Talk:Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

Untitled

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)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive

Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

Thank you! Remagoxer ^(talk) 22:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There are some sources and information at Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation that should be used to improve this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just rearranged this article's sections, moving the architectural details to their own sections and adding some information about the museum's development. I plan to elaborate on these details later, but I'm happy to discuss if these changes to section hierarchy are controversial. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that is good. I'm a little worried that it has too much about plans that were abandoned, so if you can streamline that, I think it would be helpful. Also, ref name cites do not need quotes, unless they are more than one word. It would be more efficient to just say, for example, <ref name=Stern807/> when you want to point to pages 807–808 in Stern's book.-- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good. I actually have references such as

<ref name="Stern (1995) p. 812">{{harvnb|ps=.|Stern|Mellins|Fishman|1995|p=812}}</ref>

pasted on my computer, since I use them across multiple articles, but I'll see what I can do about condensing the reference names. I'll work on streamlining the abandoned plans as well, since the section about the museum building's planning is becoming quite long. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I think we should split out two additional sections:

• We should probably create a "Collection" section and/or an "Exhibitions" section. Currently, the collection is described as part of the history section. As a result, the description of the collection is quite fragmented. Specific parts of the collection, such as the Thannhauser Collection, are also described into multiple places.
• We should also have a section for critiques/critical reception. Currently, criticism of the building is described as part of the "Critique and opening" section.

In addition, the page should probably have a "Governance" section, similar to The Cloisters#Governance. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Directors or foundation?

In the Difficulties section near the beginning of the article, we say that "the directors" acquired property. Do we mean "the foundation"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to write the Guggenheim Foundation. My bad, thanks for catching this. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Critique

I think it would be better if the Impact/critique stuff were at the beginning of the Architecture section, with Landmarks at the end of the Architecture section, which would help with the chronology. Putting it at the very bottom is like when detective Columbo says, "There's just one more thing...." Plus the Attendance section presumes that you have already read the critique section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That works for me, and I have done just that.

Incidentally, I started writing a Collection section in a hidden comment just below the Attendance section. I haven't unhidden it yet, partly because it's incomplete, and partly because some of the text in the Collection section duplicates information in the History section. However, I think some of the stuff in History can be moved to the Collection section once I finish that off. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Before doing that, just give a think as to whether it is more logical to keep it in history to show how the collection grew amidst other events in the museum's history, or whether it is more logical to collect it all together as a separate item. If you have considered this with some deliberation, I'll follow your lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I was just mentioning this in case anyone objected to me splitting the Collection section. I did consider splitting that section earlier today, but I'll have to think about it a little more. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Quote in the Design Process section

The following quote is in the Design Process section and is attributed to Paul Goldberger: There were only two common models for museum design: Beaux-arts Palace ... and the International Style Pavilion. Unfortunately, I can't find the original source for this, and the reference link is dead.

This is especially strange, since I can find plenty of sources for Goldberger's other quote: socially and culturally acceptable for an architect to design a highly expressive, intensely personal museum. In this sense almost every museum of our time is a child of the Guggenheim. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that someone made that up out of thin air. I see it here. -- Could it have come from Brittanica ore one of the other sources cited there? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that the quote is genuine, I think it would be much better if we find the original source. Sadly, the first quote wasn't in Britannica or the other sources listed on the linked page. It may have been in either The New Yorker or The New York Times, where Goldberger worked as an art critic, but I could not find the quote in either of these publications. That's why this situation is so strange, since normally, the sources of Goldberger's quotes are very easy to identify. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's a bold and nifty quote, but the second quote does really cover the situation. What if we add a cite needed tag and, if no one comes forward within, say, a year, axe it? Or, given that the article is quite long, feel free to delete if it doesn't strike you as being so sharp. I can live with either approach. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Your latter suggestion sounds good, so I'll remove the first quote. The article is pretty long already, so we should go with the other quote ("socially and culturally acceptable ... child of the Guggenheim"), which seems more impactful to me, anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

B-class?

I've increased the banner assessments to B-class. If you agree, please increase the Vital Articles assessment likewise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Remagoxer, courtesy ping in case you didn't see this comment. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Shared collection

In the Lead, we mention that the collection is shared with other Guggenheim museums, but I don't see that anywhere in the body of the article. Epicgenius, can you add that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ssilvers, sure, I have just done that. By the way, I'm not sure if the works in the permanent collection belong to the foundation and are rotated out between NYC/Bilbao/Venice, or if they belong to the NYC museum and are loaned out to the other locations, or if something else is going on. But the Guggenheim's website seems to imply that the private collections described in this article all belong to the NYC museum. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Either way, they are in the permanent collection of the NY museum and "loaned" to the other museums. I think that NY has also exhibited some of the other museums' collections in the past, too, but I'm not sure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)