Talk:Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?

message: I have added a paragraph to the article about the meaning of the collage as I understand it. This is from my reading, but it is perilously close to original research. I hope to have some proper references for it soon. I think this aspect is far more interesting, and important to the germination of Pop art, than trivia about what theater someone saw Al Jolson perform in or where a tape recorder similar to the one pictured may or may not have been purchased. 
What I would like is a citable reference to a work that mentions where the individual cut-out items are from. We have the name of the bodybuilder, and so forth, and in some cases a citation for the magazine the images were cut out of, but not a reference that establishes this list of items. McHale Jr. makes some plausible claims (and some not-so-plausible ones) but no one with a scholarly reputation. This is an important work, arguably the first piece of Pop art, and it deserves better.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You carp on and on about references and when you are provided with them you edit them out over and over again. You are just plain decietful about Hamilton's cover up, and who you are aparently fending for. You were given the Magda Cordell citation which refutes Hamiltons's bogus claim about the origins of the collage matrial. Magda Cordell never claimed they were Cordell sources: she stated both in her taped interview, and as reported in the Robbins text, that they were McHale supplied and handed to Hamilton for the production cut out and paste up. Furthermore you  were given the citations on the Armstrong floor ad which was not on Hamilton's "list of interest" nor was the Tootsie POP image on Hamilton's "list of interest", and they were supplied by McHale along with all the rest of the iconic imagery for the collage production.Ottex (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not references. Or maybe they are; no one can tell, because of your refusal or inability to cite them intelligibly. It is apparent that you have an ax to grind concerning Hamilton v. McHale, but have no actual information to impart nor any comprehension of how to incorporate it into this article or even how Wikipedia works. Every article you have touched has been destroyed by your edits. I'm taking this to an administrator. This has got to stop. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Iconography, Content, and Meaning 

message: That section is as long as it needs to be, as the various viewpoints are clearly shown. In fact, it's too long for the length of the article, but the solution there is to expand the rest of it, as I'm sure there's plenty to include. Ty 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Authorship

message: Who's he? Richard Hamilton? If so, best to call him "Richard" not "Terry". Ty 04:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Terry O'Reilly, Hamilton's wife between 1947 and her death in 1962.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Terry Hamilton

message: You,"Fnarf", were provided with the precise reference to one of the images supplied to Hamilton from McHale's files by Magda Cordell as shown with photo and text on page 58 of Robbins "Aesthetics of Plenty", and it was edited out as not relevant to wiki. It is very relevant to the case, and how Hamilton was handed the McHale image for the collage along with other material from McHale's files. Magda Cordell explained how she and Hamilton's wife Terry went back several times into McHale's studio to pick up material from McHale's files and how these were handed to Hamilton for the paste up and production of the collage. It did not take two able bodied arts woman many trips into McHale's studios to pick up an estimated 17 or so image sources from McHale's files, particularly when one of the American magazine sources contained three of the crucial collage elements of the title to the collage, and image of an Armstrong Floor ad --which was not Hamilton's alleged production list of interest.   When the publishers of "Aesthetics of Plenty" were seeking factual documentation Magda Cordell supplied this McHale derived image, (Earth viewed from a rocket which came from Life Magazine), along with other McHale material to the publishers for inclusion in the book. Later on after the publication Magda Cordell donated this material to Yale University as part of the McHale archive collection for all the public to examine.
With reference to other McHale collage sources used in the collage work, according to the 2008 book publication page 534, " Art as the Definitive Visual Guide" , it is recognised that quote: "The oversized American lollipop has the word "Pop" accross its wrapper, a reference to John McHale, who collaborated on the work, and invented the term Pop art in 1954". By the way, Livingston ( cited above in the discussion) is correct where he asserts the material was in John McHale's media laden tin trunk sent over from Yale ahead of time and located in McHale's studio at 52 Cleveland Square in Paddington London. So please let us now have the citation placed back into the "Just What..?" siteOttex (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to be succinct, if you want people to read your argument. The footnote you suggest does not add any more information than is already in the text. The quote does not estabish co-authorship. Ty 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The scales of Justice hanging over this site wag two ways and Hamilton's deception about the collage over the years is gradually coming to light, no matter how you try to tip itOttex (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You dispute an edit reversion but introduce other sources not included in the original edit. The word 'iconic' in your original edit  is original research because it implies that the iconic collage derives its effect from the source materials, provided, according to the claim, by McHale. This combined with edits elsewhere that suggest that McHale is a co-author of the collage  presents a problem. And though I have some sympathy with the idea that McHale has been overlooked by art history, WP is not a place where history can be rewritten; it can only reflect the art historical consensus that exists. Having said that, the quote above (not included in the reverted edit) about McHale collaborating on the work is, in my opinion, relevant and could be added to the text (bearing in mind that a source naming McHale as a collaborator is somewhat different from a claim that McHale has joint authorship).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ottex, please study WP:NPOV. Wikipedia follows majority verdicts with some allowance for minority ones and nil for tiny minority. This is nothing to do with personal opinion. No other editor is trying to "tip it", apart from you. Get your views established elsewhere; then they will be valid for wikipedia, which is not the place for innovation per WP:NOR. I think everyone agrees that Hamilton used some of McHale's material. That is as far as it can go here for now. Ty 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm in sympathy with Ethicoaestheticist. I tentatively suggest some wording along the lines of "Some of the source material was provided by John McHale, who is seen by XYZ (insert name of Kindersley author or the book if no author credited) as a collaborator on the work." That however should be in the main text, not in an infobox, which should be restricted to simple non-ambiguous material. I'd like to get other editors input here. Ty 23:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Ty, and I really appreciate how you and Ethic's have been very fair, reasonable and even in your edits and comments in these difficult protracted discussions.Ottex (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The arts editors here are very motivated for quality and we're looking to get the right article for a reader. You've brought in some very interesting material which I didn't know about (this isn't my specialist area). The question is simply how to incorporate this, but we have to follow wikipedia policy, which is fairly restrictive and inherently follows the status quo. When that changes, then the article will follow. I suggest the best approach might be to drop the black and white issue of authorship and write a more subtly nuanced article that describes the evolution of the collage, showing where the different ideas and elements came from, but being scrupulously objective about this and referencing it tightly and accurately.  That, I think, would be very useful for the reader. Certainly the assertion by McHale Jr can be made and Hamilton's refuting of it, but to make this a focus is not going to do anyone any favours. The wiki way is to present the facts, so the reader can make up their own minds. We do not seek to resolve issues that have not already been resolved in the major sources. Ty 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Fine. Provide a valid reference. Otherwise it's not usable on wiki. You should know that by now. Ty 02:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Please sign your posts. If it's private correspondence it can't be used on wiki. Get it published in a verifiable source, then it can be used. In the meantime, please desist from making comments about living people which are contentious per WP:BLP.  Violation can lead to being blocked. Ty 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Hello Ottex. You are correct about 'Constitution'. That was barely more than a typo. It should be 'Constellation' of course. As for Ms Baer, the Stonard article states that it is Joan Baer. Stonard himself accepts that he has not located the specific source of the image. It's not easy to research porn mags, since libraries don't keep archives of them, and in any case the real name of the model would not be published. But there is no good reason to dispute that it is indeed Baer, and in any case we rely on what reliable sources say, and the Burlington says it is she. There is of course no evidence for your claim that McHale created the composition, only that he posted a box of magazines from America, from which the images were cut. I note that your only response to the addition of detailed (and correct) information which improves the article is to sneer at one simple slip up, which you could have easily corrected yourself. Paul B (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: You are being less than honest again. Baer does not possess a copy of the image, of course. Why should she? We always knew that. If she had, Stonard would have published the precise source. She stated that it is she, and she is known to have posed for these nudie images in her youth. There is no reason to doubt her, beyond your need to discredit Stonard, who simply report what she says and does not "interpret" anything. As for the "rough sketch of an image poster", Hamilton has already answered that. McHale produced rough ideas for several designs, some of which Hamilton developed, some of which he didn't. Even the ones that he did create were developed far beyond the original rough designs by McHale. There is no evidence whatever that Just What Is It was one of those designs and there is no record whatever that McHale ever claimed that it was. You know all this of course. Paul B (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Hamilton is not an art historian. He has no need to identify the sources in detail and there was no reason why he should have remembered exactly which magazines were used. If you and your mates cut and paste stuff from magazines to make a a poster you are unlikely to keep detailed records. He had no idea that the image would become so iconic and remain famous half a century later. The source hunting is only of interest because of that fact. It's pretty much irrelevant to anyone other than an art historian. It's hardly a surprise that Stonard could not ID all the sources. Magazines are ephemeral. Paul B (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Your argument makes no sense (and of course we all know who you are despite using the third person). The magazines were owned by him, so of course he could later identify where images had been cut out. Hamilton could not, and was not even the one who actually cut out all the pictures, so he would not necessarily have known in the first place. Anyway, the way you are suggesting that the collage was made is actually both nonsensical and contrary to the evidence we have. We have extant studies by McHale which clearly indicate that he made rough sketches for ideas, which were developed by Hamilton. He did not give detailed instructions to use specific cut outs from specific magazines. If he knew exactly what he wanted and exactly which images to use, he would have made it himself rather than go to the bizarre lengths of sending over a mass of magazines with instructions. It would have been easier, less likely to go wrong if his instructions were misunderstood - and cheaper to transport! The procedure you are suggesting makes no logical or practical sense. Your argument about the Victorian man and other details is self-defeating, since McHale didn't identify him either; therefore according to your own logic, he can't have been the designer! Paul B (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Some of the magazines were owned by him. Is this in dispute? I don't think so. In my first post, way back in February, I wrote "he posted a box of magazines from America, from which the images were cut". Is this undisputed fact relevant to authorship? It is not. Paul B (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

text: This isn't a page for arguing a point of view or expressing the results of original research.  If there are valid sources which have information that needs to be included, then cite them. Otherwise read WP:TPG. Ty 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

text: "he persisted in trying to collaborate with Hamilton." Indeed, that's presumably why he sent over rough ideas, and only proposed his own design (the abstract one) later. You are contradicting your own earlier claims about the design process now. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

text: He did not know what precicely most of the images were. He and the others cut them out from ephemeral magazines over fifty years ago. No-one can be expected to remember details in those circumstances. In any case it is not even relevant to the meaning of the image who the body builder was. He was just an emblem for a consumerist ideal of the male body, drawing on and supplanting the classical ideal of the Farnese Hercules. We don't know if he "deliberately chose the image because of the 'Zabo' Tomorrows Man connotations" or not. This article as it stands simply states that that's the name of the magazine from which the image comes. However, it's highly unlikely that any viewers even in 1956 would know that, so it's irrelevant to the public meaning of the figure in the collage. McHale would have known exactly where the image came from because some of his magazines were used and were returned to him. So he could see exactly which bits had been cut out for the rest of his life. You write, "Stonard in his article still has not indentified the source of the Tootsie POP and he has not made any comment about its iconic significance." Stonard does discuss the Tootsie Pop and its 'iconic significance', albeit briefly, on page 619, so this is false. He states that ""Koszewski, who had also won the ‘best abdominals’ prize, suggestively holds a Tootsie Roll Pop in place of a dumbbell, inserted through a slit cut between his thumb and forefinger. This image is taken from an advertisement for Tootsie Roll Pops, a type of lollipop, which appeared in an as yet untraced advertisement in a comic book." In other words it's a standard image from an ad, but he has not identified exactly which comic book it was cut out from. So what?  Why obsess about such trivia? As for the 'iconic significance', that has been discussed in other articles on pop art. It was not the purpose of Stonard's article to discuss the unfolding significance of the "pop" concept, so there's no point adding that this particular author did not discuss something that others have. As is very well known the word 'pop' was first used this satirical way by Eduardo Paolozzi in 1947 in his collage I Was as Rich Man's Plaything. He showed the collage in 1952 at the first meeting of the Independent Group, along with others in his "Bunk!" series, which also included a picture of a male bodybuilder and soft-porn images of women from magazines of the day. These collages generally understood to have been Hamilton's main inspiration for his own collage. The resemblance to Just What is It is far greater than anything I've seen of McHale's deliberatly sliced images in "Why I took to the washers in luxury flats", which you claim to be evidence that McHale created the composition. McHale's collages are are generally more genteel and 'intellectual', and rarely use "cheesecake" images with the relish that Paolozzi does (well, he was an Italian), and as Hamilton does in this case. However, Paolozzi is not mentioned once in this article! Paul B (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  McHale's collage contributions

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100115063217/http://www.thisistomorrow2.com/images/cat_1956/cat_web/FrameSet.htm to http://www.thisistomorrow2.com/images/cat_1956/cat_web/FrameSet.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141103031100/http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/sound_reproduction/1966-149.aspx to http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/sound_reproduction/1966-149.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ...that makes today's talk pages so difficult, so appalling? JohndanR (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just what is it...