Talk:Museum of Modern Art

message: It seems to me that the only reasonable thing to do with this page is to move it to New York Museum of Modern Art and make the current Museum of Modern Art a disambiguation page. New York's is not the only museum with this name, so it should not be on this page. Unless somebody can provide a good argument why not, I will move the page and edit all the pages that link to it to link to New York Museum of Modern Art where that is the intended meaning. (unsigned)
*There is no "New York Museum of Modern Art", and no apparent need for disambiguation. I don't think we have any articles on any other institution that calls itself simply "The Museum of Modern Art". The museum of modern art in San Francisco calls itself the "San Francisco Museum of Modern Art". The museum of modern art in London calls itself the "Tate Museum".  If disambiguation were needed, it should be done in parentheses ("Museum of Modern Art (New York)"), lest we leave an impression that there is an institution called "The New York Museum of Modern Art". Though frankly it's probably better left alone. - Nunh-huh 03:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine print : As indicated here, "MOMA" is a trademark, used in connection with the Museum of Modern Art since the late 1960s. However, I haven't been able to find out if "The Museum of Modern Art" is also a trademark, which would definitively settle the matter ... so we have to infer from common usage. As noted above, MOMA refers to itself exclusively either as "The Museum of Modern Art" or as "MOMA", without qualifiers. It never refers to itself as "The New York Museum of Modern Art," and outside sources use this formulation only rarely (and probably incorrectly). Though catalogues of artists' works often use the "Museum of Modern Art, New York" form, the city is not actually intended to be read as part of the museum's title, and is a standard inclusion in this kind of reference (as in, for example, "State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow").. So ... the common usage when referring to this institution is simply "The Museum of Modern Art". Perhaps more importantly, the phrase "the Museum of Modern Art", when indicating an institution, always (as far as I can see) refers to this one. Docether 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jocosity isn't going to work. If you want the article renamed, argue for this. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You confuse jococity with irony, a rhetorical device which is known to confuse US-ians, bigly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.140.196 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral title 

message: This article needs expansion.  There is no mention of the original building, an important International Style design.  There is little discussion of the history of curators, important exhibitions, publications, MOMA as a cultural force, etc.  The article could be reclassified as "Start Class' until it is expanded.Chesterct (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: Why does the history section of this article end in 1939?  The subsequent history with curators after Alfred Barr and the maturation of MOMA as an institution would seem to be worth addressing Sullivanesque (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No History after 1939? 

message: Painting is allready represented in this article, but there is a diversity of art media at MoMA, so we should show that without too long of a list.
::i also would very much like to see a short list of the industrial design collection, with stuff like the Bic Cristal pen and such. a category "permanent collection of the MoMA" would also be very nice. -- ExpImptalkcon 13:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection 

message: I'm adding the Eameses, Noguchi, and some others to the list of designers whose works are in MOMA's collection. All can be confirmed at moma.org. R 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design Collection 

message: What about modern art in other countries? Has anyone seen the Istanbul Modern.
www.paulcooklin.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.46.205 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2006
:The Istanbul Modern is an interesting museum (and a great location, right on the Istanbul docks .. you can see Russian ships unloading cargo literally next to the museum windows). In fact, it has its own page here on Wikipedia. -- Docether 13:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Art 

message: Anybody know MOMA's actual street address?  Trekphiler 09:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 11 West 53rd St (between Fifth and Sixth Avenues). -- Docether 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Takin' it to the Street

message: User 82.66.141.162 has made some major additions to the MOMA article, alleging CIA sponsorship of / involvement with the MOMA. I've removed this text.
I'm not in a position to judge whether this text is well-founded or not. I've removed it because, honestly, it's just not within the scope of this page. This page is a brief overview of the museum, its collection, and its history, and this text is far too narrowly focused. Secondly, regardless of their accuracy, controversial edits like this must be well-sourced, with a wide range of references. This text needs to be much better-sourced if it's to be included in Wikipedia. I suggest creating a separate page for this text, under its own title, and hashing out the quality issues (and NPOV issues) there.
Best, -- Docether 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 82.66.141.162 

message: I´ve noticed the disambiguation page states only "For the São Francisco Museum of Modern Art...". I don´t think this seems adequate. There are thousands of museums all over the world which are named "Museum of Modern Art", like São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, etc. Dornicke 19:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page 

message: The appellation of the subject museum is "The Museum of Modern Art" (see moma.org, the museum's official site, for that styling plastered all over (that is, when they don't use the "MoMA" common-use style) and i have conformed artcicle to reflect that (capping the The).  However, I'm not skilled enough to emend the article's title to "Museum of Modern Art (The)" to complete my task.  Perhaps a more-skilled wiki editor can do this?   (btw, how does one get this symbol "|" from their keyboard?)--68.173.2.68 (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  correct appellation in article title 

message: This article makes claims of greatness by third people without providing sources. Also, such claims of greatness are not very encyclopedic. --Karljoos (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Is it relevant information for an article? --Karljoos (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Trustees etc 

message: Please note this museum is participating in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art ([Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art/Museum of Modern Art]]). All interested editors are invited to participate in this project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Our meetup at the museum is this Friday, February 27 from 6:00-8:00 pm.  See Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Friday evening at MOMA to sign up.  Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Loves Art 

message: It's terrific that the image of Malevich's "White on White" is being displayed, but it's not being displayed correctly.  The white square is in the upper left corner and is skewed towards the upper left corner.  Or for clarification go see the painting on display at the museum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.93.123 (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems to be upside-down. . Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazimer Malevich's "White on White" 

message: Is a fair use image as is Broadway Boogie Woogie,, unlike the other images used in the gallery which are pd...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plum Blossoms

message: As the new Wikipedia-in-Residence fostering institutional cooperation at the the Museum of Modern Art, I'd love to invite all interested Wikipedians to come participate!  Let me also know if you have any further questions about this project (see also Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA/Members).--Pharos (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking Members for [[Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA|WikiProject MoMA]] 

message: In this version of Glenn D. Lowry, the current version as I write, I converted a couple of external links into references for details that may also need coverage here.  Apparently the museum went to unusual lengths and methods to assemble a financial package that would attract Lowry to the museum back in the 1990s.  A related topic is the significant and disproportionate increase in admission price since the mid-1990s, though I haven't done any internet searches to determine what the history of its admission price has been or to confirm whether the ticket price increases are unusual when compare to other museums.  67.101.5.213 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glenn D. Lowry 

message: Could someone add this if you have the time please?1 Regards, Rehman 04:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rain Room 

message: Having the gallery imagery flush left is visually efficient and easier to read on small screens. My preference is to keep the imagery as is...Modernist (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to specific images? czar ♔ 12:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The gallery imagery is what we are discussing, (the images have been flush left for several years until 2 days ago)...Modernist (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: This may be no different than Toilet paper orientation. Nevertheless I do think there are implications to even this. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Flush left

message: I condensed this section into a single sentence, linking to And babies article. The MoMA is constantly involved in controversies -- the exhibitions, funding, architecture, ticket prices, etc. Devoting a whole paragraph to this particular controversy was disproportionate. Everything in the paragraph is covered in detail in that article. Other controversies are already covered in other sections, so I don't know if we even need a "Controversies" section. -- Margin1522 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: See the Removing imagery images section above - this has been argued ad infinitum...Modernist (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes and deleted images

message: It is pretty common to caption a photo with the title of the work listed first—that is what you are looking at—rather than the name of the artist who produced it. I have changed all the listings to title, artist, year in both the list and the captions.
I still feel all the text needs to come before the gallery rather than breaking the reading flow with images and then returning to more information about the collection.
By using "undo this edit", a few typos crept in; they've been fixed as well.108.98.76.187 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no good reason to place titles before the name of the artist. The most common way to write captions is to begin with the artist's name. This is standard practice at Wikipedia. See Image captions, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts. Coldcreation (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  From your link: "Note: some editors prefer "Title, Artist" to the other way round. This should be consistent within an article." (Emphasis mine.) PICK ONE! The list has the titles first and uses the word "by", which is totally unnecessary, and is in alphabetical order by artist, while the gallery is ordered by date and lists the artist's name first. Additionally, by using "undo this edit", you restored a typo that I'm not bothering to fix again. I still feel the name of the piece should come first, but all the captions should be in the same order as the list.108.98.76.187 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Names are first in that list, which by the way are not image captions. But they are now changed anyway. As for a typo, which word is not spelled correctly? Coldcreation (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason I prefer titles first is that what is being shown is a picture of the artwork, not a picture of the artist. The list is still in alphabetical order by artist rather than date (which you have removed in most instances, leaving a few?). The title for Monet's Water Lilies in the list is incorrect; it is correct under the image. (There is no need for "triptych"). The typo is in the caption for the Man with a Guitar. I'm done.173.120.189.1 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo captioning consistency 

message: An important part of MoMA's collection. It has a fair use rationale and needs to be included in this article, absolutely in compliance with NFCC...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolute nonsense. You do not need an image of the painting to understand that MOMA owns the painting. There is no valid use rationale, just a generic copy of the rationale for use in a different article, which makes not a shred of sense in this context. There is nothing, not one word, in the article whose understanding is enhanced by the image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your opinion, obviously I differ from that opinion; the quality of the image is apparent visually - it's a work of visual art, enough said...Modernist (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not "enough said". That has nothing to do with our policies regarding nonfree content. Louis Armstrong's "Potato Head Blues" is a magnificent piece of music, but samples of it can't be stuck willy-nilly into music articles with no important nexus to it. Not one word of text in the article is enhanced by use of the nonfree image, and you make no argument that a free image of a Picasso owned by MOMA wouldn't suffice. "But it's my favorite Picasso" isn't an argument based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And you don't make any argument that the generic, inaccurate would-be use rationale meets NFC requirements, because it fails on its face. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Looking at the image, this might be a moot point because if the painting was made in 1909, it is out of copyright in America. However, if it has a similar copyright to Demoiselles, it isn't PD in its home country and should not be moved to Commons. In any event, the license should be properly updated. And if the image is not free in the U.S., a better fair use rationale is needed or the item should go to non-free content review. – czar 01:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my first impression, too, but that's not the case. Unlike much of Picasso's early work, this painting was apparently first published after 1923, and therefore isn't automatically public domain. Several diligent editors have worked hard to track down the information needed to show that other early Picasso works are PD; examples include , , and . Other early Picasso works are nonfree (eg, Portrait of Suzanne Bloch.   does a pretty good job of setting out the relevant issues and showing how they should be resolved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

text: The painting was the subject of a dispute between this museum and another museum. I've added commentary on that dispute to our article. It is also an exceptionally iconic work that is associated with the museum that is the subject of our article. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will rewrite the rationale when I have time; I also agree the painting by virtue of its age should be PD...Modernist (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Boy Leading a Horse

message: , we should try to avoid "controversy" sections if possible. Can the section not be merged with the rest of the institution's thematic history? – czar 14:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, done...Modernist (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: The nonfree image is the subject of commentary in the article only insofar as it relates to a dispute over ownership of the painting. As such, it falls squarely under WP:NFC#UUI, which states plainly that this type of nonfree image use is unacceptable: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy Leading a Horse, round 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Museum of Modern Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223092923/http://www.newyorkartworld.com:80/museums/momamuseum.html to http://www.newyorkartworld.com/museums/momamuseum.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Museum of Modern Art. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/11/15/invisible-cathedral?currentPage=all
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://nytimes.com/2006/11/01/arts/design/01tate.html?ei=5088&en=93bb317dd36f453a&ex=1320037200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/architecture/2005/03/street_cred.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/01/american-folk-art-museum-demolition
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://moma.org/press/images/press/homedelivery/HomeDelivery.5OutdoorSelections.FINAL1.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/arts/design/08moma.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=prefab
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/22/arts/todd-webb-94-peripatetic-photographer.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E07E3D9143BE23BBC4152DFB6678382659EDE
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A05E6D8143DE13BBC4051DFB6678388659EDE
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215014215/http://www.samuelanderson.com:80/default.aspx?page=5&type=104&project=383&set=1&focus=0&link=1 to http://www.samuelanderson.com/default.aspx?page=5&type=104&project=383&set=1&focus=0&link=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can somebody please but the current board finance and attendance in a concise way  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida (talk • contribs) 06:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board and management  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Museum of Modern Art. 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/20160213143207/https://www.moma.org/learn/resources/archives/archives_about to http://www.moma.org/learn/resources/archives/archives_about
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012112259/http://www.moma.org/learn/resources/filmpreservation to http://www.moma.org/learn/resources/filmpreservation
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) 01:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Hello, Art and/or language Enthusiasts,
:I was about to move the page (slightly), but since there is a lengthy name discussion, "Non-neutral title", where MoMA is acknowledged as being either "The Museum of Modern Art" or "MoMA"; I'll post here: the page nonetheless remains titled "Museum of Modern Art". As with The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, for instance, I'd think that a "The" belongs in the page title, as MoMA's actual name. Lindenfall (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The" MoMA 

message: Research has been done on MoMA's socio-cultural impact and should be included in the MoMA article. Adding such research is central to understanding the museum, its impact on society and history, including the museum's role as a gate-keeper, and understanding the present context of the museum.
*The information reeks of opinion, and can be refuted in many ways both politically, economically and historically. Being included in the article is a possibility; being in the lede is not appropriate...Modernist (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You have already been warned once, you will be blocked from editing if you continue to edit war your preferred version. Theroadislong (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research on MoMAs cultural impact 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Museum of Modern Art's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "new-york-times-gefter":
From New Documents: 
From Diane Arbus: 
Reference named "guardian-ohagan":
From New Documents: 
From John Szarkowski: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Museum of Modern Art]] 

message: What a gross, US-centric presumption to call one of their museums "the" Museum of Modern Art. The are numerous such museums sounds the world. That a US institution cause itself such and that a would-be encyclopaedia defends the stance says much about the US's opinion of itself.
A more neutral, encyclopaedic title would be "The Museum of Modern Art (New York)" or "The Museum of Modern Art (US of A)" 86.191.214.39 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-centric 

message: Can't find if it's already been discussed in the talk page before, but it seems there are competing claims for the "first" museum devoted to modern art in the United States. The Phillips Collection explicitly calls itself "America's first modern art museum," and the article for the Phillips includes that claim. This article for MoMA claims in the lede that MoMA was the first. The Phillips opened first, but they have some very small holdings of pre-modern art (a few El Grecos, mainly) despite being a modern & contemporary museum. Anyone have any insight as to which claim should be preserved on here? 19h00s (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First modern art museum in the US?