Talk:Art Deco/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Streamline Moderne

The section about streamline moderne does not belong here, but in the other article about streamline moderne. I will move the content to there when I get the time.Carl Milles (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not too fast, please. Streamline (opinion) is usually considered to be a form of art deco, so as such should be represented in this article. I think this article would be better served by making the Surviving examples a separate article and perhaps even making Art deco architecture a separate one. Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous examples of both of these styles combined. One example is on page 1 of the The National Trust guide to Art Deco in America book by David Gebhard. Here is a discussion of the differences. Perhaps the distinction is best described as "Around 1930 the Art Deco was replaced by a simpler and more economical style, which has been named Streamline Moderne." (see here). Because they both seem to be branches of the same tree, it would be appropriate that the styles be described together. Just my thoughts — CZmarlin (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I am not moving it just like that, that is what this page is for. I would say that art deco moved into streamline as a reaction against it, but still kept a lot of the art deco. However, some designers like Ramond Leuwy would strongly disagree he designed in art deco. Visually they can be separated and there is already another article on the streamline. I would suggest replacing the section with a description of the transition and refer to streamline where the body of text should go. At the same time I understand you, as especially those cars looks very art deco indeed.

Anyways, I hoped that this community would be larger than the small languages. Unfortunately the wikinazis seem to have control here as well, simply due to mere persistence. I did a test regarding the obvious replacement of the Chrysler Building photo, but unfortunately I do not see that B... being kicked in the head appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Milles (talk • contribs) 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the book Art Deco San Francisco, Therese Poletti asserts that Moderne was the name of the style that architect Timothy L. Pflueger designed in, though later we have taken to calling that style Art Deco. In Poletti's estimation, the two names have been known to refer to the same style. For instance, the Golden Gate Bridge has been described as a fine example of Moderne, by California's Office of Historic Preservation, and a fine example of Art Deco, by the Golden Gate Bridge management. The two topics are interrelated, and cannot be presented without reference to the other. Signed, your favorite Wikinazi, Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am tempted to remove a couple

of the buildings that have shown up as surviving exmples. The Ezekiel W. Cullen Building was built in 1950, very late in the style and the Jefferson County Courthouse is a pretty typical "deco as bureaucratic style" structure but not an outstanding exmple (opinion) of anything else. However I am reluctant to just axe these additions since they are, I believe, good faith edits. Any other thoughts? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There are so many examples to list that all but the most significant should be struck. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Art Deco typefaces?

I've been fascinated by Art Deco for a while now, especially after experiencing "Decopunk" or "Dieselpunk" media, and I've long wondered how to refer to its various typefaces as used in store signs, above-entrance lettering etc. etc. As many pages as there are here on Wikipedia for individual faces, I can't find any from this time period except the most universal, like Futura. The sort of typefaces I'm referring to are like in this image:

http://www.sharewarejunkies.com/images-8/artdc001.gif

The so-named "Dalith" and "Haman" appear the most iconic, in my opinion. But there are literally hundreds of downloadable fonts online that emulate these styles, each with its own name, none of which, I assume, are accepted by the typographical community. The artists making these files for download simply give them spiffy names like "NewYorkDeco" or "BroadwayRitz" and send them off. Does anyone know what these typefaces are really called officially? Were they in fact anonymously designed, open to the public and sort of spontaneously became popular, thus having no real names? D Boland (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Those typefaces in the link are mostly created by modern people looking back at the Deco era. You might be right about the ones of the time being anonymously created. I don't know.

Eric Gill was a Deco-era typographer, a real incestuous sleazebag as a person but beautiful typefaces. His famous Gill Sans was created during the Art Deco period, though people often term it an Arts and Crafts style.

There's also City (typeface) from 1930, with a modernist feel. These are not the florid styles you were asking about. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Eric Gill was certainly a colourful fellow! Maybe they are anachronistic typefaces after all. Perhaps now their association is a kind of Coconut Effect? D Boland (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As a typographer and reader in my youth, I have to say "Dalith" and "Haman" are new names to me. Your linked graphics show such tight letterspacing that the depicted faces would never have been produced by the letterpress processes of monotype, ludlow, linotype, etc, used in the '30s and through to the 1980s. I would nominate sans styles like Broadway Engraved and the square-serif Egyptian faces, eg Rockwell as more characteristic of art deco. To get the authentic look, one would need to see the contemporary stylebooks from old typesetters and journals rather than today's digital purveyors. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

• Art Deco page by Phil Fare

was a dead link.

Any good replacements?

Another dead link, Art Deco UK, page now has nothing on British examples of Art Deco, if not US centric there's not enough on UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.24.8 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Chrysler building image

Picture 1

Picture 2

I think only one photo is necessary at the head of the article. --Hairsplit (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree more. One photo is enough. Now there are three photos, all of them of not up to scratch quality. It seems that nothing has been done to the photo issue. I replaced the photo of the Chrysler Building with the better one found on the French page, but with dubious arguments this was reverted. The two photos of buildings are bad and amateuristic, e.g. the perspective has not been corrected. The Buffalo City Hall picture does not actually show any significant features. If no significant argument against it, I will replace those two photos with the French photo of the Chrysler Building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Milles (talk • contribs) 07:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The first photo is now changed to use the same photo of the Chrysler Building as a prime example of art deco. This picture show the unique spire, and is simply a better photo, in particular to show the significant features. The next photo if the Buffalo City Hall is removed as it is difficult to identify any art deco in it. Possibly a photo gallery could be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Milles (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Again I put back the picture from the French side. It does show the spire better than the old one. The argument not to use it was, according to the editor, that it is "cluttered". It is true that other buildings are visible in the picture, but it is absolutely not possible not to identify the Chrysler Building in it, and is definitely not cluttered. In the other one it is difficult to see the significant features. The other argument that it is not preferred, does not have any validity what so ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Milles (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I got this message in my talk, but since I do not engage in private discussions I post it here as it is of general interest:

"Please cease edit warring over which photos are offered at the top of the Art Deco article. You keep removing the very well composed photo of the Chrysler Building and substituting one with a cluttered background. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)"

Obviously this person, who refuses to discuss his editing here, has taken some kind of ownership over this article. He refuses to change two relatively bad photos in favour of one much better, with the argument it is cluttered. I see in his history that he will continue his editing war with much more persistence than I will be able to put up with. So, please, if other people care about this article I would appreciate it. If I would criticise the picture, (which seems to work well on the French page), there is some unnecessary parts in the lower part of the picture, and the picture could be trimmed down a little altogether. But I honestly dod not think that anyone would even attempt that the previous picture shows the spire better than this one!Carl Milles (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Carl. I happen to prefer the photo that you are championing, but there is nothing unusual about editors taking their discussions to their talk pages. There is, to me, nothing "obvious" about binks attitude towards the article other than s/he wants it to be as good as possible. The lead photo in an article is a very important element in it. Also, if you, Carl, post something, anything on your user page then your name will appear in blue rather than red and you might gain more credibility. Always signing your posts helps in that respect too. Carptrash (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Carl Milles, your response to a two-year-old discussion thread made me miss your participation here. I am moving what amounts to a new thread started by you down to the bottom and I am giving it a new section heading. So... your opinion about which Chrysler building image is the better one goes against mine. My opinion is that the simple blue sky background in stark contrast with the Chrysler building top is the superior image for this article. The image you prefer has a misty quality which makes everything the same shade of blue-gray overcast, and the tower's outline is crowded by the clutter of the thousands of buildings in the background. I have no personal involvement with either image, I am just calling it the way I see it. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual decoration is better seen from the Emire State Building. However, I understand your, (Binksternet), point regarding the misty sky. Perhaps a New York citizen could take a new snap of the building in a clear day? It could also be Photoshopped or Gimped to enhance the qualities we are after? In any case the bottom part of the picture should be cropped to put the focus on the spire.83.250.48.172 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I started photoshopping that image earlier today, but had no idea how to navigate the wikipedia copyright labyrinth so gave up and came to work. I do think that I improved the image, but what it would look like here . . ... who knows. I will try again tonight or tomorrow. Any tips on how to upload it? Einar Carptrash (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see the need. Why make the second image as clear and bold as the first when the first is perfectly fine? People can go to the Chrysler Building article to get more images. Here, we just need something immediately tangible and simple. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you do not see the need. The point with the other one is that you see the DECO in the art deco, not with the other amateur photo. Hope you succeed with the upload! Then we have the question on how many photos of buildings we need. I removed the other one since it actually does not show anything else but a building. It may be of historical interest as an art deco building, I actually do not know, but you cannot see anything in the picture! In the introduction one photo should be enough, and therefore it could be put in a gallery in the bottom. Carl Milles (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see "Deco" in both Chrysler Building images—they are of the same building, focusing on the same features. Your edit warring on this matter constitutes vandalism. You came here to make a change that subsequently found no consensus, but you continue to push it. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I beg you pardon, but the only consensus we have had here, is someone who prefered the better photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Milles (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Asia Section - Mumbai as Second Next to Miami

Mumbai, India has the second largest number of Art Deco buildings in the world after Miami.[43]

Although the reference cited does say Miami, it is really Miami Beach that has the wealth of Art Deco buildings, not Miami. Miami Beach is a separate city from Miami. I did not change it here but I did change Miami to Miami Beach in one instance; all the other references correctly use Miami Beach. Ileanadu (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have cut this important part of the article and moved it here

" Nowadays the style is said to have been active from around 1910 until the outbreak of World War II."
First of all, I feel (men have feelings too, you know) that a word such as "Nowadays" is not very encyclopedic. Also saying "is said" is weak with out saying who says it. But more importantly, I am having a very difficult time finding anything but art deco precursors dating from before the Great War. We, the editors interested and involved here, need to come up with some solid starting and finishing dates pretty quickly. But I am not happy about leaving 1910 there until it is sourced. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I like this article, but I think the whole time frame for AD is pushed to far forward. By the time of the 1925 exhibition, AD was no longer cutting edge, but had become more or less the standard. The exhibition was originally supposed to be held in 1915, but was canceled because of WWI; it would have distinctly more avant garde then than in the mid-'20s. By 1925, the exhibition celebrated more of a codification than an exploration of new ideas. I think a reasonable start date might be 1901, the year of the founding of the Societe des Artistes Decorateurs. Alternately, the organization of the Salon d'Automne in 1903 might be a good starting point. I have in my collection of illustrations from La Vie Parisenne many examples showing Art Deco influence to a considerable extent, some of which date to 1908-1909, showing it was already influencing a wider audience. Arwas has, I think, a good discussion of the various pre-war efforts. Hoytms (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I'd like to see is a source for these dates. Or, post a few of the art works that you have referred to here - they should be old enough to be copyright free - and lets us all see them. Also if you put something, anything on your user page than your name will appear in blue instead of red, making it in many ways easier to have this sort of discussion. Carptrash (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I clicked on an article

of a supposedly art deco building, the Palacio Salvo, and must say that I do not find it to be particularly decoish. Given that one picture can be misleading and that it is the only deco offering from Uraguay I decided to post here before removing it from the article. However, the countdown has begun. Carptrash (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's an interesting-looking building but neither its WP article nor its official website mention any claim to art-deco influence in its design. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Art Deco Crest

Does anyone think that the Arsenal old Art Deco style crest should be shown and/or mentioned in the page File:Arsenal Crest 1936.svg. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't immediately see the Art Deco connection from the early crest. Do you have a source calling it Art Deco? Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The source is here that says it's Art Deco. The thing Is The one I linked to is a cup final crest, while I would have prefered the original, that's all I could find on Wikipedia as it's pretty much the same as the normal Art Deco one less the date. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

Since Oct 1, vandal edits outnumber the genuine content edits about 5 to 1. This article was vandalized ten times by IPs during that period. Please let me know if people would disagree with semiprotection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Ed, have protected for 2weeks, thanks for pointing that out. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead: in need of a little work?

The lead to the article struck me as a little disorganized, a little repetitive and a lot passive voice. I know all the effort and hours that went into it, so I thought I'd post a touched-up version here as a starting point for a tightening:

Art Deco is an eclectic artistic and design style that blossomed in Paris in the 1920s and flourished internationally throughout the 1930s, into the World War II era. The style influenced all areas of design, including architecture and interior design, industrial design, fashion and jewelry, as well as the visual arts such as painting, graphic arts and film. The term "art deco" first saw wide use in 1966, after an exhibition in Minneapolis celebrated the 1925 Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes that was the culmination of high-end style moderne in Paris. At its zenith, Art Deco embodied elegance, glamour, functionality and modernity.

Art Deco's bold, linear symmetry was a distinct departure from the soft pastels and flowing asymmetrical organic forms of its predecessor Art Nouveau; it embraced influences from many different styles and movements of the early 20th century, including Neoclassical, Constructivism, Cubism, Modernism and Futurism and drew inspiration from Egyptian and Aztec forms. Although many design movements have political or philosophical roots or intentions, Art Deco was purely decorative.

Art Deco experienced a decline in popularity during the late 1930s and early 1940s, but enjoyed a resurgence in the 1960s with the Minneapolis exhibition and the first book on the subject by Bevis Hillier in 1968. It continued with the popularization of graphic design in the 1980s. Art Deco had a profound influence on many later artistic movements, such as Memphis and Pop art.

Architectural examples survive in many different locations worldwide, in countries as diverse as China (Shanghai), the UK, Latvia, Spain, Cuba, Indonesia, the Philippines, Argentina, Romania, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, Brazil, Colombia and the United States. In New York, the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building and Rockefeller Center are among the largest and best-known examples of the style. Riga, Latvia has the largest collection of Art Deco buildings in Europe.

What does everyone think? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I swap this lead into the article? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

With no objection, done. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Weird Thumbnail

The thumbnail for the Bullocks Wilshire picture is very..weird. In its thumbnail size the whole thing is tinted red/pink, despite that being not at all present on the true image. I dont know how to fix this. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

They match on my monitor. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Try downloading the full image and looking at it at different sizes in your picture viewer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Pastel colours

Not to be nit-picky, but did Art Deco really do away with "the pastels... of its predecessor style Art Nouveau"? (Really, did Art Noeveau even use pastel? Wasn't it more watercolour?) I ask this mostly because, as the article mentions, the Art Deco buildings in Miami Beach were restored to pastel colours. Helixer (hábleme) 03:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not nit-picky at all — it's a point very well taken. Unless anyone objects, I think we ought to remove the "soft pastel" reference altogther. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Naniboujou Club Lodge

This lodge has often been called, and calls itself, Art Deco. Is it? If so, is it worth of mention, or a picture in the gallery?Majestic Pyre (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems far too rustic for art deco, IMHO. Those weathered shingles? What do you think about it, Majestic Pyre? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that while the outside is misleading, but that the dining room was painted with definate Art Deco Themes. I will try to take a good picture, and go from there. What does IMHO mean?Majestic Pyre (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In My Humble Opinion — with the emphasis on the humble. Not to be too contentious here, but there are hundreds of examples that are more representative of the Art Deco style begging for inclusion... but do your thing with your camera and let's see what kind of a case you can make! Worse comes to worst, you have a nice photo essay for the Naniboujou gallery. What year was the place built? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I don't have my camera with me, so I will take and post them tommorrow. By the way Naniboujou opened in 1929.Majestic Pyre (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Art Deco etymology.

The first paragraph of the Art Deco article makes a vague and non-committal reference to the origins of the term, mentioning that it was "was first used widely in 1966". Collins and Random House dictionaries suggest that the term is a reduction of "Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes", and specifically the words "Arts Décoratifs" (Art Déco), however I have yet to find a single contemporary (1925-1950) example of the term 'Art Deco' in print. The contemporary style of the era that we now call Art Deco was at that time referred to as 'Moderne'. It is an important and relevant fact that although we call things Art Deco, they were never referred to as such by the artists and designers that created them. This contrasts dramatically with its predecessor 'Art Nouveau', although a number of 'Nouveau' artistic philosophies were carried over into the era of the 'Moderne', not least of which was the idea that artistic movements could transcend the traditional media of painting, sculpture and architecture and flow down into to the small mass-produced objects of everyday life. So can Art Deco be ranked (as it often is) with 20th century artistic movements such as Fauvism, Cubism, and Surrealism? It seems to me that Deco is a movement, but only in retrospect, and although it has an important place in the history of art and design, let us not forget that it is a portmanteau term (most probably coined first by Bevis Hillier in the 1960's) for anything influenced by the French moderne style of 1920-1940. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave.a.davies (talk • contribs) 09:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Gallery section is chubbing up...

With the arrival this morning of quintuplets, the population of the Gallery section is now up to 37 — perhaps double what it ought to be. It has also become heavily slanted toward architectural examples, short-shrifting the important areas of industrial design, transportation, graphic arts/ephemera and film design, among others. Currently, 18 of the images — about half — are exterior, wide-angle, full-building shots. Interiors and sculpture on walls are their own categories.

If we agree that the Gallery section needs to be culled, I would suggest that we apply a few criteria to the images that remain:

• Subject should be quintessentially art deco, fully emblematic of the style, not just "art deco-ish". Several current photos are not.
• Quality/clarity/detail of the photo itself should be beyond reproach. Several current photos are not.
• An image that is unique to this article should get preference over one sprinkled promiscuously all over town.

Finally, I think it would benefit the article if we agree upon an overall limit to the size of the Gallery, and that a proposed new image be vetted here first — and include a current "target" to be replaced — before inclusion in the Gallery.

Anyone agree/disagree? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good suggestions. Also, the image should be compared to others in the article, and unique subjects should be valued higher than ones that show yet another building. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I too agree. Awien (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree! CZmarlin (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems like we're all in agreement that the section needs to go to Jenny Craig. And that there are too damn many building exteriors. Might the next step be setting an overall size limit? Might that limit be, oh, say, 24? Once we agree on size, we can start defining what blend of subject matter we want, and then start nominating images for removal. Comments/suggestions? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, maybe let's start this way. I copied eight images over here which might be candidates for first removal. I presumptuously added my own comments on what makes them weaker entries in our finite gallery. You'll have pros and cons of your own. (Full disclosure: I myself posted the first four rows of images in the gallery and you'll find them unrepresented below. I would like to replace the radio photo in the first row of the gallery with one more emblematic like this one but can only find non-free photos. Non-free should be an automatic disqualifier.) Here are the eight:

• 
  Good sharp photo but not quintessential deco design
• 
  Cool shot, nice color, but hardly emblematic and used on several other pages
• 
  Plus: It's Warsaw, so it's international; minuses: not quintessential deco nor the best photo
• 
  Love the color, but suspect it's a 1990s neo-deco remodel. Couldn't find documentation for its originality anywhere
• Not quintessential deco, built in 1978, not the sharpest photo
  Not quintessential deco, built in 1978, not the sharpest photo
• Too wide angle to show detail; even cropped, not sure how deco it is.
  Too wide angle to show detail; even cropped, not sure how deco it is.
• 
  Detail hidden by tree, though the photo is huge and would crop well
• 
  Nice building but a skewed, undistinguished photo that wouldn't crop well

There are also two shots in the body of the article that wouldn't live up to the criteria we set for the gallery. If we replaced those two with two images from the gallery, it would be two fewer we'd have to agonize over cutting. (I feel like we're in the Washington budget fight.) They are:

• 
  Shows the gatepost well, but not so much the building. Suggest replacing it with...
• 
  ...this one from the gallery, which keeps us in England but shows more art deco style.
• 
  Not sure where the deco's supposed to be in this one; suggest replacing it with...
• 
  ...this one, which keeps us in Asia (India) though we have no documentation on it

I await your comments, criticisms and — maybe — your deletions. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No quarrel from me. Agree fully with your last suggestion (move two shots from gallery to body), much better pix. One hesitation from a non-expert non-photographer: the Polish bas-relief Image:20070124 sejm looks pretty deco and a decent photo, and shows a work of art rather than a building exterior. Not a real argument, though. Best, Awien (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Awien, I know — I agonized over the Polish bas relief, too, for your same very reasons. Maybe we keep the Polish and lose this one, which is a stunning building (and a terrific sky) but not well detailed in this particular photo--------->

If Binksternet and CZmarlin agree with us on the two to move from gallery to text, I'll make the move. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the article already includes sufficient images of buildings to explain the subject, thus showing other items would be better. Great suggestions to improve the article. Go for it! CZmarlin (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved the two images up to replace the two above, as we discussed. Next step: remove seven of the eight above, except for the Polish bas-relief. Any objections? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the photo of the Grand Rex theatre has more value for our purposes in this article if we crop it for a better view of its art deco qualities, a crop which I have uploaded. Let's consider the tighter crop in our deliberations about removing images:

• 
  The wide shot of the Grand Rex doesn't really showcase its deco qualities...
• 
  ...the cropped version maybe shows them better. Judge the photo's future by this one.

I'm trying to give the image every shot at being kept; I'm not sure it's a "keeper" even with the crop. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Another suggestion for the group to ponder. With the responders' agreement, I moved the Jesus Centre from the gallery up to the body of the article. Now I wonder if the Former Daily Express Building in the gallery doesn't represent England better than the Jesus Centre. With consensus, I'd like to retire the Jesus Centre and replace it with the Daily Express, shedding another building exterior from the gallery in the process.

• 
  The Jesus Centre is a brighter, eye-easy photograph, but...
• 
  ...the Daily Express Building is perhaps more emblematic of the art deco style.

We also have more background info on the Express and next-to-none on the Jesus. Your opinions, please. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree. Awien (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the Grand Rex theatre is not a great "keeper" even with the crop. The Daily Express Building is a much better example (with a documented history and by a notable architect) than the Jesus Centre. Just my point of view. Your individual results may vary.... CZmarlin (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Gallery Trim, Part 2

Since we seemed to be of like minds, I executed all the changes we spoke of above: moved the Daily Express and the Phul Cinema up within the article, retired the Jesus Centre, and removed the following: St. Wenceslaus, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Oyster Bar, the Quezon Memorial, the Palais de Chaillot, the Grand Rex and the Folies Bergere. If I misunderstood anyone's intent, all the photos still stand at the Commons and are easy to fetch back. If we could find a better-documented example than the Phul for Asia, a more emblematic deco radio and a technically better shot of the S-1 locomotive, it would be good.

We're two images away from the goal of 24, six away from the goal of twenty. We might be thinking about the mix of the gallery now. We could use a film still (I have one in mind from Broadway Melody (1929)) and maybe another consumer product. But that's jumping the gun while we still have a few more pictures to trim.

Your comments, suggestions — and other trims — please. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's try it this way: Here are two more candidates for removal. Both buildings are excellent examples of art deco architecture, but both photos fail to showcase the detail that would make them good entries in the gallery.

• 
  Louisiana State Capitol: a significant building that maybe needs a "spire shot" to be valuable to us here...
• 
  ...Tower Theater: appealing building, not as significant, but the sun is wrong and the details hard to come by.

Removing these two (or any two) gets us down to 24. Anyone want to try for 20? Your comments, suggestions — or brickbats — please. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

With no seeming objections registered, I removed the two images and restacked the remaining ones in what I hope is a logical and pleasing presentation. The two photos are still at Wikimedia Commons and are easily retrievable if anyone wants to resurrect them. I also added this hidden procedural note:

Please DO NOT ADD images directly to this Gallery. By consensus, editors of the article have limited the Gallery to 24 images. Please POST YOUR PROPOSED IMAGE TO THE TALK PAGE FIRST, and specify which of the current images you propose to replace with the new one. Please do not post NON-FREE USE images to the Gallery, nor images that appear in other articles. Thanks!

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Savoy Homann Hotel

Glad to have this more signicant building replacing the old Phul Cinema shot, but can't we get a better photo of it? This shot's foreground is all cluttered up with trees, flags and lampposts and it imparts very little detailed information about the building. It doesn't look like there'd be a better angle, so perhaps a closer shot of the tower, or an older shot without the clutter, or, maybe best of all, an architect's rendering. Lacking that, maybe a well-chosen interior shot would demonstrate the art deco style better than this one. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Shanghai claim: most deco "in the whole world"?

Not to seem too cranky an old man, but a recent claim added to the lead of the article says that Shanghai, China "has the largest collection of Art deco buildings of a single city in the whole world." Can this be true? Tracing back the source reveals that while it is Time magazine, it's also a quote from a Shanghainese photographer. Is anyone else skeptical about this claim, or have I just had too much coffee? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Why has this article degraded?

I just returned to this article and found that it has not been improved. In contrary it was better before. Previously there was a better photo of the Chrysler building. Now there is a rather amateuristic photo of from below. However, there are too much focus on architecture anyway, so that photo among with some others could actually be deleted. In addition other have been removed. For example the Duofold desk set pen from Parker has been removed, which was not the only consumer product but also a wonderful example of art deco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.217.96 (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the turn this article has taken. The architecture shots now choke off all other photos. And as valuable as the recently-added "Origins" material is, it has overwhelmed the discussion of the style itself, which is, after all, the topic of the article. I reinstated the Parker Duofold pen set photo because it is a wonderful example of the style. 96.245.109.133 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Major reformat of article

Hi folks...imo this article suffered from confusion and sprawl which is generally unacceptable for encyclopedias and particularly unacceptable for a precise style like Deco. :D I've taken Wikipedia's advice to be "bold" and restructured / condensed the first couple of sections. Tried to retain as much of the prior article as possible & also referred to suggestions in this Talk page.

• Most editing was restricted to the sections before Surviving Examples. Of such there now exist: 0) lead paragraph; 1) Etymology; 2) Origins; 3) Attributes; 4) Influence; 5) Streamline Moderne.

• Commented out 2 of the photos (Buffalo City Hall & Foshay Tower which are fine buildings but redundant here; the Chrysler and Eastern Columbia Buildings should be sufficient to give a general idea of Deco architecture). I also commented out a photo of the Nash sedan (lovely car but redundant if we have the Chrysler Airflow). There's now room on the right side of the page for more photos of representative Deco objects. Have at!

• Removed what was previously Section 7 ("Influences") since that is now covered in Section 4. Moved "House design in the United Kingdom" to Section 6.3.1. Commented out photo of Iowa City Press Citizen Bldg because it didn't seem to belong in the section on Africa.

Am new to Wiki so apologies if I've violated any protocols or ruffled anyone's feathers. If so let me know...I'm ready to learn! Sparky Blogdoovian (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Image, Joseph Csaky 1920 relief

Missing from this article about Art Deco was an example illustrating its origins. Most of the images are of objects created in the 1930s and 1940s. This work by Csaky is dated 1920. It was exhibited in 1920 at Léonce Rosenberg's Galerie l'Effort Moderne, 19, rue de la Baume, Paris. By 1920 Rosenberg was the sponsor, dealer and publisher of Piet Mondrian, Fernand Léger, Jacques Lipchitz and Joseph Csaky amongst others that were to greatly influence les Arts Decoratifs. Rosenberg had just published Le Néo-Plasticisme—a collection of writings by Mondrian—and Theo van Doesburg's Classique-Baroque-Moderne. I've also added a section about the studio of Jacques Doucet in Neuilly, an outstanding example of early Art Deco design.

If there are too many photos in this article, please remove a building from the late 1930s (Cinema Impero, built in 1937) or 1940s rather than a 1920 sculpture: This is part of the origin, the source of Art Deco...this is the stuff from which others (e.g., architects) would be inspired. Coldcreation (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Bioshock reference?

Should sources about bioshock reference be there or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borloak (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nine images hidden in Gallery section.

I commented-out nine architectural images inserted into the gallery without following the procedure established by consensus. The top of the gallery carries these instructions:

Please DO not ADD images directly to this Gallery. By consensus, editors of the article have limited the Gallery to 24 images. Please POST YOUR PROPOSED IMAGE TO THE TALK PAGE FIRST, and specify which of the current images you propose to replace with the new one. Please do not post NON-FREE USE images to the Gallery, nor images that appear in other articles. Thanks!

The images

• Were not particularly representative of the Art Deco style and/or did not illustrate the style clearly
• Carried no information on architects or designers
• Had no wikilinks to direct interested readers to find out more information
• Appear in other articles

They also were all photos of buildings, which editor consensus says we have far too many of here already.

If the poster wants to propose the photos—one at a time—as instructed above, including nominating a specific image to be replaced, then editors can seek consensus about making the change.96.245.109.133 (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)