Talk:America (Cattelan)

Move?

Should this page be moved to America (sculpture)? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Or America (artwork). I think either has a more encyclopedic "feel" than the current. Bus stop, do you have an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all I've never edited this article. It's not even on my watchlist. But I'm flattered that my opinion is requested. Or at least this is good for a laugh. I need some levity added to my Wikipedia experience, and I thank Gråbergs Gråa Sång for this. I would say America (sculpture), suggested by Another Believer, would be a good title. (It also should be linked to Fountain (Duchamp).) Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'd now argue America (Cattelan) is better than America (sculpture). I am going to assume there are other sculptures called "America" (perhaps not another with a Wikipedia article), but I think disambiguating by artist last name is better than medium. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been told in the past that as long as those other America-sculpture articles don't exist, it's fine/preferred to use America (sculpture). Not a big thing, the redirects are there anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

How about America (Cattelan sculpture)? Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, Only one or the other is needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod—could you weigh in here? Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, in this case the current America (toilet) is most likely to help readers. There's a case for America (gold toilet), and Gold toilet (I'm guessing this will come up red) should redirect, since this is surely the most likely search term. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it was red, but I've now redirected it. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's 3 decent sources that use "toilet" (also "work" etc) [1][2][3], so I'm not going to bother arguing against "America (toilet)". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Ham II as well, because of their familiarity with work of art naming conventions, if they'd care to weigh in. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if "America (toilet)" has some degree of WP:ASTONISH to it, at least for some readers. Personally I prefer "America (sculpture)" to "America (Maurizio Cattelan)". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Sorry for the late reply. I think the move from America (toilet) to America (Cattelan) was correct, and I'm sympathetic towards this move from the latter title to America (Maurizio Cattelan), following the rationale that "it's not evident to readers that 'Cattelan' is a name". However, I'm looking at the "Recognizability" criterion at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which seems the most applicable criterion here, and it says The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Someone familiar with, but not an expert in, this subject probably would know that Cattelan is the artist's name, so I suggest America (Cattelan), which also follows WP:VAMOS more closely. Ham II (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Williamsdoritios, do you wish to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that America (Maurizio Cattelan) is perhaps best because by putting the name in the disambiguation it acknowledges it as an artwork, whereas toilet does not. The other page names America (sculpture) or America (artwork) would also suffice but this seems best for reference. Thanks Williamsdoritios (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Goldplated?

[4] Comments, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

18-karat, fully functioning, solid gold toilet, gold-plated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• All the British media think it is solid, and worth £1 million, hence the fuss when it was stolen. How they managed to get it in & out in that case remains a bit of a mystery. It must have weighed a ton, or tonne. A credit to 18th-century floorboards! Perhaps all that glitters is not gold in the land of Brexit. I'd include both views. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Guggenheim seems to think it's solid too, seems fairly trustworthy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The solid-gold myth

Fellow editors,

I am trying to dispel the myth that Cattelan's America was cast in solid gold. The error comes from an article published in the Guardian in september 2016, one day after an article on the same subject was published in la Repubblica <ref>{{[5]</ref>. One can see the origin of the misconception: in the italian article, the object is decribed as "plated in solid gold", which is an oxymoron. Clearly the journalist did not know the difference between gold-plated and solid-gold. In the Guardian article, only the "solid gold" remains, the "plated" part has disappeared. From there, the information was quoted in chain, each writer finding the info in an earlier article and reproducing it without question, all the way to the Guggenheim and the Blenheim. The reasons the myth stuck so easily is that it sounds fascinating, and no one implied had the background neccessary to assess the claim. If one knows about metallurgy, casting, machining and plumbing (as yours truly does), the gold-plated hypothesis is untenable - it is mad. The evidence is varied and ample. For instance, estimating the colume of gold necessary at 20 liters, the object would weigh 380 kg and have cost some 16 million euros in material alone, to be compared with the estimated 1 million value seen here and there. To move such an object would take six vigorous people, ropes, straps, pulleys, chains, scaffold, etc... Then there is the manufacturing... I will go into that if necessary.

I am in the process of inquiring with the Guggenheim, the Blenheim and Cattelan himself. To the musea, the question is simple: did one plumber install the toilet ? If so, it cannot be made of solid gold unless the plumber is Superman. I will report the responses here. Until then, dear colleagues, be assured that, no matter how many times the myth has been repeated and how much you want it to be true, that thing is not made of solid gold unless king Midas touched it.

Salutations,

Jean-Guillaume Lonjaret — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Guillaume Lonjaret (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Jean-Guillaume Lonjaret, since this is Wikipedia, Wikipedia:No original research and WP:BRD matters here. Your Italian article may be the one that is correct and Guggenheim, WaPo and The Times the ones that are wrong (in the case of Guggenheim that would reasonably be "lying"), but this is not obvious at the moment (assuming you are reading that article right, I don't speak Italian). Note also per your edit here [6] that Wikipedia is not a WP:Reliable source on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Right or wrong, Jean-Guillaume Lonjaret has been inserting "gold-plated" also in Maurizio Cattelan, Nancy Spector and Blenheim Art Foundation. Up til now I have reverted this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood. I am seeking the original information. An error does not become the truth by being published in english or by being shared by the multitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Guillaume Lonjaret (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that this [7] would be a mistaken translation of this [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

And this [9] is earlier than both. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• The “solid gold” claim is extraordinary, and not of the sources meet the Sagan standard. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

They do meet WP:RS though. That WaPo, NYT, The Times, The Guardian, The New Yorker and Guggenheim (we can add non-English sources like SVT etc) at the same time are wrong or lying is an extraordinary claim in itself. But maybe worth a discussion at WP:RSN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

RS is not yes/no. They is not evidence of the article checking the fact. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

What would count as "checking the fact" and why should we assume that sources with a reputation for fact-checking didn't do that? It's possible that they're all parroting a Guggenheim/Cattelan lie (or "prank"), but until they admit it, what would you have the article say based on what sources? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of checking facts, The Guardian reports that it "was able to handle solids." May be TMI for the article though, including it could be seen as lavatorial. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

About category "Works about Donald Trump"

Hello @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Sandstein: I noticed this category when I edited the Chinese version of this article, and I think this category violates the law Moral_rights. Firstly, the author finished this work before Trump became president which he failed to predict. Secondly, Cattelan's attitude is rather ambiguous, because he said, "the Trump connection is another layer, but it shouldn’t be the only one", but his main attitude was, "I’m not the one who has the right to say [what it’s about]".

All other work in this category is certainly "about" Trump.--EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Hello EdwardAlexanderCrowley, thanks for talking. According to Moral_rights , Moral rights traditionally have not been recognized in American law.[17]. WP is US-based. But that is beside the point. Moral rights does not forbid interpretations of a work of art, and the text in the article (which make the category reasonable) is supported by WP:RS. I don't see what when Trump became president has to do with it. "The gilded excess of Trump’s real-estate ventures and private residences" was well in place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The article [10] may show this category violates Canadian law, like "a painting being showcased in a hunting exhibition that was created by an animal rights advocate who makes works about animal rights". Berne Convention only said "or other derogatory action in relation to the said work". I'm not sure about American law. Anyway, I lives in UTF+8, I'll post if I have furthur findings.--EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

According to [11], it is clear that this category violates "shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation". If you don't want to delete the category, you can write a disclaimer in the article.--EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

EdwardAlexanderCrowley, in my view as a lawyer, you misunderstand the applicable law here. To the extent moral rights even apply under US law, which governs Wikipedia, they do not prevent us as encyclopedists from describing the work as pertaining to Donald Trump. To start with, such an application of US law would grossly violate our first amendment right to free speech. And a description of a work is certainly no distortion, etc. of the work. I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång that the text of the article supports the work's association with Trump. Sandstein 14:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I know this work is "associated with Trump", but by putting into the category, Wikipedia is stating this work is "about Trump", that's different. All other works in this category is certainly about Trump. According to the author, everyone can have their own thought, but wikipedia shouldn't do the thinking process for others. Also I'd like to mention "a painting being showcased in a hunting exhibition that was created by an animal rights advocate who makes works about animal rights", will you use first amendment towards this case?--EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Like Bill Clinton might have said, it depends on your definition of "about". IMO it makes sense from the reader-perspective to include, Guggenheims word is good for this (they ordered the thing), and Cattelan sort of agrees. However, the Works about the United States cat you added has no backing in the article-text. The title sort of hints it, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References