Talk:Crack Is Wack

Untitled

Article Outline:

- A brief introductory paragraph summarizing the most basic details of "Crack is Wack", including things like the artist, its location, and its general significance (such details will be ascertained by consulting all of my sources as a whole).

- A Keith Haring section, which describes his artistic tendencies that are evident in most of his works, especially his classic "Radiant Baby" signature, that functioned to convey messages to diverse groups of people -- an important aspect of "Crack is Wack".

    • Photo ideas: Keith Haring himself and an image of his "Radiant Baby" signature.
    • Sources: 
         Phillips, Natalie E. “The Radiant (Christ) Child.” American Art 21, no. 3 (2007): 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1086/526480.

- The historical basis that inspired "Crack is Wack", which involves the crack cocaine epidemic that plagued the United States (especially New York) and Richard Nixon's "War on Drugs" with its harmful repercussions to minority groups.

    • Photo ideas: "War on Drugs" propaganda.
    • Sources: 
         Wyrick, Jermaine A. “Is Crack ‘Wack’?” Michigan Chronicle; Detroit, Mich. January 9, 2008.
         Norman, Tony. “Crack Is Wack; Cocaine, Lame. Parity, Please.” Pittsburgh Post - Gazette; Pittsburgh, Pa. March 19, 2010, sec. LIFESTYLE.

- A "Crack is Wack" section focused now on the details of the piece itself, including the medium, color and form choices, location, and the actual process Haring went through to create it (essentially created the mural twice!).

    • Photo ideas: images of the original "Crack is Wack" mural, potentially the later version as well (but this may come in handy for a later section instead).
    • Sources:
         Haring, Keith.  “Keith Haring: Just Say Know.”  Interview with David Sheff.  Rolling Stone, August 10, 1989.  Accessed October 24, 2019.  

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/keith-haring-just-say-know-71847/.

         Interesting, All That’s. “The Story Behind Keith Haring’s Original ‘Crack Is Wack’ Mural.” All That’s Interesting, October 15, 2015. https://allthatsinteresting.com/crack-is-wack-mural.

- A final note regarding the lasting impact of "Crack is Wack", including its current condition, restoration efforts, and its perpetual significance to this day.

    • Photo ideas: the current "Crack is Wack" mural, especially as seen in the setting of New York.
    • Sources:
          Nast, Condé. “A Major Keith Haring Mural in New York City Gets a Second Life.” Architectural Digest. Accessed October 24, 2019. https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/crack-is-wack-keith-haring-mural-in-new-york-city-gets-second-life.

Monuments&Masterpieces (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Crack is Wack.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

i removed File:Crack is Wack.jpg because it is a derivative work of the famous photo of Haring standing atop some large containers with the original version of the mural behind him. this image was made into a wall sized photo in France[1], and photographed in 2013 and that photograph was released under a free content license, but the original photo is under copyright, so i removed it but was reverted by Mandelbr0t. i nominated it for deletion at Commons on Oct 3 but nothing has been done about the infringement. is it more suitable to leave a probable copyvio in the article until it can be assessed by Commons or is it better to mitigate the probable/possible copyvio by removing it for now? 173.87.170.14 (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 173.87.170.14. It looks like you're right; while that photograph was released under a CC license, it does indeed appear to merely be a photograph of another photograph that is likely copyrighted. However, perhaps there is a case to be made for fair use; the copyrighted image in question shows the mural in its original form which only existed during a very brief period in the summer of 1986 (before it was vandalized into "pro-crack mural" and then soon after "painted over in gray" by the city), and is very useful for understanding the history of the artwork. (If fair use is deemed appropriate here, I would suggest that this article use a copy of the original image and not the existing image which is merely a photograph of a photograph.) -- Mandelbr0t (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)