Talk:Eyesore

Eyesore vs. Landmark

These write-ups use the eyesore-landmark dichotomy:

• New York Times on Phil Donahue's recent actions
• Denny's
• A Sculpture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefly322 (talk • contribs)

Harvard Science Center

According to the above article, the Science Center was not actually designed to look like a polaroid camera, that such is just a typical university urban myth. Frankly I think the Science Center is less of an eyesore than, say, Evans Hall (which even had an article in the Chronicle for Higher Education a few months ago about how even the campus administrators agree it is terribly ugly). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Eyesore

I came across this article and couldn't make up my mind if it's been written on a serious note, or someone was trying to joke (sic). It'd been nominated for deletion citing it as a dictionary entry, and a consensus couldn't be reached. I personally feel, it's more than a dictionary entry as other aspects like etymology, famous instances of use, etc. could be discussed. It'd be nice if some one with some kind of expertise could look into the article. As of now, it seemingly discusses the term in a very narrow sense of architecture and town-planning, which I'm not sure is accurate or inclusive enough.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 09:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok.. maybe some extra work would help ?

It certainly fits nicely into a series of articles on 'town planning', 'aesthetics' or 'architecture'

It would be a poorer place without it.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the page will improve, slowly over time, if left to its own devices.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's-up, Ketan. I took a look at the page, which I do consider a good start on a topic of significance, and did a bit of cleanup on its talk page. Then I applied to the Talk page of the Urban planning WikiProject asking that it be evaluated for inclusion in the project, for the sake of attracting the attention of knowledgeable editors who might do some work on it. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article only deals with one aspect of the term, perhaps it should be renamed eyesore (town planning). StuRat (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not as I understand page naming. A parenthetical qualifier is only added to a second or subsequent page with the identical name, and not on the page considered primary for the topic (which may not necessarily be the first one created). It's probably covered somewhere among the naming conventions, though a brief look just now didn't yield anything I could cite. For now, I recommend leaving the Eyesore page name as is. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A strictly pejorative term that inherently falls afoul of neutral POV because one generation's "eyesore" is another's treasure. The subject is capable of being fully covered as a question of Taste (aesthetics). Only amateurism keeps the article at Wikipedia. --Wetman (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

But here it has a certain legal usage, such that if a structure is deemed to be an eyesore, by a planning commision, city council, or other body, it may be demolished if this isn't remedied in a timely manner. As such, it's not simply a matter of taste, but also has legal consequences for the owner. This is similar to how an insult differs from legal libel. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The page even now is developing along the lines StuRat describes. Wetman, this isn't a "List of Eyesores" (which would likely "run afoul" of NPOV as you suggest) but an exposition of the concept of "eyesore" in two aspects indicated by its present categories: Aesthetics and Urban studies and planning. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For me, Eyesore isn't really a subject for an encyclopaedia, more a word (a pejoritive one, as Wetman says) needing a dictionary definition. I've just edited the opening of the lead from "An eyesore is an unpleasant view..." to ""An eyesore is an unpleasant sight..." As a rambling definition, the rest of what's there could be better. Xn4 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of replies. I'm not sure if I didn't phrase my query accurately enough, but I (also) wanted to ask if "eyesore" is a term conventionally applied to town planning/aesthetics, or is it a word of common usage? I just looked up the "The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English" (1994), which simply defines it as a noun meaning "an ugly thing". But, searching on Google turned up results that indeed use eyesore almost entirely in context monuments/buildings/landmarks, etc, even though the meaning was almost always close to "an ugly thing". I'm confused by these results. Given these results, may be the article in its current state is alright in dealing with "eyesore". —KetanPanchal^taLK 07:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The word and the notion exist, particularly in relation to the general public's view of Modernist buildings in particular (and anything new and unfamiliar, generally!) so the article should stay. For a more detailed critique, see my edits later on, starting with the numerous errors of fact in this article. For instance its a myth that Harvards Science Centre was designed to look like a polaroid camera. But what really annoys me is the statement about "natural eyesores: faeces, mud, weeds". Thats suburban western POV nonsense that sees no value in fertiliser, compost, swamps, wetlands and successful, but undesirable-in-the-garden plants. Nothing that can't be sorted by severe but well informed editing! Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mhicaoidh for your reply. Well, I for one never thought that this article should be deleted. It was just that I'd never encountered the usage of eyesore specifically in context of architecture or aesthetics. I think I'll be able to explain my (somewhat cleared by now) doubt by giving examples:

1. "This photograph on the mountain is an eyesore in your photo-album"
2. "The red shirt is an eyesore in your wardrobe"
3. "A definite eyesore by Wikipedia standards."—my original usage in Wikipedia that lead to this doubt (see in context). Of course, here I've used it more like "black sheep" rather than an eyesore.

This page with some usages from literature might be helpful. Now, I have no doubt that it can be used in context of architecture, but the doubt is if that is the only/most appropriate context. —KetanPanchal^taLK 11:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion could usefully be moved/copied to the article's talk page. The article needs some sort of cleanup/edit tag (multiple issues?) but I can't decide which one is the most appropriate.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Myself, I don't have time at the moment, but if someone wanted to improve this page a useful source might be The Necessity for Ruins by John Brinckerhoff Jackson. Just a quick comment, sorry for not having the time to get into it myself right now. Pfly (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I wrote most of the aticle's content during the AFD and was careful to source it. The comments above seem mostly to be personal opinion and the corresponding edits have not been backed up by sources. For example, there is now a reference to the 20th century when the OED indicates that the word was used in this sense in the 16th century. The point about subjectivity and taste was already there and might be developed further but the current assertion that the matter is entirely subjective will not do since there is a good case that our tastes have an objective basis in our evolutionary heritage. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetic relativism. Mhicaoidh (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge

User:Colonel Warden has reverted my removal of the Golden Gate Bridge, but without a reason. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the bridge is ranked #5 in American Institute of Architects's list of America's Favorite Architecture. The American Society of Civil Engineers considers it one of the Wonders of the modern world. The source being used, Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, & Consciousness, is stating an extreme minority viewpoint. "Eyesore" is subjective and POV. Unless someone can find numerous RS stating there's an active, current debate on whether or not the Golden Gate Bridge is ugly, then it doesn't belong on this article. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 15:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The point being made in the article is that constructions such as the Golden Gate Bridge or Eifel Tower may be thought hideous at first but then people come to like them. This fact is particularly striking in the case of the bridge, because, as you say, it has been so admired since. Perhaps we might improve the wording to make this point more clearly but I oppose removal of this detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask for an outside opinion from two related projects, WikiProject California and WikiProject Architecture. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 19:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly said the "eye-sore to those living and a betrayal of future generations"? Is that the author of the book being cited, because that appears to be a citation of a citation in a book, which is a quote of another person. Some specification along the lines of Golden Gate Bridge - was called an "eye-sore...." upon its completion by the architect John Smith in 1939, or whoever actually said it would help to see if it is a minority opinion, or if it was a prominent critic. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] The citation actually predates the construction of the Bridge, and even of its design. I'm gpoing to put it here for discussino, because it is clearly not going to stay where it is:

• Golden Gate Bridge - decried as "eye-sore to those living and a betrayal of future generations."

The footnote to the quote in Saito is "Cited by Virginia Postrel, Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, & Consciousness (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), p. 156." But the original quote googles up pretty easily, since "Golden Gate Bridge" +eyesore -wikipedia doesn't give many hits. It's from the May 2, 1925, issue of The Wasp, as cited by Donald C. Jackson in Great American Bridges and Dams. Quote at Google Books. The Bridge was built in the 1930s. If you think that a section on "anticipated or hypothetical eyesores" made sense, the Bridge might fit there.--Hjal (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good work. I have updated the entry accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

bad bad article

Aside from the purely definitional aspects at the top, this article seems to be based on a subjective tour. It draws examples from a narrow and questionable base. It needs proper scrutiny, and probably to be slashed in size at this stage. Tony (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, the article should just say "all modern art" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:102:308D:A951:FA08:9729:C44F (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Buai pekpek

Why is it that my example of buai pekpek is not a valid example of an eyesore?

"Common examples include dilapidated buildings, graffiti, litter, polluted areas and excessive commercial signage such as billboards"

Buai pekpek, the spit from betelnut (literally translates to betelnut shit), is a kind of litter and a huge eyesore in many cities and towns, and where pekpek is spit on the ground for all to see, pipia (garbage) is soon to follow. Look I'm sorry I made all those posts earlier about the student activists taking a stand against this rubbish (Students Against Buai Pekpek), I won't post about that activist group on this page or the NIMBY page or even the betelnut page (though I think Students Against Buai Pekpek deserves their own Wikipedia article), but I still think the picture itself, or some other example of litter, is a completely valid example of an eyesore.

2600:1:E440:2777:7CB9:AB0E:BB07:4D74 (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)🐓🐓

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eyesore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821042931/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23433182-5006784,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23433182-5006784,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

palace of culture and science

how is this not mentioned it is huge and ugly and was built out of spite by the Russians for the purpose of being huge and ugly and it is in the centre of Warsaw where it is just ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.106.152 (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eyesore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120524132102/http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=740&artikel=2435435 to http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=740&artikel=2435435

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)