Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)

message: has been edit-warring to revert these changes, which attempt to summarize what the rest of the article says about the controversy over who created this piece (reported today in BoingBoing, but ongoing in other sources for much longer). Coldcreation's preferred lead states flatly that it was produced by Duchamp, while the text later in the article reports on multiple possible theories for who the pseudonymous creator might be, including both Duchamp and two women. Can we have additional opinions on which lead to keep or what additional changes to the lead might be appropriate, please? In their reversions, Coldcreation cites a supposed ongoing discussion of the issue, but I see no such discussion (the last edits on this talk were a week ago), so maybe we can discuss it here. Note that I am currently taking no position on the title of the article (the subject of earlier discussions), only on what its lead should say. I note that the previous discussion of the title did include a sentiment that this issue be mentioned in the lead, and that Coldcreation's opposition there to any changes mostly focused on bad-faith accusations against proponents of change rather than on the substantive issues of the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *I should add - IMO the lede should stay as is; Fountain is a 1917 work produced by Marcel Duchamp; the news media is obsessed with new twists to old stories, sells papers, like van Gogh didn't shoot himself, it was those nasty juveniles, that no one has any proof on...Modernist (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think that is edit-warring you haven't been at Wikipedia very long. Firstly, your edit does not "summarize what the rest of the article says about the controversy over who created this piece". It unduly changes attribution or authorship. It is not a work of Dada art "conventionally credited to Marcel Duchamp" that "may have instead been created by" someone else. According to art historians, major museum curators, and the artist himself, Fountain is a work by Duchamp (also, Fountain was an anti-art Readymade, not Dada). Until there is academic consensus among scholars, experts, and the relevant specialists publish something to the contrary, there is little basis for Wikipedia to engage in speculation or conspiracy theories regarding the attribution of such a work. The claims that Freytag-Loringhoven is responsible for Fountain is easily debunked. While the controversy is worthy of mention (both in the lead and body of text), it is irresponsible at this point to alter authorship of a work that changed the course of art history based on the arguably uninformed or biased opinions of Irene Gammel, Glyn Thompson and Julian Spalding. Coldcreation (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a difficult case, as there is some evidence, per Duchamp's letter to his sister, that a female co-creator was involved. On the other hand, to totally go against Duchamp's word and the opinion of art experts would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. A possible option since the controversy is covered in the text, add a brief sentence in a concluding paragraph of the lead such as "There are disputed claims that Fountain was co-created by Dada artist Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven". This issue is also summarized with possible undue weight in the Dada article, in its New York section, so editors may want to look at that wording to see if it's appropriate or needs to be changed as well. Personal note to David Eppstein: I am looking for ships in Fountain, but have yet to find them. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that not what my proposed text does with its "conventionally credited to Duchamp", followed by a summary of the alternative theories? It certainly does not unduly assert authorship in a case where the authorship is not clear, as the previous version does. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, because your edit removes the credit from Duchamp and calls his work into question right upfront in the lead. Wikipedia has no reason to take any credit away from Duchamp, and may never have any. Adding a non-declarative sentence at the end of the lead, which contain the words 'disputed claims', seems to cover the sources without removing Duchamp's academically accepted credit. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit says "conventionally credited to Duchamp". That is not removing the credit. It then summarizes the controversy, as WP:NPOV requires us to do. If some editors here think we should be evaluating which sources are more credible and reporting their side as correct and the other side as wrong, then they themselves are doing Wikipedia wrong. And it's certainly possible to find recent academic work that does not accept Duchamp's credit uncritically; see https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780429843570/chapters/10.4324%2F9780429453724-11 "This letter recently gave rise to an animated discussion regarding the authorship of Fountain" (but also putting forward the theory that the female friend was really a female alter ego of Duchamp himself) or https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781351675789/chapters/10.4324%2F9781315164991-8 "a highly plausible argument that Fountain was actually a piece by the Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven" for instance. We should not make the mistake of thinking that this credit dispute is in popular sources and therefore unimportant, or of thinking that certain slow-to-react institutions' (like Wikipedia's) slowness to react means there is nothing to react to. PS Some more recent popular press links: https://www.metafilter.com/175099/She-is-not-a-Futurist-She-is-the-futurehttps://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/was-marcel-duchamps-fountain-actually-created-by-a-long-forgotten-pioneering-feminist-10491953.htmlhttps://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/06/14/famous-urinal-fountain-is-not-by-marcel-duchamp-a1606608, backing up its claims by the expertise of "four academics and historians". —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ignoring you, I was waiting for others to reply. I don't click on many outside links, never know where it ends up and I try to keep the barrage of ads off my computer. It froze up yesterday off a Wikipedia talk-page discussion link. Was hoping that others would go in and summarize and comment about what is at the links. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in favour of adding a sentence at the end of the lead (the sentence: There are disputed claims that Fountain was co-created by Dada artist Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven" seems to do the job). The previous (conventionally credited to, but may have been made by .. Norton/von Freytag-Loringhoven) is formulated a bit too much in favor of the latter two maybe. I would reformulate the first sentence to Fountain is a 1917 pseudonymous work of Dada art, (conventionally) credited to Marcel Duchamp. Femkemilene (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Why separate the two parts of the lead that talk about credit? That makes no sense structurally. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If your first sentence suggestion is approved, without the unneeded parenthesis or even the word 'conventially' , I still like 's idea of changing the name to Fountain (R. Mott). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Agree with this - as I said above when making the original "Mutt" suggestion. End of para 1 probably. There's a case for making R. Mutt a redirect anyway - ah, it already is. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: *As I mentioned above - until art history, major museums and institutions begin to change their identification regarding Duchamp's creative ownership of the readymade Fountain the lede should remain as is. A sentence at the end of the lede might bring mention of the new controversy...Modernist (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. No need to propagate a myth, if that's indeed what it is. Coldcreation (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Art history" has certainly "begun to change their identification" as the citations above clearly indicate. So your "until" is vacuous. It's already true and therefore the lead should not remain as is. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? When MoMA, and the Met, and the Louvre, and the Tate Tate link, and the Chicago Art Institute, and The National Gallery of Art, and the Whitney Museum of American Art all go there, then we can change...Modernist (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec) Phooey! If you mean the group at the "reflist" above, the only clear RS is the long notice by Tate Britain, which takes a staunchly pro-Duchamp position. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That group was from an earlier discussion about the article title, where we need to choose one title rather than report all sides. Here we are discussing the lead, a different issue where WP:NPOV requires us to report all significant aspects of the issue, and MOS:LEAD requires the lead to reflect the content of the article. I have identified multiple scholarly papers and multiple reliable popular news sources earlier in this discussion that either accept the updated credit or take the issue as under debate rather than settled. Have you read the discussion at all? But for the lazy readers I append a list of the sources I have already linked. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Careful who you call lazy. Coldcreation (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me if I'm not impressed - I can't actually see the only proper RS there because of paywalls (the Higgs extract may be another one). There's just no such thing as a "reliable popular news source" when it comes to something like this. If you knew more about the field of art history you'd know that such sources print stories about "controversies" and "new discoveries" about famous art almost daily, and the great majority of them are never widely accepted in the field. A bit of a contrast to the coverage of maths I expect. We should be following the broad consensus of scholarly opinion, paying particular attention to major museums.  The long Tate piece was revised in 2015, perhaps to counter Higgs' book, and considers and essentially rejects the Baroness's role.  Museums like SFMOMA owning examples of the replicas have had nearly 3 years to consider changing their attributions, & you have not produced any that have done so. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time this month that an editor has insinuated that my expertise in mathematical topics is a black mark that should be held against me when I dare to edit non-mathematical topics. This sort of bad-faith assumption and anti-intellectualism should have no place on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: That's why I provided quotes from the paywelled sources, so that you have to work harder to pretend they're not relevant. And yet, you took that extra step. Also, you're fine with Modernist basing their position on sources from artsy.net, theartstory.org, and an irrelevant SFMOMA link that doesn't go into any scholarly detail about the credit and is about a piece that is unquestionably by Duchamp (the 1960s replica)? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  3xec  No, too lazy to read that too. But I have read the Tate & SFMOMA, among others. What extra step? They may be relevant, but they are not as authoritative as museums. Disputes over attribution are very common, and there are different ways of handling them, depending on the balance of expert opinion. This one, starting in 2002 if not before, has not reached the stage where your changes would be justified. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: *By the way the Philadelphia Museum, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the website Artsy carry a lot of weight in the contemporary art world...Modernist (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: **I have already indicated why the SFMOMA link is irrelevant. But the Tate link is in-depth, addresses the issue, and summarizes the alternative claims for credit, including a pull quote "We do not even known with absolute certainty that Duchamp was the artist". Surely we can say as much here, rather than insisting on a lead that falsely conveys to the reader a certainty that the Tate does not have? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: ***That quote was from Camfield 1989, p.13. Tate clearly states "Fountain is one of Duchamp’s most famous works and is widely seen as an icon of twentieth-century art." Coldcreation (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

text: ***:1989 is well after the 1982 discovery of Duchamp's letter and well before the current media frenzy, so I don't see how that date in any way counts against that source. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: and  have found a new and uninteresting thing to edit-war about: whether a source labeled as a "blog" on seeallthis.com can be used as a reliable source. So in an effort to cut this off, I'd like to start a discussion here instead. Coldcreation's position appears to be that it's a blog and therefore unreliable. However, that's an overly strict reading of our policy. Per WP:RS "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Seeallthis.com appears to be a Dutch art magazine with the usual level of editorial control that one would expect of an art magazine. However, it's a minor-enough magazine that we don't have an article on it. Can we maybe agree that (1) it's not inherently unreliable, but (2) because the same material is already covered by sources that are more well known and at least as reliable, there is no good reason to use this as a source? That is, even though (I believe) this source is not forbidden by policy, I think it would be preferable not to use it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See All This is an interesting website. I could go along with a brief sentence at or near the conclusion of the lead alerting the reader to conflicting claims regarding artwork and artist. Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I appreciate  affirming my interpretation of the WP:RS guideline, insofar as SeeAllThis is "not inherently unreliable" for art topics.  I was certainly not attempting to "edit-war" with , although I do bristle at any hint of wikilawyering.  For what it's worth, my initial contribution was made without awareness of the discussion on this page; I'd simply read the piece and made a good-faith addition of a reference, where there previously had been none.  All that said, I still think the current version could be improved, and will proceed, with all due respect. — HipLibrarianship talk 02:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeallthis 

message: The lead states “Some scholars have suggested that the original work was by a female artist rather than Duchamp, but this is a minority view among historians”. Which sources in the article body support the claim that this is minority view? Might this be reworded to something more neutral? JeroenHoek (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you suggest it be reworded? Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps something that suggests that the origin of the work is disputed by some, but that the matter has as of yet not been resolved? There have been a number of articles in well-regarded newspapers that put forward the theory that Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven was the creator of the work. It seems to be more than a fringe theory at this point, and I think that the article shouldn't conclude that this is a minority view without proper attestation, because that phrasing carries the connotation of dismissing those claims out of hand (which is not something that Wikipedia should do lightly). JeroenHoek (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Have you read the lengthy recent discussions above? Or the reference now added to the lead? It is a minority view. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have. I agree with David Eppstein that the current state is that while the work is conventionally attributed to Marcel Duchamp, this attribution is not nearly as certain as it once was. From the sources and publications I've read I don't get the impression that the standpoint that the work may not have been created by Duchamp (although it could have been) is a minority view among historians. To be clear: I can't quantify it at all; minority or majority. The article should reflect that unless there is a source that does provide that quantification. JeroenHoek (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed text to "Some scholars have suggested that the original work was by a female artist rather than Duchamp, but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim." (Source: Tate and references therein). "As Gammel acknowledged, however, there is no contemporary documentary evidence or testimony that points to the involvement of von Freytag-Loringhoven in Fountain. The Baroness, who was certainly not shy of controversy, seems never to have claimed to have been involved...". Coldcreation (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say I'm dubious about that - Duchamp's letter is prima facie "documentary evidence", whoever else that is taken to indicate.  But "articles in well-regarded newspapers" mean absolutely nothing, except that it is a good news story with a feminist angle. The wording was "a minority view among historians", not "among journalists". "Minority view" ≠ fringe view. Your own formulation "the current state is that while the work is conventionally attributed to Marcel Duchamp, this attribution is not nearly as certain as it once was" does equate to "minority view". Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter is not documentary evidence implicating the Baroness. It is therefore only circumstantial evidence. The rest agreed. I will revert my edit in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minority view: source? 

message: :::Thank you! This IS great fun for me, especially, since you forgo specifying any axes, angles and (fix)points of rotation. I think it has even esthetic appeal, but I, on my side, forgo uttering any artistic valuation. Purgy (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fun image, but its choice of using only rotations through axes perpendicular to the viewplane shows that he is still mired in the Cartesian orthogonal worldview. (Or maybe it's just much easier to rotate images than 3d models.) —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect on the silly worldview comment. I am currently working on another version of Fountain embedded in a spherically symmetric general relativistic four-dimensional globally hyperbolic pseudo-Riemannian spacetime manifold with temporal evolution in accord with the laws of physics and multiple viewpoints generated by 3-D software. Coldcreation (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Ha! Much applause and am glad to see your Fountain Descending a Staircase, No. 1. If this has never been done before it deserves publication in some form. The entire discussion is worth the price of admission for this creation alone. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find, at least on Google, any other mention of Fountain Descending a Staircase, so if it's been done before (as a photo, painting, cartoon, even a mention) it's not showing up. Can others try to find a previous mention, thanks. We may have seen the birth of a unique artistic combination of related iconic images, and again, Coldcreation, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think we are getting somewhere. The real question is: how does this relate to abstract expressionism? Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: <center>How position contributes to the artwork</center>

message: *Support...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I wish to highlight the following entry in the Origin section:
:The editorial, written by Louise Norton, accompanying the photograph, entitled "The Richard Mutt Case",Tomkins, Duchamp: A Biography, p. 185. made a claim that would prove to be important concerning certain works of art that would come after it:
:
:In defense of the work being art, Norton also wrote, "The only works of art America has given are her plumbing and her bridges."The Blind Man, Vol. 2, 1917, p. 5. Duchamp described his intent with the piece was to shift the focus of art from physical craft to intellectual interpretation.
In a number of sources the entirety of these are pages not attributed to Louis Norton. Instead the attribute The Richard Mutt Case to  Beatrice Wood and the essay below – there is also a clear page break –, Buddha of the Bathroom, to Louis Norton. Note the detailed Tate Modern entry that mentions Woods biography: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573.
Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing also things like "Anonymous article in The Blind Man # 2, May 1917. Written by Beatrice Wood, H.P. Roché and/or Marcel Duchamp." All pointing to another author other than Louise Norton.  Any help on this attribution appreciated. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've reworded it Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution of ''The Richard Mutt Case'' to Beatrice Wood 

message: Not sure if this contains new evidence, which is why I’m adding the link here: 
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/oct/15/conceptualist-art-fountain-is-fake-say-historians-marcel-duchamp Breston (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIY re:authorship