Talk:The Kiss (Rodin sculpture): Difference between revisions

 

Line 101: Line 101:

:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sculpture|WikiProject Sculpture]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts|WikiProject Visual arts]] have been notified of this discussion. [[User:Jeffrey34555|Jeffrey34555]] ([[User talk:Jeffrey34555|talk]]) 00:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)</small>

:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sculpture|WikiProject Sculpture]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts|WikiProject Visual arts]] have been notified of this discussion. [[User:Jeffrey34555|Jeffrey34555]] ([[User talk:Jeffrey34555|talk]]) 00:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)</small>

:*”’Support”’ via [[WP:CONCISE]] [[User:Agnieszka653|Agnieszka653]] ([[User talk:Agnieszka653|talk]]) 03:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

:*”’Support”’ via [[WP:CONCISE]] [[User:Agnieszka653|Agnieszka653]] ([[User talk:Agnieszka653|talk]]) 03:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Agnieszka653}}, did you read this discussion and what is being proposed by the editors involved in it? Please have another look at it, thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 04:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Um, I’m new here, but I just went ahead and did what was remaining of the translation. If I did it wrong, or if it’s shoddy work, please feel free to send me a flame or two 🙂

The article’s still in need of some heavy copy editing, as there is some redundant information that could be merged/rearranged. But, the Spanish part is done, and hopefully to satisfaction.

I don’t know how images work, so I just left them, and their Spanish tags, well enough alone. Cheers!

Sophrosune (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great job to me! Nice work 😀 — Keithlard 00:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I’m interpreting Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources#Visual_arts correctly where it says “Accurate photographs of visual artworks lack expressive content and are automatically in the public domain once the painting’s copyright has expired”, does that mean that any accurate photograph of The Kiss is PD?

If so, here are a couple of rather good ones:

— Keithlard 17:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musée Rodin information on The Kiss

A reference to The Thinker should be enought.
The Gates of Hell is understandable since you can click on it and zooom to the lower right column. There is a figure of couple there (I have not found confirmation that The Kiss was originaly located there). —JuanPDP 06:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I don’t think The Thinker is relevant enough to merit an image. Sophrosune (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey You did you it well but does anyone know what process he took to make the sculpture? I really need to know for a project I am doing on him. Please just post on here. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.24.240 (talk • contribs)

Read the article. There were a number of different versions. Tyrenius —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve once watched a documentary that addressed it quite a bit, I think it was from BBC. A quote from an article on the University of Virginia website:

In the late 1990s, the Brigham Young University Museum of Art exhibited a show of Auguste Rodin’s sculpture; however, the director and other high-ranking university officials made an eleventh-hour decision to omit the famous statue “The Kiss” and three other Rodin works. The museum director feared that the omitted works did not mesh well with the theme of the exhibition, indicating that “the nature of those works are such that the viewer will be concentrating on them in a way that is not good for us.” University officials denied that the decision was based on concern that the nudity and passionate embrace of “The Kiss” might offend Provo, Utah’s conservative and largely Mormon audience. This was not the first act of censorship against “The Kiss.” In 1913, the sculpture, thought to be “too daring,” was removed from an exhibition at the Corporation of Lewes in London

—Extremophile (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb (talk) moved page The Kiss (Rodin sculpture) to The Kiss (sculpture): But this is not the only sculpture entitled The Kiss for which we have an article. The new name of this article may lead to confusion with The Kiss (Brâncuși). There are indeed two sculptures with the same name. Why not call this article The Kiss (Rodin)?

There also exists The Kiss (Hayez painting), and The Kiss (Klimt painting). I wouldn’t think of changing one of these to The Kiss (painting) under the pretext that no other article has this name…

These are four cases where the name of the artist should be attached to the title of the respective articles. Coldcreation (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was entirely my fault. Fixed now, thanks for catching it. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There’s an inconsistency on the page about the date of creation of the sculpture. The opening paragraph says 1889, the sidebar says 1882 under its original name, and the historical account describes the response and suggested renaming when the work was first seen in 1887. I don’t know the right answer, but they can’t all be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan.merkley (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am 80 so go back a bit. In the 1950s I bought a London evening paper in which there was a photo of a 90 years still tall old man in a raincoat leaning against the sculpture of The Kiss in Paris. The article said his name was Victor and that he had posed for Rodin for that work. I cut this out of the paper and kept it for many years but can no longer find that article and photo though I tried several evening papers around the 50s probably 1953 and got nowhere. I also cannot find any reference to this man elsewhere in relation to Rodin and his male models. Can anyone verify or find this lovely photo for me.

Thank you.

Msggieg (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the lovers’ lips do not touch in Dante’s book. But the lips most certainly do touch on Rodin’s sculpture. I shot a closeup of the sculpture in the Musee Rodin and will provide the image, if needed. The text should make this clear. Jchuber (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Per MOS:ART/TITLE and WP:CONCISE. This would be a revert for The Kiss (Brâncuși sculpture), which was moved for consistency with the Rodin sculpture article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sculptures with multiple potential article targets usually contain the descriptor ‘sculpture’ to guide readers. Using just the last name of the artist does little to define what we are supposed to be looking at. Does Omphale, for example, have multiple sculpture articles? Or Modesty? If not then ‘sculpture’ would be the key wording, not ‘Gérôme’ or ‘Corradini’. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Randy, you might not be aware of it, but your first sentence is not true – at least when the artist name is included in the disambiguation term, and MOS:ART/TITLE recommends to prefer the artist name over “sculpture”, saying “If the title requires disambiguation, add the surname of the artist in parentheses afterwards, e.g. Reading the Letter (Picasso). It is generally better to disambiguate by the artist’s name than by medium, as there may be other paintings or sculptures of the same name by other artists.” (boldface italics added for emphasis). Note that this is not recommending Reading the Letter (Picasso painting). As far as I know, these are the only articles on the entire English Wikipedia that use a disambiguator of the form “([Artist name] sculpture)”, except for one case where the word “sculpture” is necessary for disambiguation with something else produced by the same artist that is not a sculpture – namely Five Brushstrokes (Lichtenstein sculpture). Perhaps I should have mentioned that in my RM rationale. It would be fine with me if the title convention was different, but this is what it is, and these are the only exceptions of this type. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve now moved Five Brushstrokes (Lichtenstein sculpture) to Five Brushstrokes (Lichtenstein, New Orleans) which is a better fit with MOS:ART/TITLE, so it’s no longer such an exception. Ham II (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  When there are two sculptures with the same name, yes. Not when there are no other sculptures of the same name, then just ‘sculpture’ is used. Your multi-article RM is a mixed bag which is why I ‘opposed’ until it is sorted out. Please include this RM in the visual arts wikiproject and sculpture wikiproject alerts, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You may have missed Ham II‘s commentary in the RM at Talk:The Ambassadors. One of those WikiProjects had been notified by RMCDbot, and I just notified the other one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I had commented in that RM, but didn’t see Ham’s comment which, as I’m reading it, agrees with my position. It makes a big and deciding difference if two sculptures have the same name. If only one does, then (sculpture) is the standard title use. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is a little awkward for this RM that, as I’ve argued at Talk:The Ambassadors (novel) § Requested move 23 November 2025, I think MOS:ART/TITLE should be changed to align more with WP:NCDAB and WP:D2D. MOS:ART as it currently stands does support the article titles proposed in the nomination, but I think Modesty (sculpture), The Vestal Virgin Tuccia (sculpture), The Messenger (sculpture), Ecstasy (sculpture), Omphale (sculpture) and Reconciliation (sculpture) would be better titles for six of these articles. Ham II (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I took the liberty of updating a link above to an RM discussion, since it became a red link after the referenced RM was closed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Sculpture and WikiProject Visual arts have been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agnieszka653, did you read this discussion and what is being proposed by the editors involved in it? Please have another look at it, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]