Talk:Robert Rauschenberg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I can't read anything in the first line before "... and printmaker". Why's that? --KF 23:05, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Dunno. Something happened between the first and second edits: either the submitter submitted corrupted text, or the database entry became corrupt. -- Someone else 23:09, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
really ok then
where is his art work?
more importantly where are the sources?
[edit] Art Pieces
- Although it's always hard to pinpoint what works "define" an artist, I think that there are some better choices than the ones we have on the page right now. Copyrights are always tricky, so perhaps there's a reason why these are featured, but I think that one of his silkscreen works (Retroactive I comes to mind, or one of the "Ruminations" series) or his "cluttered" assemblages (such as Canyon or the one with the goat in the tire) would be more indicative of the impact he had on popular art. These were the types of pieces that really set him apart and gained him recognition. Any thoughts? Davemcarlson 08:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "As of 2003"
- I notice that it says (paraphrased) as of 2003, Rauschenberg continues to create art. Does anyone have information that would enable us to update this to 2004, '05, or '06? Davemcarlson 08:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC) °==Personal== I think the information about Rauschenberg and Johns should remain private and professional here. There is no discussion about Rauschenberg's marriage to the artist Susan Weil or their son Christopher. Who sleeps with who isn't relative to an article about his work and likewise John's work. Modernist 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Basic information on marital status is usually considered standard material for biographies. If the spouse is notable in her own right then it is certainly worth noting. I can't imagine removing from his bio all information about the people with whom Pablo Picasso slept. So long was we use reliable sources and aren't engaging in gossip then the information is valid. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that if we included all the people with whom Pablo Picasso slept the article would increase in size to ten times what we have now. :) Modernist 03:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose you're right, though we do include the top dozen or so. Regarding Rauschenburg, there are several online biographies and I did a quick review. Most mention his marriage to Weill and his friendship with Johns. One asserts a relationship with Johns, but it isn't the most reliable of sources. None mention his son's name. I'd suggest we mention his marriage to Weill and their son. Let's wait for highly reliable sources before we discuss the relationship with Johns in more detail. Unlike their friends Merce Cunningham and John Cage, Johns and Rauschenburg do not appear to have had an openly-acknowledged relationship. Scholarship, discretion, and Wikipedia may have to wait on the passing of the involved parties for the full history to be written. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that if we included all the people with whom Pablo Picasso slept the article would increase in size to ten times what we have now. :) Modernist 03:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Rauschenberg's relationship with Johns is pretty well documented, and suggesting it isn't as important as his marriage is a discriminatory double standard. Either both stay out, or both are included. In addition to that, if only the artist's work is to be written about, why mention his race? Surely, we can admire a Basquiat without knowing he was black and puerto rican, so why mention it? This is simply the art world acting homophobically, but not having courage enough to admit it. The reason Johns and Rauschenberg were not more open is because they knew they lived in a world that doesn't tolerate such openness, and that they might be ostracized from the world of fine art, which at the time was a bit of a "good ol' boys" club. This is also reportedly one of the reasons they refused to cohort with the up and coming Warhol, whose homosexuality is another "well-known secret." In addition, I find the analogy to Picasso offensive in that it suggests FROM is inherently lurid and perverse, and that the only reason to mention it is to wallow in gossip. It's one thing to delve into the myriad sexual escapades of Picasso, but to inform the reader about his heterosexuality and how it relates to his work is hardly tabloid. Johns and Rauschenberg were boyfriends, not some cheap one night stand. How could any biography whose authorship is the least bit concerned with truth persistently overlook this? The mention of race, gender, hometown, politics, etc. are all valid entries, but not homosexuality? who are you kidding but yourselves?72.78.11.48 (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. gar in Oakland (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it shopuld be included because I do not believe that Johns is openly gay and there for it could count as libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.138.230 (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Although, I realize it isn't important to most, I am curious, how he is identified as Cherokee. His grandfather, Robert was married to Tina (Tiny), who is identified as being a full blood Cherokee. From a genealogical point, Tina is Cherokee, it seems. But, she isn't identified as such anywhere in census records. Genealogy as a study, is of interest, more so since his unfortunate death. (user: gwytutsi; 14 may 2008)
