Talk:Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

Note: There is a temptation to refer to this as "the New York Guggenheim". However, see the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation; there are at least two other entities that could be called "the New York Guggenheim" (the SoHo and waterfront museums), although neither is in operation at this time. In text, I suggest we prefer using "the Solomon R. Guggenheim" wherever possible. Thanks. --k.lee

I've replaced the external-view photo with a larger one. As the old one was nice (and wasn't so cluttered with cars and street furniture) I've not deleted it, but left it linked from the image page of the new one. I've also added a section on how difficult it is to hang art in the Guggenheim, and (admirably, IMHO) resisted the temptation to call the Guggenheim the worst museum on earth, with all the style and character of a public toilet in Romford and suitable only for the same purpose. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It'd be nice to also have a bit of positive views/explanations to balance the immense criticism present in the article. --Menchi 21:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is the name pronounced in English?[edit]

goo-gen-hym —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.10.63 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In IPA, [ɡuːɡənhaɪm]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Other appearances in popular culture[edit]

I think it also appeared in Men in Black the movie as The perp (the guy with blinking pupils) and Agent J got into a chase at a building that looks just like the museum (it had the interior of the museum when J entered it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, near the beginning of the movie... AnonMoos (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
If you think this is an encyclopedic (non-trivial) item to mention, please describe how it appears, and give a WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Cremaster[edit]

I do disagree. The museum press release (cited) makes clear the Guggenheim thought Barney and his films were significant and worthy of much attention. DonFB (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The museum PR department is definitely not the arbiter of what is encyclopedically significant about the museum. This film does not even have a WP article, let alone Academy awards or unusual box-office success. The proposed mention appears to be trivial rather than noteworthy, and you have, so far, failed to make any kind of case for it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree: this is trivia. Will it be deemed noteworthy enough in five years for inclusion? That's just too doubtful (I don't see details of other temporary exhibitions from previous years, for example). Just because a PR department does its job in putting out fluff pieces, it doesn't mean we just act as a further mouthpiece for them. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
If it's trivia, so too is inclusion of The International, which has no Oscars either and was no box office smash. The Cremaster Cycle, which includes summaries of the five installments, is a Wikipedia article and is linked in the text, so the argument that the film "does not even have a WP article" is misleading at best. The Guggenheim gave a lot more attention to Cycle (exhibition, 500-page publication) than it did to The International, as seen in its terse PR for the latter. Numerous mentions of Cycle-museum in 3rd party sources also, eg: New York's art happening of the year. The latest reversion appears purely arbitrary and does not stand up to these points. DonFB (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Ssilvers and SchroCat about the Barney film. I concur, too, with DonFB about the mention of The International, which looks like a hangover from one of the "Trivia" sections that Wikipedia articles used to have before we collectively decided not to have them. Tim riley talk 08:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Matthew Barney is notable, the film(s) is/are notable, and the fact that one was filmed at the Museum is indeed notable. See here for example: The Cremaster Cycle. Coldcreation (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the The International is trivial; it probably survived the purge of this section by User:Finnusertop on 5 October 2016 only because it was the only item with a citation (where it's mentioned only in passing). However, I agree with DonFB and Coldcreation that author and work, Matthew Barney and The Cremaster Cycle, are notable, but they shouldn't be mentioned under a section heading "In popular culture". The article lacks a section on major exhibitions, and this could possibly be woven into that. Until such a list is added, the section could be renamed "Cultural impact". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
PS: Ssilvers reverted too much; a fix by GreenC bot for a now defunct HighBeam article got inadvertently thrown out as well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, that mostly-excised former Pop Culture list is an eye-opener. I would like to see most of that stuff included, assuming it were all properly referenced, as stated in that old RFC. This means I support inclusion of both International and Cremaster. I compared those two to show the faulty reasoning of Ssilvers in deleting Cremaster. I doubt anyone questions that the museum is an icon, not merely in NY, but in the world's eyes, at least among people who are moderately aware of art and culture. A Pop Culture section for a high-brow museum might seem untoward to some editors, but I believe such information is encyclopedic, and the museum has, so to speak, earned it, much like places such as the Empire State Bldg or Eiffel Tower (though a separate Pop article is not yet warranted). DonFB (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That material was justifiably removed. Sources that support that those things happened are not enough; it needs sources that confirm that they were notable, i.e. tertiary sources that discuss them, which I think is true for Barney's work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not only that, but that discussion needs to be summarized here. Merely listing appearances is not encyclopedic content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Here is a tertiary source which refers to the museum's appearance in the movie. In saying "tertiary sources that discuss them," however, I'm not sure if "them" refers to the movie itself, or "those things [that] happened." I've already cited an independent secondary source specifically discussing the significance of Cremaster at Guggenheim; there are plenty of others. This review points to the "most widely known section of Cremaster 3, a scramble up the rotunda of the Guggenheim Museum." Someone said this article does not include info about other temporary exhibitions, and I would not say that the Cremaster exhibition deserves such special treatment in the article, to the (current) exclusion of all other exhibitions. But as an event in the Pop Culture of the building, the movie is certainly worth a mention, as I've documented. DonFB (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

[Left] Based on Riley's and Bednarek's comments above, I have removed the whole section as too trivial. It is not important to the museum or its collection that some films mention the museum. If the museum is the main setting of award-winning or blockbuster films, or an important film were to explore the museum's history or collections, then that would merit a mention in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You've stated your own ad hoc rules (immediately above and near the top) for inclusion of items in a Pop Culture section for this article. I remind you that there is no policy or guideline about the content of pop culture sections. The Manual of Style, however, contradicts your personal opinion that such items should be "important to the museum" by saying that "Media coverage of a topic is generally encyclopedic information, helps establish the topic's notability, and helps readers understand the subject's influence on the public". I endorse the idea that "Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines," as explained in wp:IPC. I also refer you to wp:WPPC for a refresher on others' thoughts on the issue. It's my view—and I think it is self-evident and supported by what I quoted above—that it is not trivial, minor or unrelated to mention two commercially-released movies (Int'l,Cremaster) that featured major and well-publicized scenes in the museum, the subject of this article. DonFB (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
DonFB, I'm not sure the consensus is with you on this one. Just because something is known, doesn't mean it necessarily has to be included. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with SchroCat. The matter is not black-and-white, but on the whole I think it would be appropriate, for the present at least, to stick with the Silvers version. We can always revisit, needless to say. Tim riley talk 19:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. DonFB (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 protest at the Guggenheim[edit]

An entry was removed from the history section of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum article that documents that there was a recent protest, and its background, namely the link of the museum to the Mortimer Sackler family and their connection to the opioid epidemic. The reason given for the removal is that this is "not of encyclopedic importance". I am not sure that reported events like this that reflect on an institution should be cursory dismissed in the article. Ekem (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. It was deleted no more cursorily than it was added. The real question is whether it is of encyclopedic importance. Was the protest successful? That is, did it result in the change of the name? If so, it might be worth noting that the name was changed after a protest in the museum. But the fact that there was a protest is not, surely, super important in the context of the history of the museum. As I said in my recent edit, see WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I'm quite sure that a protest against the name of a small wing does not add to the coverage of the Guggenheim in an encyclopedia. This belongs into the article(s) on OxyContin, Purdue, and Sackler, which so far don't mention this. Even the protest's organizer's article, Nan Goldin, mentions only her similar protest at the Met, which in turn doesn't mention it. Neither should this article. A good test whether to include material in an article is to ask: Will this be of interest to any reader curious about the Guggenheim in 10 years' time? If the name of the wing gets changed, I think it will. A one-off protest, not against an exhibit or misbehaviour by prominent staff, is not. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
As this is currently on my watchlist....commenting. I would agree that a one-off protest could be excluded without undue harm to the article's integrity. A series of protests, if they happen, even without causing a name change, should likely be included. If the name does change due to protest, it's a no-brainer to include text on such events. It's true that a degree of Recentism is at play here. But I shudder to think what a debate would look like over the question of whether people will care in 10 years. Instead of trying to answer that imponderable, the appropriate thing, in the interest of covering contemporary unprecedented significant events at the museum, would be to include information about a series of protests, if they happen, and decide 10 years later whether that information needs to be retained in the artcle. DonFB (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, then. Let's see how things evolve.Ekem (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Unesco[edit]

The World Heritage Committee of Unesco has just announced (a week ago, I just found out about it now) The Museum has been recommended for World Heritage site status. The official vote isn't until next month sometime, but i think that a paragraph or two is warrented (this is the second time it's been put up for a vote)...Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph? No, if it becomes a World Heritage site, we can say so in a short sentence. If not, then there is nothing noteworthy to say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solomon_R._Guggenheim_Museum&oldid=950125788"