Talk:Art Deco/Archive 1

Commerical links

In general, Wikipedia doesn't support commercial links. An anon has just added

• Art Deco Jewellery

Is this sufficiently informative, that we are willing to overlook the commercial connection? -- Solipsist 20:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The site is good for images, that's something to be said for it... but then again one could always google for images of art deco jewellery. --Urbane legend

---

I thought the actual term "art deco" was coined by Bevis Hillier in The World of Art Deco (1971). Not true? --Michael K. Smith 20:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It was being used in the trade in NY in the 60s, with the understanding that it came from the 1925 Paris exhibitio's name.--Wetman 05:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok... What is Art Deco? How do I know if something is Art Deco or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.227.222 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

change page title?

"Art Deco did not originate with the Exposition; it was a major style in Europe from the early 1920s, though it did not catch on in the U.S. until about 1928," should be than "Art Deco in US" a more correct title for this page?

No it should not. There needs to be a page about Art Deco as a whole. Write Art Deco in the United States if you would like an article specific to the US, or include more information about the European origns on this page. Cacophony 00:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not informative / Americacentric?

Hi all...just wanted to say that I'm still none the wiser for how to recognise art deco after reading this page, so if anyone ever wanted to make it better, consider people who don't already know what it is :) The example photos aren't that helpful. Stevage 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the comment on the pictures... They are almost all of buildings. That's great to include them, but more posters, ads, and other art forms would be greatly helpful. Russia Moore 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simply of copyright. We need to take these photos ourselves. --Wetman 20:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Art Deco is not a single visual style, but rather an idea that can be expressed in many different styles. To me art deco means 1920s lettering and flourishes and boat-shaped buildings and streamlined cars, but others also use the term to refer to things that don't look "deco" to me at all but simply an ugly mishmash. I would like to see a categorization of art deco visual styles, but I don't know if one exists. Sluggoster (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Italian Fascist Art deco in Kos and Leros Greece must be mentioned

---

I understand that Art Deco in Europe is somewhat remote for people in the US but there are some extraordinary examples to be mentioned, specially the Italian fascists restyling of the Greek islands of Kos and Leros in the Dodecanese (lower east corner near Turkey. There the governor (I have no name and it is not mentioned in Wikipedia so I can't get into details but is definitely worth checking out) let bulldoze the entire city centres and put up a <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>new art deco town centre. It is a fantastic feeling though both especially Kos town is centre of chart tourism especially for teens boozing their heads off. It is definitely a place to visit for an Art deco fan. And Greece is lovely for holidays April to October. I know of the picture problem and I was there last time the year before my first digital camera and chemical cameras were in those days somewhat boring to me. I have no good pictures but there certainly are. But watch pictures like http://www.kosinfo.gr/photos/orpheus.jpg and a Byzantine / art Deco mix in http://www.kosinfo.gr/photos/church.jpg and the city museum http://www.kosinfo.gr/photos/museum.jpg certainly in a fascist styled Art deco expression but heavy duty Art deco in anyway. Ordinary buildings even more art deco than monumental, but not available in tourist web pages. But there are huge numbers of hits on "kos greece art deco" at google.

There are Art deco architecture in most European cities even tough not in any case like in Kos and Leros in Greece. It is also very hard to tell where one style takes over from another.

But a global article of Art deco must have Kos and Leros and the fascists 1923 project mentioned I think. All language Art deco pages are pretty poor on this theme.

Jan Bergström [email protected] Stockholm Sweden.

Reversions

There has been a tendency to slowly revert back to old versions of this page. We need to move forward and spend our energy improving the article by adding new information and media, not trying to keep looking the way it is. The article is far from perfect right now. Cacophony 07:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

i still dont understand what art deco is after reading all of this, it hasnt been of any help!

Complete Overhaul

This page is scrambled, misleading and confusing.

I think all the architecture photos confuse Art Deco as a general design era and most likely violate copyrights. Any commercial hyperlinks must go. The lengthly lists are obnoxious and difficult to digest.

The initial paragraph is great though. All the hyperlinks in the first paragraph need subsections reitterated within the article, such as industrial design. Lucky 23 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC) I am dedicated to modifying and building this page, and I can take critism Lucky 23 02:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Many new updates. Need user feedback to influence my direction, especially comments on images.Lucky 23 02:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo Discussion

How many photographs of buildings are nessisary to demonstrate Art Deco in architecture?Lucky 23 04:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One earliest example, one most famous example, one best example, one most characteristic example. The rest is self-indulgence. --Wetman 05:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I mind self indulgence when it comes to illustrating an article, however, I've noticed people tend to add pictures of buildings in their favourite town/country regardless of the actual scope of the article, and this one is about Art Deco, not Art Deco in architecture, so I suggest keeping the number in check. Equendil Talk 09:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to either keep the two top photos to the left and right or remove one of the examples. The large gap in the sources and attributes margin looks unfinished, like bad formatting. Lucky 23 13:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo of pottery badly represents scupture of that era. Maybe a picture of something by Paul Manship or Maurice Ascalon?Lucky 23 13:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Buhl Building, because it is Romanesque + Gothic Revival (not Art Deco), and have removed the Wrigley Building, which is definitely not Art Deco. I also removed the Penobscot Building and David Stott Building, because other buildings in the gallery are sufficient for those types. I also corrected the Penobscot Building's date, which is 1929, not 1935. Jasoncw (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The gallery section of this article is out of control. I think it may be time to simply remove the section entirely. - Eureka Lott 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather than risk tossing the baby out with the bath water, let's just make up some Rules, post them for a week or two and then start to slash and burn. Example. Rule #1 - 1 or 2 buildings per country. Rule #2 - Same for paintings, sculpture etc. Rule #3 Your turn. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the gallery is too big for an encyclopedia article but I think it's valuable. Ideally it ought to set out to illustrate points made in the main body of the article. (See, for example, the sections starting: "Corresponding to these influences, Art Deco is characterized by..." and "Dwelling house design during the 1930s in the UK was also very much influenced by Art Deco..."). In addition, some structure to the gallery would help. Buildings exteriors, building interiors, sculpture, other artefacts, by country, maybe. John Campbell (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the gallery is far too large. My rule set would be only this: One image per exemplary work. With this rule, the Guardian Building in Detroit and the Buffalo City Hall would each have to trim back to just one image in the article. If pushed, my second rule would be: one image per city. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with this suggestion is that we've been down this road before. The gallery has been significantly cropped in the past, only to grow again as people cruise by and add images that they like. Keeping the gallery under control would require constant babysitting, and I haven't seen anybody willing to do that. Wikimedia Commons does an admirable job of classifying images and presenting galleries. I suggest making more liberal use of its resources in this article. We could create additional galleries there to help illustrate specific points, like the ones John Campbell mentioned. By the way, if you're not already familiar with it, please read WP:NOTREPOSITORY. - Eureka Lott 19:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

External links

Any that look extra valuable to anyone? - brenneman ^{L} 06:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman, you are invited to judge for yourself whether...

• Art Deco by Paul Niquette

...deserves to be added to the External Links. Paul Niquette 16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I say "No". That link opens with

"How suddenly Deco appeared! The time was 1925; the place was Paris."

Well,(opinion) Deco didn't appear all that suddenly, rather had been brewing for years.

Then about Carl Paul Jennewein the link adds,

"He returned to Europe and received the Prix de Rome in 1916."

Actually, CPJ returned to Europe BECAUSE he received the prize. This is not (yet another opinion) a link that adds much, if anything. Carptrash 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions.

[a] Your observation about "suddenness" can surely be generalized, inasmuch as any event signalling public awareness necessitates a prior interval of coordinated development.

[b] My source for the Jennewein caption did not apply a 'because' clause, which I can easily bring into compliance with your opinion in an edit over the weekend.

The same thing more or less happens with Manship. The article states: and the American Academy in Rome, there winning the Pix de Rome in 1909. In fact (which always means "in my opinion) he did not win it there, it was winning the Prize in the USA that got him to Rome. Carptrash 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you have any opinions about the extent to which the selected illustrations might contribute to the Art Deco entry? Paul Niquette 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that WP:EL indicates early on that "Links should be kept to a minimum", I would say that your site does not rise to the level called for. I don't think we would have a lot of trouble coming up with another illustrative image.

You might want to read through WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture misplaced

The image "Art Deco designs by Maurice Ascalon" in my browser is on the right nottom and drops too far down. --ArmadilloFromHell 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

European examples of art deco

They are lacking in the article. kabbelen 00:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just changed

(or, actually, am about to change) the kick off date for Art Deco, moving it back a decade from 1910 to 1920. Here is why. I have tried to use not just American sources, but ones that reflect deco as a world wide phenomena. Bevis Hillier, the art critic who it is generally agreed coined the term Art Deco defines the movement as "an assertively modern style developed in the 1920s" Conde and Almada while duscussing deco in Brazil define it as being "from the 1920s, onward", , while Menten says of it, "the term is now generally applied to the typical artistic productions of the 1920's and 1930's" while Bayer places it in the "inter war decades." . Atkins gives it a slightly earlier starting date, "1919 " Daele & Lumby consider 1926 - 1940 to be the deco period in Austrilain architecture ,, David Gebhard, the late and greatly missed architectural historian says, "1920s and 1930s" for a time period. So . . ...... I am going to go with the date 1920 and would love to hear from you. Carptrash 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Chrystler Building Photo edited out

There's already another example of Art Deco architecture down there and it doesn't block up the page. Feel free to put it back in with a smaller thumbnail. Kennard2 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the huge picture was too much. However, I put back the image showing just the spire since it is a very well-known Art Deco icon. The first three images are now lined up in a row, so that layout should look better on most computer monitors. CZmarlin 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just moved this image

Cutaway tricone guitar, Art Deco guitar design

over here, because, do we really want a picture of a new "Deco-styled" guiter leading the page off? I say "no". Carptrash 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of Canada Building is not Art Deco!

For the love of God, take it down. Someone ought to find a picture of the old GE building in New York, or better yet, the Marine Building in Vancouver.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.216.66.31 (talk • contribs).

Your view contradicts the description of the style of this building in the Supreme Court of Canada article. Moreover, archiseek (online arcitecture resources) web page describes it as "...Considered one of the finest Art Deco buildings in Canada... "[1]. Perhaps you can find a source that claims the building is not Art Deco? For example, "The Supreme Court of Canada building in Ottawa illustrates the Château style toned down for use on a government building. This, and similar local buildings, were the result of a search for an architecture that expressed a national identity."[2] Nevertheless, the building is consireded to have Art Deco details to set it away from the traditional Chateau designs. CZmarlin 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources, such as The City of Ottowa, that identify it as Art Deco, therefore it meets the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Verifiability. I would agree that it isn't the best example to illustrate what Art Deco is and probably shouldn't be shown on this page, but the building IS Art Deco. Cacophony 04:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline Section

This section does not go into details of what Art Deco eventually turned into (Modernism). Can someone who knows this subject please add a little bit more info? Thanks.

Decopunk

I'd like to see some discussion regarding the influence of Art Deco on film and Gaming. There seems to be quite a few of what I term "Decopunk" media products these days. A few years ago, there was "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" that used the Art Deco influence as a design asthetic for modern devices that couldn't have existed at the time. The same with the game BioShock. The term Steampunk has been applied to a Victorian aesthetic applied in the same manner.

I'm not that skilled a writer, so I think it might be left to others, but I think Art Deco has approached the same level of recognizability as Steampunk or Cyberpunk in the American culture and warrants some discussion as a modern outgrowth of the Art deco aesthetic.Thresher 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Romain de Tirtoff

Can someone who knows a bit more about Art Deco add a link to this guy: Romain de Tirtoff (Erté) dave 04:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography HELP

I added a Bibliography section. I put in a lot of literature. However, it needs more important books, particularly representing Art Deco around the world. Can some of you Art Deco mavens and Architecture buffs please HELP

7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Stan 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Stan

Bio Shock

I would like to see some mention of the computer game bio shock as it is full off late eara art deco and i feel would contribute to the modern place of art deco. James

Art Deco main colours!!!!!! can't find them anywhere!!!!!

i'm doing a project school and one of the questions is 'What colours are often used in creating the Art Deco style?' and i have now idea plz help because it is not on this page!!!!!!

thankyou if u help me out wit this problem :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.7.108 (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this About.com website which refers to the dominant color/colour schemes used in Art Deco: [3]. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vadim Meller

In a slight reordering of the History section, I had to remove the following sentence: "Russian artist Vadim Meller was awarded a gold medal for his scenic design there" (i.e., at the 1925 Exposition). This was done because no other individual exhibitor is similarly credited, and it seems a separate section might be needed for such mentions—or, more likely, it belongs in the separate article on the Exposition. So I leave it here to be resurrected later. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Controlling those 'caps'

Not only in WP but in other publications about Art Deco which I regularly edit, there is need for a simple rule to fix when and how we capitalise (or not capitalise) the initial letters of 'Art Deco'. Without claiming the existence of any pedantic authority, let me suggest the following as a purely pragmatic measure which will give us a simple rule and also reduce the forest of cap initials which can easily clutter up art-deco writings. Use cap initials (on both words) only when the term 'Art Deco' is being used as a proper noun. When it's an adjective, treat it as such by using lower-case and hyphenation, e.g., "Streamlining in architecture is an art-deco-derived style". Discussion is, of course, welcomed. I have so edited the Art Deco article and found it a fairly easy task to make it fit the above rule. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, in "art-deco-derived style", "art-deco" is actually fulfilling an adverbial role, qualifying derived. The adjectival form would be "Streamlining is one mark of an art-deco building", or alternatively "Streamlining is one mark of an Art Deco building". Which do we prefer? In contrast, the noun form is "Streamlining is one mark that the style of a building was influenced by Art Deco". So any views, people? John Campbell (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

O rly? Grammar in an encyclopedia? --Hairsplit (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to this (clearly not very controversial) issue after a couple of years, it is still necessary to resolve some inconsistency of usage within the article. I will therefore apply the simple rule as suggested above, making 'art-deco' lowercase when used adjectivally (and, yes, adverbially, too :) Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Image of City Hall of Buffalo

Why am I unable to see the image of the City Hall of Buffalo image? All I have is a blank space, yet I know others can see it perfectly. I have cleared the cache and I have MonoBook skin by default. Any thoughts on this, anyone? Dieter Simon (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... What is your operating system and browser? What versions? What is your screen resolution? What happens if you open the image in a new browser window? What happens if you replace the spaces in the URL with underlines? Try this link with underlines and report back.

Click here

Good luck! Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Binksternet, I have only just come back from family concerns. Thank you for replying so quickly. Yes, I should have included the following:

I am Internet Explorer IE7

Windows XP

screen resolution 1024 X 768

URLs are underlined as follows: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buffalo_City_Hall_-_001.jpg". However when tagging on "|50px" as in your citation it returns a "Bad Title". The tag certainly does not appear when I go for the URLs. Sorry, that is the best of the info I can give you. Many thanks. Dieter Simon (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tried to read the article using XP Pro x64 and the image appears neither in the latest version of Firefox nor in the most recent version of IE6. The image properties identify it as an upscaled single-pixel GIF which seems to have a transparent background. --Lennier1 (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lempicka musician.jpg

The image Image:Lempicka musician.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Metropolisposter.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Examples of Art Deco Elements

The sources and attributions sections mentions some elements of Art Deco. It would be nice to have pictures that illustrate these elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.50.174 (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I just put up a photo of an example of the sunburst motif as applied to the entrance of the Eastern Columbia Building in L.A... At the same time, I took down an image from a bank in New Zealand which didn't seem to show anything suitable to the subject. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Influences

I just moved the new material under the heading Influences up to the established section called Sources and attributes which already included discussion of influences. I also split decline and resurgence into two paragraphs and removed from that section the discussion of different cities around the world that have notable surviving examples of Art Deco architecture. I gave the survivors their own section. More inline citations are needed; I fact-tagged a couple. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll see if I can find references for these facts as soon as I can. Once the article has been peer reviewed and its issues have been addressed, I'd like to put it up for a GA nomination. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Late peer review

I'm sorry that it has taken me so long to get to this peer review! Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• "Sources" section - The article needs to explain to a reader unfamiliar with the art movements listed, exactly how Art Deco drew from primitive arts, industrial ideas, Cubism, and Futurism. A small gallery here might actually help, where the different geometric designs are illustrated or the works which influenced Art Deco are shown alongside the art they influenced. All in all, this section needs more detail.

• The lead explains that Art Deco affected "decorative arts such as architecture, interior design, and industrial design, as well as the visual arts such as fashion, painting, the graphic arts and film". However, the article does not really explain these different domains. I would suggest that the article include sections of some sort on these different media.

• National differences: It is my understanding that there were several different national traditions of Art Deco - I looked up some books on Art Deco in my university library and many of them are specific to Britain, France, or the US, for example. I think that these specific national differences need to be explained.

• A section on who the seminal Art Deco architects, designers and artists were would help the reader understand who was involved in this artistic movement.

• Images: In general, the article needs more images. They need to be carefully chosen to best illustrate the concepts discussed in the article (such as those in "Material and design").

• Sources: I see that many of your sources are from the web. For a topic as vast and as thoroughly researched as Art Deco, you should start with some of the many scholarly books on Art Deco. Do you live near a good library? I would suggest spending several weeks reading a big pile of books! These books will also give you ideas about what is missing from the article.

I hope that these suggestions are helpful. If you have any questions or need further clarification on the above, please do ask. Awadewit (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'd agree with those points, and also most of those in the GA review, still I think unaddressed. The article has been shortened since September, and it is not obvious this is an improvement - Awa's 2 points on seminal and figures & images were better handled before for example. Too much of a US/New World emphasis, and too much on architecture (also true before). Now there is no mention of Tamara de Lempicka and other figures who need to be there. We have a lot more relevant articles than you would think from this, and one responsibility of a general article on the style is to point to the most important. I don't think the style drew on "neoclassical" style, but on classical subject matter, and somewhat on pre-classical Ancient Greek style - see kouros for example. Nothing on the statuettes which went from the top of the market in bronze & ivory to cheaper mass-market versions. Streamline Moderne is I think only a term much used in the US, & is covered by Art Deco in the rest of the world. Art Deco is in fact a very broad subject with difficulties in definition - the French & German articles include Le Corbusier which I'd be doubtful about (he is also categorized as an Art Deco architect here). Hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Chevy Trucks

The 1941-1947 chevrolet/gmc pickup truck is commonly called art deco. Probably due to the style of the truck. The body lines and lavish chrome grill pictured here:

http://www.ccar.com.au/html/images/magazine_images/classifieds/0701cct_06_z+1946_chevrolet_pickup+.jpg

run with the style of art deco design. This should be added somewhere.

Also the meaning of art deco is stil unclear. Was it an era in design or just a specific style?

-outlawdesigntn Dec. 5th 2008 3:43 PM

Napier, Melbourne

A string of edits that brought Napier, NZ and Melbourne, Oz into the article was reverted for no or poor references and for unsupportable booster-ish statements. I'd like to see the architecture of those two cities described in a more encyclopedic manner with references. Such an addition would help globalize (sorry! 'globalise') the article as well. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Influences II

It would be prudent to include the animated work "Batman" in the influences section. This work had a major impact on pop culture for a generation that is known to frequent Wikipedia. "Batman's" stylization epitomizes Art Deco. Including this reference would greatly serve to familiarize watchers of the program to Art Deco. It also ought to be mentioned that this style is prominent nearly exclusively in the early 90's animated production (as opposed to other "Batman" related media.)147.4.209.20 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the turnoff to Gothic Avenue? Batman is dark, sinister, moody, etc. Gotham is dark, moody and full of gargoyles and parapets. Even when Art Deco elements were added to the 1989 film, they weren't portrayed as light and airy. When Art Deco and Batman mix, you just get darkened Deco: actually neo-Gothic. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

US centric

This article is way too Us-centric. Please provide examples from other countries (surviving examples section). Cheers. --Karljoos (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

One paragraph is devoted to examples in the US, others to Cuba, Brazil, New Zealand and Eritrea. I wouldn't call that US centric. Locationx3 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The choice of images used in this article could be considered US-centric but the article text tries to balance the topic. Although I had to do a minor revert because someone had changed aluminium into aluminum . --Lennier1 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the US-centric tag. If it was true in the past, it's not any longer. There are extensive references to Art Deco work in other countries. As to whether the photos are too US-centric, the question is whether they are the most representative examples of Art Deco, not which countries they're located in. Sluggoster (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The word 'glamour' in the lead

I'd like to replace the word 'glamour' in the lead paragraph with nothing (restoring to a previous version) or with any one of a number of other descriptive words which I am certain are more about the spirit and foundation of Art Deco:

• modern, or Modernist
• sophisticated
• luxury
• opulent

Perhaps it's better to leave the lead paragraph void of such descriptive words and save that kind of explication for later paragraphs where a fuller discussion can be engaged. My point is that there are several forks in the Art Deco road and that glamour was not necessarily the aim of a good number of artists. Closer to the root of the movement, I think, is that they wanted instead to declare a separation from the past, from Bourgeois, from rural contentment to machine-like cleanliness and freedom, to unleashed feminine sexuality, to smooth streamlining and previously impossible shapes. Glamour by itself, if the goal of the designer, could have been accomplished using older aesthetics such as Looey Qanz... :) ... Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of aim, it's a question of how it's perceived by notable sources. I believe that most notable people consider Art Deco to be by and large a glamorous style, but while I agree that glamour was not necessarily the aim of all Art Deco designers, that doesn't stop it being glamorous; and that it is considered to be glamorous turns out to be extremely easy to reference. Ultimately, the wikipedia works on reliable sources and they are easy to find here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the extensive use of motifs inherently are glamours in the late 19th century sense of the word, and hence the style is highly glamorous in that sense.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There are notable sources which say the movement is now perceived as 'glamour' and those that say 'sophisticated' and 'luxurious' etc. We are able to choose among them; to decide which is so important that it should be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

If we want, we can introduce another paragraph in the lede; one which is devoted to what the point was back then and what it's perceived as now. There's a sentence up there now which can serve as the beginning of a new paragraph: "At the time, this style was seen as elegant, functional, and modern". Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not opposed to saying that in principle, but the references I added seem to pretty much imply it was considered glamorous even back in the 20s and 30s so I think you would need a reference for that position.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I introduced into this argument some element of 'back then' vs 'now'. Sorry. That point is not the crux of what I'm concerned about.

To solve this tiny tempest, I would accept glamourous if it were inserted into the sentence "At the time, this style was seen as elegant, functional, and modern". What I am against is its appearance first and by itself, as if it were more important than elegant, functional or modern. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be OK with me, although that sentence might be better further up perhaps at the end of the first paragraph, but either way, that's fine.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved glamourous down to join that sentence, and I judged that its presence there didn't need all those three references, so I eliminated them. If one or more of the references are seen as valuable as a supporting reference for another portion of the article, feel free to bring each back as appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems a fair solution. The trouble with words such as glamour, beauty, etc. is that it somehow implies a kind of value judgement which it is not our business as an encyclopaedia to supply. We should merely cite what other sources are saying but not judge, fairly or unfairly. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just moved this to the discussion page.

South Beach in Miami Beach, Florida has the largest collection of Art Deco architecture remaining in North America.

It seems to me that this sentence suggests that South Beach, or even Miami, has more deco architecture than New York? Or Chicago? Or Los Angeles? This "fact" needs not only to be supported, but needs (opinion) to sit here until it is. Carptrash (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody has actually counted and compared. Miami's fantastic Streamline buildings don't need the word 'largest' in order to show up here. Something else positive can be said about them. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just take a look at this article about part of Hollywood Beach's Art Moderne/Art Deco to get an idea of the size of this project: [4] In other words there are other U.S. projects than Miami. Actually I had this completely wrong originally, this is a study conducted by Miami Uni Dieter Simon (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Dieter Simon (talk)

Sorry about this complete and total confusion. I was correct first time it is Hollywwood Beach, Florida, on the Atlantic Ocean, so it does refer to the Florida area after all. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Art Deco in India

Umaid Bhawan Palace in Jodhpur, India is one of the biggest surviving museums of Art Deco in the world. It's mentioned nowhwere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.194.74.122 (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Section on Jewelry reverted

Hi RepublicanJacobite, can you tell us why you reverted the whole section on "Jewelry", as entered by StonyCreekBrands. You just rolled back without explanation. Was there anything wrong with the section, and if so you really should have explained your action. I am afraid, if you don't explain the reversion I shall most certainly re-enter the section by 13 Jun. Never just remove things unless they are vandalism. This seemed perfectly alright to me. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should have explained my decision in my edit summary, you are correct, Dieter Simon. I will admit that I erred in that. I was responding to the repeated insertions of text, without explanation, by editor StonyCreekBrands into the Art Nouveau article, and to the fact that the editor's name gives the impression that they have a commercial interest involved. However, all of that aside, a look at what was actually contributed should cause one to doubt its value:

The Art Deco period started in 1920 and finished in 1939 just as WWII commenced. This was the era of the flapper, the Jazz and Machine ages, the between-the-wars era and sandwiching the Great Depression, decades of care-freeness and, concurrently, conservatism, and the artistic output of the period reflected this variety.

Unlike the Art Nouveau period where noted designers held prime positions and exerted strong influences on individuals and firms, the Art Deco years were strong on design itself, with many quintessential pieces anonymously designed, unsigned and indeed even of uncertain national origin. The Art Deco style was very wide-ranging and pervasive so much so, that similar pieces for example necklaces of Bakelite and chrome were being made in the U.S and Czechoslovakia at the same time.

The Art Deco period produced some of the most dazzling pieces ever seen – daring, flamboyant, pristine and even playful. Jewellers in this period not only used traditional and precious metals but also innovative and unorthodox materials such as plastic, chrome and steel. Opaque semi-precious stones too, were incorporated such as coral, jade, onyx and lapis lazuli Costume Jewelry became fashionably acceptable, with designs by such couturieres as Coco Chanel and Elsa Schioparelli, who produced outrageous pieces ranging from garish paste chokers and earrings to comic plastic fish bangles and coloured metal zodiac sign jewellery.

Jewellery of the 1920’s and 30’s was in thrall to geometry – to circles, arcs, squares, rectangles and triangles singly and in combination. The myriad of influences came from Pharaonic Egypt, the Orient, tribal Africa, cubism and Futurism; from machines and graphic design and even from buildings such as Mayan Temples and their latter-day descendants, the big city skyscrapers.

This is not well written, does not have an encyclopædic tone, reads more like a bad essay, is formatted incorrectly, and is unreferenced. Furthermore, it was inserted right into the middle of an already-existing section. A very small amount of this, perhaps enough for one paragraph, could be salvaged for a section on Art Deco jewelry, but I am not certain it is worth the bother. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My first response to this material was that it had existed prior to insertion here; that it was originally intended to stand alone. It was not well integrated with this article! Curious, I hunted on Google for an unusual phrase: "was in thrall to geometry". I found two webpages containing a fair amount of text that we find copied and pasted here. I don't know which online source is the earliest origin of this text.

• http://www.mschon.com/1920307.html
• http://www.kunstpedia.com/articles/266/1/A-Short-History-of-Twentieth-Century-Jewellery/Page1.html

It's clear that we have a copy violation, and must reject the addition. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on that, Binksternet. It seemed like a probably copy-vio to me, as well, but I neglected to check. Thanks for your vigilance. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you both. This makes it perfectly clear now, and I agree with you that we cannot accept copyvios under any circumstances. Dieter Simon (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am moving this here

The first Art Deco train station in the United States was the Union Station in Omaha, Nebraska.

to discuss because I find the statement to be highly suspect. I understand that it is referenced nicely, but this does not (a not uncommon problem in wikipedia) make it true. For example, the Cincinnati Union Terminal dates from the same year, 1931 (1930 in other sources) , as dues the Texas & Pacific Passenger Terminal and Warehouse Buildings in Fort Worth. Like wise, the Tulsa Union Terminal also dates from that year, 1931. If the terminal in Omaha was the first to open it's doors, it was not by enough (opinion) to make it encyclopedic. Carptrash (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Art Deco continuing into the 1960s?

just moved the end of the deco era from "the 1940s" to "the 1950s." I more or less disagree, but am wondering what the rest of you think about this? There might have been a few deco flavored buildings, etc produced, but as a popular movement, I think it was over. Got any good sources, anyone? Mine are at home. eek Carptrash (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, have reverted the "1950s" change without realizing you had started this talk section. Yes, you are right by the 1950s the Art Deco period was over. It is, of course, possible some builders still persisted to put up the occasional "Art-Deco-ish"-style building, but that doesn't mean the period was still in full swing.

Shan't bother to re-enter the decade change in the article, as it really doesn't apply. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Have now reverted all the edits that claim in one way or the other that Art Deco continued into the 1960s. As Carptrash already mentioned individuals who hankered after the period of the 1920s/1930s might have displayed their preferences and still built in this style here and there but on the whole Art Deco was well and truly over by the early 1940s. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

However, now that we have this issue under control, do we need to start a Post-Modern Deco section? There is a skyscraper in Philadelphia, for example, that's a post-modern version of the Chrysler Building, and there are a lot of other examples. Or does that not belong here? Carptrash (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? If you can find sources and link it to sources. It doesn't seem too plentiful Googling or Yahooing for "Post-Modern Deco". Then again I haven't had much time to search of that term. Good luck, anyway! Dieter Simon (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)