any thoughts or suggestions on this topic? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Art Deco in Mumbai

The new section on Mumbai is much longer than the other sections in this part of the article, and not in the same style. It would be better as a separate article, linked from this section. That would also give a possibility to add additional text and images. 07:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already commented to the user who placed this entry, that the text was more like an advertisement and originally needed references. They have added sources, but the article is far, far, too long. Suggest we wait for other editors to comment before taking additional action. David J Johnson (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Bucharest Telephone Palace - a fine example of Art Deco architecture in Eastern Europe

I think that that the Bucharest Telephone Palace is a fine example of Art Deco in Europe and it should be featured on alongside the other examples in the European section. As it is a prime example of the style in the Southeastern and Eastern European landscape, being the first true Art Deco building and having no true equivalent in the already mentioned region in terms of height. Also besides the antennas on top it did not change its design over the years. Therefore, I think the pictured example should be allowed on the page for the sake of diversity, in order to show how this modernist style was used in architecture across all of Europe. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupul carpatin (talk • contribs) 20:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC) --Lupul carpatin (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lupul carpatin:. There are many fine examples of Art Deco architecture throughout Europe. Unfortunately not all can be portrayed here. Note: Art Deco buildings are not gauged by their length, width or height. The only reference to Art Deco design in this particular building appears to be the bas-reliefs on the top section. The rest is rather mundane in comparison with others in the Europe and United Kingdom gallery. Coldcreation (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Coldcreation:. I am not arguing that there aren`t many more detailed Art Deco buildings in Europe, what I`m saying is that this is one of the more "American" styled ones(that's why I was talking about height). And I was referring to Eastern Europe. With all do respect, there are 2 examples from Portugal pictured(why?) and the one from Lithuania is nowhere near "true" Art Deco, given that you point out that Bucharest Telephone Palace doesn`t have a lot of detail. Now on another note, what do you think of the inclusion of the Academic College (Cluj-Napoca) building on the pictured list, in exchange for one of the Portuguese ex. or of the Lithuanian Memorial(which is mundane aswell).--Lupul carpatin (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Kaunas Art Deco style buildings illustrations

@Coldcreation: You almost wished to begin an edit war for no reason about this. Sure, let's take it here. So that others could easily understand the topic these are the pictures with annotations which I require to include into the article as illustrations:

Coldcreation reason for removing both of them was "Trimming overpopulated galleries of less notable examples". As you already see in the annotations, both of these buildings received the European Heritage Label, which is a recognition awarded by the European Union to buildings, documents, museums, archives, monuments or events which are seen as milestones in the creation of today's Europe. Does this sentence sound like something that is "less notable" ? This title is similar to the UNESCO World Heritage Site, but just an European Union version. Other objects which also received this honor, for example, are: The Heart of Ancient Athens, Peace Palace in The Hague, so as you can see only buildings with the highest importance in the European history are given this title. Such arguments makes calling these landmarks "less notable" than a bathroom simply hilarious. Here is some context why they are notable: 1) The Presidential Chamber of the Kaunas Garrison Officers' Club Building was designed in Art Deco style specially for the interwar Presidents of Lithuania and was one of the most important halls in the whole interwar European country. I wished to place this image into the "Style of luxury and modernity" section without omitting any current pictures because it is a really luxurious Art Deco hall from the time, however, according to Coldcreation, this Presidential-class hall is "less important" than a bathroom picture with bright reflections. This section has two illustrations of Jeanne Lanvin productions, so I see no reason to propagate just one author and if there is a reason to remove any images - then one of these should be replaced with my suggested picture to provide variety. 2) Vytautas the Great War Museum complex is an impressive and extraordinary example of Art Deco and has also received the same EH Label, being one of the most famous landmarks in Kaunas. This museum has two facades: the war museum entrance with two lions and a dwarf guarding it (pictured), while the opposite side of it is a M. K. Čiurlionis National Art Museum with a much more striking exterior. Near the war museum entrance (to the left) there is a Kaunas Carillon (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carillon_in_Kaunas_(2018).jpg). In the suggested war museum entrance picture (left side) you can see a fragment of a wall which connects it to the carillon. So as you can see, it is a quite huge Art Deco complex and visiting it really takes you back to the interwar period. I suggested to include this picture into the "Europe and the United Kingdom" section and this would possibly make it the most valuable illustration because none of the other objects received something similar to the EH Label. In my opinion, Palais de Tokyo, Mayakovskaya Station and Daily Express Building has absolutely no chance to compete with the Vytautas the Great War Museum complex. So these are easy targets for a replacement if there are too many illustrations. -- Pofka (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: post reliable sources that state these places were designed in Art Deco style. Coldcreation (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Coldcreation: 1) Wikipedia article of the Kaunas Garrison Officers' Club Building has a sentence about the style of the Presidential Chamber: "The Art Deco style chamber was created by painter Gerardas Bagdonavičius." (Lithuanian source, which is one of the primary news site in Kaunas: http://kaunas.kasvyksta.lt/2016/08/05/kultura/ekskursija-po-kauno-igulos-karininku-ramove-ka-slepia-sie-murai/). Whole building is not built in Art Deco, but the Presidential Chamber definitely is designed in this style. 2) Vytautas the Great War Museum (link from the official Lithuanian National Radio and Television website: https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/kultura/26/196798/mazasis-paryzius-unikalus-lietuvisko-art-deco-turtai-grizta-i-gyvenima): "Jau ne pirmus metus galima jausti išaugusį susidomėjimą Kauno art deco stiliaus turtais. Būtent vaikščiodamas po laikinąją sostinę kartais gali pasijusti kaip vartydamas gerą art deco architektūros vadovėlį. Vieni vertingiausių objektų čia – Centrinis paštas, Prisikėlimo bažnyčia, kino teatras „Romuva“, Vytauto Didžiojo karo muziejus, „Pienocentro“ rūmai. Pagarbą mūsų tarpukario architektūros paveldui atidavė ir populiarus britų leidinys „The Guardian“, Kauną įtraukęs į dešimtuką Europos miestų, kuriuose geriausiai atsiskleidžia XX a. 3–4 dešimtmečiuose klestėjęs art deco stilius (iškart po Paryžiaus). Tiesa, jei pastatai yra lengviau pastebimi, tai Lietuvos tarpukario art deco baldų meistrai ir interjerai eiliniam gyventojui – mažiau žinomi." (very quick translation from Lithuanian by myself to grab what is told here: "It is not the first year you can feel the growing interest in Kaunas Art Deco style treasures. By walking around in the temporary capital you can sometimes feel like reading a good Art Deco architecture textbook. One of the most valuable objects here - Central Post Office of Kaunas, Christ's Resurrection Church, Romuva Cinema, Vytautas the Great War Museum, Palace of Pienocentras. A popular British publisher The Guardian payed respect to our interwar architecture heritage by including Kaunas into the TOP 10 of the European cities which best reveals the XX century 3-4 decades Art Deco style that flourished back then. Truth is that the buildings are easily recognisable, but the Lithuanian interwar Art Deco furniture masters and interiors are less known for an ordinary residents."). Original The Guardian article which was mentioned can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2016/sep/08/10-best-european-cities-for-art-deco-design. I might even suggest creating a new montage that includes all three objects because they form a single complex and even are connected. -- Pofka (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm convinced neither by the images nor the sources that these places were designed in Art Deco style. Let's see what other editors have to say about this. Coldcreation (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Coldcreation: If state-owned Lithuanian National Radio and Television and such independent giant as The Guardian are not reliable sources to you, then I will probably not be able to prove this to you. I guess now its your turn to prove that they are not Art Deco because now it is simply an opinion without any facts. -- Pofka (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: The literature on Art Deco architecture and Art Deco interior design is vast. In what book, journal or other publication on Art Deco (written by art historians or experts in the field of Art Deco) can it be confirmed that the President of Lithuania's Presidential Chamber of the Kaunas Garrison Officers' Club Building or Vytautas the Great War Museum were created in the Art Deco style. I found not one. Coldcreation (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Coldcreation: Well, the Presidential Chamber of the Kaunas Garrison Officers' Club Building was used for its true purpose for just about two years. The building was completed in 1937, but the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania in 1939 and that time President Antanas Smetona was forced to flee the country to avoid cruel repressions in the Soviet's concentration camps. The small state was destroyed by the cruelty of the Red Army momentally. So there was not enough time for this room to gain bigger recognition. Plus, the room is designed by Lithuanian who is not famous for works abroad, but just by simply looking at the used materials and design of furniture, fireplace - it is clear that it is Art Deco. The whole building has a castle-like feeling inside, but with modern lines and patriotic motifs, so it may not look exactly the same as the French Art Deco examples. Nevertheless, every Lithuanian who knows that Smetona himself was working in this chamber feels proud visiting it. Current President Dalia Grybauskaitė visited it as well and that's why her portrait is currently hanging on the wall in the chamber, so it is still recognised as Presidential-class today. Same can be said about the Vytautas the Great Museum complex, which may also look different because it is a truly Lithuanian Art Deco, but still - sources do qualify it as Art Deco. Some sources qualify it simply as Modern architecture, but this architecture style does include Art Deco. My guess would be that these buildings are often qualified as Art Deco because Lithuanian Americans largely influenced the interwar state and a lot of ideas were brought there from the USA. By doing my quick research, Vytautas the Great Museum resembles buildings shown in the Streamline Moderne page (which is a late type of the Art Deco architecture). Kaunas architecture is full of these three windows of which the middle one is placed in the corner of a building to make it round (just like the first two floors windows of: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HamiltonGoTransitStation.JPG ). -- Pofka (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: With all due respect, I agree with @Coldcreation on this subject. The museum and the Presidential Palace are not Art Deco. They resemble more classical/neo-classical, historicism or even socialist-modernist architecture than Art Deco. --Lupul carpatin (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lupul carpatin: With all due respect, who are real experts in this subject? Author of the room and architecture professionals or Wikipedia commentators? This discussion is simply ridiculous when it is based on personal opinions by ignoring provided FACTS from RECOGNISED experts. Vytautas the Great museum is a mixture of various styles, including Art Deco. Presidential Chamber is 100% Art Deco. If Wikipedia would be based on "I think", "In my opinion" by ignoring references, this project would have been long vanished. Presidential Chamber style is unquestionable - it is a Lithuanian Art Deco (European Art Deco). If plain opinions will continue here without any references, then the only way I see is reporting this (especially the case of the Presidential Chamber) to the Wikipedia administrators, because the opinion war without backing with references is a complete waste of time in this case. -- Pofka (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: My friend, if we speak about European Art Deco..there are a lot, and I mean a lot of better examples than the ones you exposed here. As @User:Coldcreation stated there is not enough room to show all of them. I"m sorry, but I can show you right now two better examples than yours here in Romania. Academic College (Cluj-Napoca), Bucharest Telephone Palace. Lupul carpatin 19:36, 4 September 2018‎
@Lupul carpatin: I will probably give up about the Vytautas the Great War Museum, however I will continue to defend the Presidential Chamber of the Kaunas Garrison Officers' Club, which is a pure Art Deco room that was designed for the Lithuanian President. No other room interior in this article was created for an President and no building received the European Heritage Label. By almost doing a one month discussion we got simply nowhere, so probably administrators intervention here is the best solution. -- Pofka (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Administrators do not get involved in content discussions, except in their capacity as editors. Their opinions hold no greater weight in these matters than anyone else. Such decisions are made by a consensus among participating editors. I am also against the inclusion of this information. Consensus is clearly against its inclusion. Whether it is Art Deco or not is immaterial; it is inadequately notable to include it in this encyclopedia article. Scr★pIronIV 12:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not editor but I just wished to voice my opinion. War Museum is a no from me, presidential chamber however has some things going for it. Ceiling is very interesting, chairs not bad, chandelier is pretty unremarkable on first sight but those little horns are cute and creative, pretty art deco (opulent materials) maybe with a hint art nouveau(natural forms) if you ask me with a dash of viking vibes. Not a fan of EU but their recognition kinda helps, I am pretty sure it is also only Art Deco presidential chamber and as such is curiosity. I would probably include it, but I would also like a little better picture - kinda like one of Paris design firm of Alavoine Art Deco study that captures entire room.I also agree that Mayakovskaya Metro Station is pretty bland and unremarkable. Just my 2 cents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.129.103 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Chanin building NYC

Just wanted to start discussion about this pretty special building. Reason I think it is special is cause it is unique blend of Art Nouveau and Art Deco and showcases that transition of styles. While Art Deco is style on its own it has drawn a lot from its predecessor and I think it would be nice addition to article. Natural and Mechanical motifs in unique symphony. It depicts theory of evolution, it has mechanical patterns overlaid with curving flower petals. Even top reminds me little of Art Nouveau Stoclet Palace but of course but more Art Deco-ish. Would like to hear everyone ideas and thoughts on this suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.129.103 (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems like good proposal to me, but I wonder in what section to put it ? Maybe in North American section instead of Vancouver City Hall or Jefferson County Courthouse ?MrStefanWolf (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Reaching Good Article status - How and what should be improved on this article and what are its shortfalls ?

Curios to know how can it be improved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.129.103 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Checking all sources and deleting sections that are unsourced or without enough in-line citations would probably be a good start. MrStefanWolf (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Paintings section improvements needed

Feel like we definitely need at least one more example of painting, I would vote for - Self-portrait, Tamara in a Green Bugatti by Tamara de Lempicki - also I would really love to see American Progress by Joseop Maria Sert(personal prefereance, understand that there is Detail of Time from same artist). Entire second part of section Painting - In the 1930s a dramatic new form of Art Deco painting appeared in the United States. During the Great Depression, the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration was created to give work to unemployed artists. Many were given the task of decorating government buildings, hospitals and schools. There was no specific art deco style used in the murals; artists engaged to paint murals in government buildings came from many different schools, from American regionalism to social realism; they included Reginald Marsh, Rockwell Kent and the Mexican painter Diego Rivera. The murals were Art Deco because they were all decorative and related to the activities in the building or city where they were painted: Reginald Marsh and Rockwell Kent both decorated U.S. postal buildings, and showed postal employees at work while Diego Rivera depicted automobile factory workers for the Detroit Institute of Arts. Diego Rivera's mural American Progress for Rockefeller Center featured an unauthorized portrait of Lenin. When Rivera refused to remove Lenin, the painting was destroyed and a new mural was painted by the Spanish artist Josep Maria Sert.- is without a source, it seems legit but source needs to be added. 24.135.129.103

I agree with Tamara de Lempicki proposal, as for unsourced section hoping for speedy addition of sources or it will unfortunately have to be deleted.MrStefanWolf (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Removing section without source 77.243.23.209 (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Restoring section, with sources added. Coldcreation (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Link number 71 is surely wrong, it is about poetry. Others sources are sketchy there is not single one in line citation.AugustusMarbleBoy (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh no, I would hate to see hard work of editor be rendered useless and get deleted.MrStefanWolf (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I will find the exact source(s) for that text shortly. Useless hate deleted editor would work to see hard rendered get oh no. Do not remove text.Coldcreation (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
No you wont, you are just being stubborn and not wanting to admit you are wrong. There are no sources even tho text is partially correct, we cant keep it. MrStefanWolf (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Montage

Lempicka died in 1980; the image is still under copyright. The earlier Lempicka image I used in the first montage was deleted not long ago, so this one unfortunately probably will be deleted before long.SiefkinDR (talk)

Per WP:NFC#CS, the image itself needs to be the subject of sourced commentary in the article. As of now it is not. Coldcreation (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing needed in the painting section

I'm not sure that Tamara de Lempicka's work merits an entire paragraph in this section, or one-third of the section, especially since it describes a single work, which unfortunately cannot be illustrated due to copyright laws. I think she should be mentioned (as she was already in the earlier article) but not to that extent. Not sure how cubism enters into this, since she was certainly not a cubist. The text also needs to be edited to follow Wikipedia style: citations belong in a footnote, not in the text itself. It's not necessary to cite in the text the name of the person and the publication in which they comment about the painting. In fact the comment probably shouldn't be there at all, since it's a personal opinion about the painting, and doesn't add any information about Art Deco. Can this section be edited a bit? Thank you. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Coldcreation (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Ludwing Hohlwein poster in graphic arts

Poster in question is 100% Jugendstil not Art Deco. From dress and its decoration, depiction of female and even font used everything is Jugendstil. 95.180.55.184 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Got the sources for Leon Bakst Asassanit - Designed for Dance: The Costumes of Léon Bakst and the Art of Isadora Duncan by Michelle Potter and will find for Ludwig, do not revert changes. 95.180.55.184 (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Art Deco architecture around the world

Can this section be trimmed down if not flat out removed ? There already is so many architecture on this article, from Architecture section, Cathedral of Commerce, Movie Palaces, Streamline Moderne, Late Art Deco, Skyscrapers, Théâtre des Champs-Élysées , Cubist House to Sculpture section which is also dominated by architecture. 95.180.55.184 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


== I agree entirely, there is no need for this section. There are separate articles on each continent, which are linked to this article, and that is where these pictures and text belong. Otherwise this article is going to be much too long, as it once was before. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed it, as for decadent part in fashion, hahaah, they used to throw heroin and cocaine parties please do not remove that part.95.180.55.184 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
SiefkinDR This guy Cold came and rolled back entire world architecture section, hahaha. Maybe I am biased because I am not that into architecture, but I really think it is way too much and hopefully others agree.95.180.55.184 (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Art Deco Fashion

@Bi-on-ic: This edit was reverted because the photos and text in question have nothing to do with Art Deco: The two sourced cited confirm as much. Coldcreation (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the images of Art Deco in modern fashion

File:Zuhair Murad dress.jpg
File:Ralph Lauren Vest.jpg

Art Deco is not a 'period' it's an art movement & style. Art deco clothing did not ended in 30s. The article definitely needs to mention to the legacy of this movement. The Ralph Lauren vest & Zuhair Murad dress is absolute art deco so undoubtedly we should use these two images since there is no free images of art deco inspired clothing in modern fashion and it contribute to the readers' understanding of the subject, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. Bi-on-ic (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: there is already an ongoing discussion/proposal to delete the Ralph Lauren image above. Coldcreation (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Coldcreation, SiefkinDR, and Whpq: They 'have nothing to do with Art Deco'??!! Based on what? Can you cite something to back up your spurious claim that the Ralph Lauren vest & Zuhair Murad dress is NOT art deco? and there is no proposal yet. Bi-on-ic (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I make no judgements on whether these images represent art deco or not. But the Lauren clothing images do not meet all the reqirements as laid out at WP:NFCC. The discussion on those issues are at FFD and should be continued there and not here. -- Whpq (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with Bi-on-ic. This article is about a particular movement or style of the arts of the Art Deco period, from just before World War I until the beginning of World War II (and just after the war in Miami). It's defined that way in the lead paragraph, and in all the major sources on the subject. Art Deco may certainly have influenced Madonna and Ralph Lauren, but that would belong in the articles on them, not the article on Art Deco. Cordially, SiefkinDR 15:28, 11 November 2018‎
I'm talking about a "legacy section" for the article. I must say that it's absurd to say an artistic style is limited to a particular period of time of course there's a heyday/prevalent era but artists do any styles they'd want to, anytime. That silver dress is basically Chrysler Building (!) and the corn-bra corset is basically a Tamara de Lempicka painting. All i'm sayin' is that they scream Art Deco. Bi-on-ic (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I honestly think it makes more sense to put this information into the articles about Ralph Lauren and Madonna, with the appropriate citations that you have. I don't see that they have made any notable contribution to Art Deco. Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Madonna I'm talking about the designs of Jean-Paul Gaultier, Ralph Lauren & Zuhair Murad. Therefore you mean the 'Legacy section' is not needed for this article? Bi-on-ic (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, I don't think a "Legacy" section is needed or useful. "Legacy" is an entirely subjective concept; it's impossible to verify with reliable sources and citations. Anyone can claim that something is a "legacy" of Art Deco or any other style. As it is, this article is getting longer and longer, at some point will have to be trimmed back again. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
But I think referring to the "cultural impact and legacy" of an art movement is necessary. Each movement has its own consequences. Bi-on-ic (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. Cultural legacy and impact are entirely subjective and unverifiable. They belong in academic articles, but not, by the rules of Wikipedia, in this article. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
According to what rules? which one of the Wikipedia policies say cultural impact and legacy doesn't belong to art movement articles? Bi-on-ic (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm going by the basic Wikipedia guidelines on notability and verifiability in the Wikipedia Manual of style. For example, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."

You would need to provide reliable, verifiable evidence that Art Deco had a notable influence on current fashion design. But, as I said earlier, I don't think this kind of information belongs in the article on Art Deco; it belongs in the articles on the designers you mention. "Legacy" is very difficult to prove or document, unless the designers themselves say they were influenced by Art Deco. According to WP rules, if can't be verified by reliable sources, it shouldn't be in the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a whole paragraph in "Late Art Deco' that addresses the Art Deco legacy. I don't think we need to get into particular cases like Madonna's bra. The term "Art Deco" does not appear anywhere in the Jean-Paul Gaultier, Zuhair Murad, or Ralph Lauren articles; if you find a reliable source that says that one of these designers is influenced by Art Deco, it would be useful to add the information in their article. Ewulp (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ewulp. RS don't actually generally agree that Art Deco, as a movement, wasn't essentially confined to a particular period. As a style and an influence in later periods it's been called late Art Deco, later Deco, neo-Deco, etc., and we can probably find plenty of RS for such terminology and (more importantly) for analysis of Deco's legacy. PS: The exact same situation applies to Art Nouveau and our approaches at both articles should be consistent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Painters II

Dear Art Deco editors, I have a real problem considering Csaky, Demuth, Hopper and other painters as Art Deco. None of the articles about those painters suggests that they are. It's interesting to speculate about the connections between modernist painters like Picasso and Matisse and Art Deco, but I don't see that their work is primarily decorative, which is the definition of Art Deco. The muralists, the graphic artists, and some of the sculptors, yes, when their work is part of the decoration of the building, as at Rockefeller Center, but Csaky, Demuth and Hopper, where is the decorative part? I don't think they considered themselves decorative artists. I don't think we should define Art Deco simply by the years when the works were painted. What do others think?SiefkinDR (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

By that logic do you have problem considering Streamline Moderne Art Deco too ? Because it also lacks decoration, reliable sources say it is Art Deco. Would like to here everyone opinion and reliable sources.Matisse work is highly decorative but you do not consider him either? I think there is bias going on, no offense and wanting to have it both ways. 95.180.55.184 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
No offense taken. I have no problem with Streamline Moderne being considered Art Deco, it's a form of industrial and architectural design, and is illustrated in books on Art Deco. I don't consider Matisse as Art Deco, his works have no other function than art. I've never seen a citation saying his work is Art Deco. Are there any citations that say that Csaky, Demuth and Hopper are art deco painters? Cordinally, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Joseph Csaky was a sculptor (though he did produced some paintings). Here is one of many sources that state his works were indeed Art Deco. Eric Knowles, Art Deco, Bloomsbury Publishing, Oct 10, 2014, p. 71, ISBN 0747815216. In Google Books, search "joseph csaky" "art deco" for more sources. Coldcreation (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, the sources I gave for the seciton. I suggest you get Art Deco by Norbert Wolf, probably most in-depth book on Art Deco painting I have seen, it really goes deep with analysis, explanation etc. Some parallels are even drawn between Tamara and Hopper. Matisse's The Moorish Screen is held as holy grail of Deco painting by author as well as guy he quotes, Bouillon.95.180.55.184 (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Coldcreation Can you restore my to my last version of Fashion section that has in-line citations for source that I have given, thank you.95.180.55.184 (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@95.180.55.184: User:MrStefanWolf, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrStefanWolf. You are back in the form of another IP user (just as before) making the same unconstructive edits and engaging in edit warring. Coldcreation (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
You are wrong, that is not me.95.180.55.184 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Your edit is entirely nonencyclopedic nonsense. Here it it reproduced below:Coldcreation (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As one might presume, sculpture and painting as autonomous genres resist being incorporated into or even subordinated to the decorative guiding principle of Art Deco. But positive attitude towards decorative underlying in Henri Matisse's oeuvre show there is not necessarily an antagonism between "free" and "decorative". His painting The Moorish Screen with lot of patterns (decorative) to which subjects (two women) are integrated represents epitome of Art Deco, noted is another work titled "Decorative Figure on an Ornamental Ground".This illustrates the osmosis between applied painting and fine arts painting that was characteristic of Art Deco. Fauvism painters are seen in close proximity or even as part of Art Deco, another style that had symbiosis with Art Deco, maybe without intention was Precisionism.Cubism also left it mark, Art Deco painting has influences of "Well-Tempered Cubism" and Futurism with its fascination of new technology, city, speed can be seen as kind of proto-Streamline that will be late Art Deco.Large number of artists had foray in genre, even Picasso influenced by Léon Bakst and Ballets Russes did Portrait of Olga in a Chair. Artist who had work in genre include Carl Grossberg, Georgia O'Keeffe, Edward Hopper, Charles Sheeler, Cassandre, Dodo (painter) and others. (talk)

What exactly is nonencyclopedic nonsense and why ? I am also curios about my last version of fashion section, why is it not restored ? 95.180.55.184 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the comments of Coldcreation on the text above. The text that was deleted is not in Wikipedia style; it's a collection of observations and opinions that are not neutral, with a lot of grammatical mistakes, and not supported by any citations to reliable sources. Sorry but it has to go. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It has citations and it is from reliable sources. What is not in Wikipedia style can be changed so it is as well as grammatical errors. I mean every book about art is collection of observations so that is a non-starter as far as criticism go. What is not good enough will be changed so it is, it just needs to be criticism that is pointed, because vague criticism is not constructive.95.180.55.184 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is nonsense. 19:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not constructive criticism and openness to dialog.95.180.55.184 (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to get other parties involved or administrators because it does not look like there will be constructive dialog? 95.180.55.184 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You have to be able to express yourself clearly enough to be understood by others. You cannot presume that someone will come along and edit your writing into a form that is understandable. Others may not even know what you are trying to say. The bottom line is that you have to endeavor to speak clearly enough to be understood. I am not trying to be unnecessarily critical. You obviously possess the rudimentary skills to express yourself but this verbal communication skill has to be applied to writing about the subject of the article. No one else can do that for you. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes I understand that, but that needs to be little more pointed. Some sentences are pretty much verbatim in-line citations which is what Wikipedia encourages, so not much can be done there but can be improved potentially. Some I tried so summarize that is why I have to know what is confusing so I could improve it and not fall into same trap again.95.180.55.184 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
"I have to know what is confusing" Did you write "This illustrates the osmosis between applied painting and fine arts painting that was characteristic of Art Deco." What does that mean? Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
That is verbatim in-line citation, from letter to letter. I agree out of context it can be confusing, I understand what he meant but reader who did not read entire page from book maybe wont. Maybe I can remove it now until I manage to express it more clearly, good point.95.180.55.184 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The sentence may be verbatim, but is the sentence before it and the sentence after it in the order in which you found them, or are you juxtaposing sentences in ways that they were not found? Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
That is the last sentence that concludes explanation, staff in front of it is couple sentences before lifted out verbatim and I added this one last because I thought reader would understand what is meant. Apparently not.95.180.55.184 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:COPYVIO. Coldcreation (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it is, maybe someone with in-depth knowledge can look it up. Maybe we should also ask for third opinion and arbitration when it comes to edits because you seem to have animosity towards me, what do you think ? 95.180.55.184 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No need to play the victim card. Your edits speak for themselves. Coldcreation (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not playing anything, you are assuming bad faith without foundation to stand on. Please, start investigation and ask for arbiters to prevent me frrom editing this page if I did anything wrong. 95.180.55.184 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you quoting a source? When you write for instance "This illustrates the osmosis between applied painting and fine arts painting that was characteristic of Art Deco", is that a quote from a source? Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes 95.180.55.184 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it a source available online? Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, I have the book so I did not look it up. 95.180.55.184 (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
What is the name of the book? Perhaps by some odd chance I have it. Have you mentioned this information already? Sorry if I overlooked it. At any rate, if quoting a source, quotation marks would be used, and the source of the quote would have to be indicated. Alternatively one can just paraphrase into one's own words. Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Art Deco by Norbert Wolf, its ok. 95.180.55.184 (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
An article is supposed to be reader-friendly. I don't know the book. But if it contains a sentence that, especially out of context, is incomprehensible, that simply is not a sentence that can be transplanted into an article. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Divide the Cubist House section?

The Cubist House section is now one of the longest sections in the article. What would you think about separating the text about the Studio House, which is considerably later than the Cubist House, and putting it later in the article? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In fact, that section is more about the influence of Cubism than the Cubist House. I've gone ahead and changed the name of the section to Cubist influence. The fact, too, that the section remains lengthy, is justified in view of the importance Cubism had on the origin and evolution of Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2019

change both instances of "Poster for Chicago World's Fair (1933)" to "Poster for Chicago World's Fair by Weimer Pursell (1933)". Bobby Grey (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

Could the following hatnote please be added immediately following the "Architecture" heading: {{redirect|Art Deco Architecture|the book by Patricia Bayer|Art Deco Architecture: Design, Decoration and Detail from the Twenties and Thirties}}? Thanks, 142.161.83.66 (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Highway 89 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Influence of the Vienna Secession and Wiener Werkstätte (1905-1911)

I see this new addition to article and it just so happened that I stumbled on this paper https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2307355. Click "Open in PDF Browser" at the top, maybe it can be helpful. Obiano (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm sure there are other sources as well that cite the connection between Hoffmann, Secession, and early Deco. Thanks for pointing it out. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

SYNTH and OR

Art Deco article appears to have large amount of original research and synthesis. For example, let us start with first paragraph in Cubist influence. It says Cubism appeared between 1907 and 1912 influencing development of Art Deco, source quoted makes no mention of Art Deco. Third paragraph in same section explains what Art Deco will be in future, but quotes source from 1912. There is no chance that source could know what Art Deco will be. Moving on to the Influence section, again entire paragraph quotes source from 1905. I think there is considerable number of sources that make no mention of Art Deco at all and are used in the article with original research and synthesis, considerable number of text has no source at all. Sauvahge (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is but one example: Goss, Jared, French Art Deco, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 29 August 2016. You will find similar statements on the influence of Cubism in every book on Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Coldcreation is correct. There are several major sources that mention cubism as an influence; not the only influence, but a notable one. upon Art Deco. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • My understanding has always been that cubism was an important influence on Art Deco...Modernist (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Australia section

There are only two images depicting Art Deco architecture in Australia, despite the country having an abundance of the style, particularly Streamline Moderne. So this article seems a little unbalanced and tipped disproportionately towards Art Deco in Europe and the Americas. User User:Coldcreation objected to the addition of five images, of the Grace Building, Sydney, Elmslea Chambers in Goulburn, Holyman House in Launceston, Mitchell House, Melbourne and the Century Tower in Melbourne, on the grounds that "These are not Art Deco". This is absurd, because all of these buildings are heritage listed in Australia as being Art Deco or at the very least, Streamline Moderne. Ashton 29 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide WP:RELIABLE sources that state the extent to which these are notable Art Deco constructions. Coldcreation (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
For Elmslea Chambers, see New South Wales Consolidated Regulations. For Century Tower in Melbourne, see Alamy.com. The rest of these buildings have Wikipedia articles, with reliable sources, why do I need to provide them? You can simply click the links and find they are notable examples of Art Deco.Ashton 29 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Neither the classic.austlii.edu.au nor Alamy link are WP:RELIABLE sources. Coldcreation (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cubist section

Why is Cubist section so lenghty and why is it in Origins section not in Influences? Cubism did have notable influence on Art Deco but it was not formative. This paragraph in Cubist section is quite telling: In the 1912 writings of André Vera. Le Nouveau style, published in the journal L'Art décoratif, he expressed the rejection of Art Nouveau forms (asymmetric, polychrome and picturesque) and called for simplicité volontaire, symétrie manifeste, l'ordre et l'harmonie, themes that would eventually become common within Art Deco;[19] though the Deco style was often extremely colorful and anything but simple.[32] Cubism doesn't belong in Origins sections, especially in 2020 when it is well known that Vienna Secession and Wienner Werkstate were that formative influence. Cubism was roughly on par with Futurism in respect to Art Deco, slighly more important but not by much. La Maison Cubiste was not as essential to Art Deco as this sections makes it out to be, even Influence sections on La Maison Cubiste article states that Art Deco followed very different models.AnnMariette (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@AnnMariette: The text on Cubism is prevalent enough and in the Origins section rather than Influences section precisely because it forms part of the root of Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
That is precisely disagreement I have, it is not the root, only influence.AnnMariette (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User Coldcreation is diligently going through, no doubt not small number of books and publications he owns on the subject of Art Deco and Cubism, and is finding good quote that illustrates his point. But he missed important thing that I pointed out - Gentleman he is quoting, Richard Harrison Martin, died in 1999 and perspective on Art Deco has changed a lot since then. I would like to point to Alastair Duncan, an international consultant on nineteenth- and twentieth-century decorative arts and was, for ten years, a specialist and consultant on the subject for Christie's New York. He wrote more than 30 books, significant number of those is about Art Deco and Art Nouveau. Quote I would use is from Art Deco Sculpture from 2016, page 11: In its balanced use of geometric refinement combined with highly decorative detail, the Secession Building (1897-98) in Vienna , designed by Josef Maria Olbrich (1867-1908), stands as crossing point between Art Nouveau and Art Deco. Olbrich simplified the decorative elements associated with Art Nouveau to produce white cube, with most prominent features on the otherwise clean design being a sculpted golden cupola of laurel leaves - which gave rise to the building's nickname, the 'Golden Cabbage'. What intrigues is how Art Deco developed. In the first decade of the 20th century, Art Nouveau was still popular, but was lacking new direction. New art movements were gaining momentum, from Expressionism to Fauvism and, later, Cubism, Italian Futurism and Russian Contructivism. Each would amplify - although not necessarily be conciously part of - the essence of what would come to be termed 'Art Deco'.AnnMariette (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This text neither supports your claim, nor derails the thrust of the argument that Cubism is one of the sources of Art Deco. Coldcreation (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It explicitly supports my claim and derails the argument that Cubism is the source of Deco.AnnMariette (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
How so? Coldcreation (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Read the entire quote carefully, especially the last sentence: Each would amplify - although not necessarily be conciously part of - the essence of what would come to be termed 'Art Deco'.AnnMariette (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Again, this neither supports your claim nor refutes the Cubist origin of Art Deco. Since you appear to be reading between the lines above, try expressing yourself in your own words as to why you feel your claim is correct. Coldcreation (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
In The Definitive Guide to the Decorative Arts of the 1920s and 1930s Alastair Duncan writes "Cubism, in some bastardized form or other, became the lingua franca of the era's decorative artists." (page 130) Coldcreation (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2020(UTC)
"Cubist influence" was correct. Cubist was a significant influence, but as other sections of the article and sources explain clearly, its wasn't the sole origin. Please go back to the more accurate "Cubist influence". Cordially SiefkinDR (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you can't quite understand what is written, but it is clear what author is saying, no reading between the lines is needed. Each would amplify the essence of what would come to be called Deco, key word is amplify. Single sentences quoted out of context is not very useful. Let us hear what other editors have to say about this quote, outdated sources used in Cubist sections, and whole article in general because it is lacking. It appears only couple of editors, including you, feel that they have ownership of this article, that is impression I got reading through comment section and articles editing history.AnnMariette (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@AnnMariette: Discuss the substance of the argument itself rather than me. What the author writes does not contradict what is written in this Art Deco article. Recent sources do not supersede prior sources by virtue of the fact that they came later. Sources may disagree. What do you think is lacking in this article? There is no ownership of articles at Wikipedia. You are free to add reliably sourced material, as many others have. Coldcreation (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AGE MATTERS.AnnMariette (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
On the score of Art Deco: What new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed? Coldcreation (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

What new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years, relative to Art Deco? Coldcreation (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_Deco/Archive_4&oldid=1218060692"