<article_title>Auguste_Rodin</article_title>
<edit_user>Outriggr</edit_user>
<edit_time>Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:27:13 PM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>bad sentence removal and weak intro cleanup. Now that no one's redefining anything, we can write a lead.</edit_comment>
<edit_text>In late nineteenth-century Paris, Rodin played a pivotal role in redefining sculpture. The predominant figure sculpture tradition of <strong><strike>the</strike></strong><strong>Rodin's</strong> time required an almost formulaic approach, and most sculpture was either decorative or highly thematic. Rodin's most original work departed from traditional themes of mythology and allegory, modelled the human body with high realism, and celebrated individual character and physicality. Although Rodin is considered the progenitor of modern sculpture,&lt;ref&gt;Tucker, p. 16.&lt;/ref&gt; he did not set out to rebel against tradition. He was schooled traditionally in Paris's École des Beaux-Arts system, and desired academic recognition.&lt;ref&gt;Hale, p. 76.&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Outriggr<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, April 20, 2007 11:11:14 PM CEST</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Various problems</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>1. Please include examples of where Rodin was a "painter and print maker " ? (all I've ever seen are watercolors -- which would better be called "drawings") 2. "Rodin played a pivotal role in redefining sculpture. The predominant figure sculpture tradition of the time required an almost formulaic approach, and most sculpture was either decorative or highly thematic.Rodin modelled the human body with high realism, and celebrated individual character and physicality" If examples of "high realism, and celebrating individual character and physicality" can be found before Rodin (and they can) -- the above claim is disproven. Also -- if there's not much sculpture immedately after Rodin that has these qualities -- it would be very difficult to say that sculpture had been "re-defined" (I realize that the footnotes provide a source for this claim -- but that doesn't make it true) 3. "Rodin was a naturalist, less concerned with monumental expression than with character and emotion" Again -- a footnote does not prove a claim -- it only shows its origin -- and Rodin's "concerns" are a matter of un-verifiable opinion. If this phrase (which I would dispute) is going to be included -- it should be prefaced by "According to some critics etc etc.."Mountshang 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 1. A recent editor splashed a number of references to printmaking. Out of balance I'd say. Watercolor isn't painting? In addition to the sketchy, minimalist watercolors, I'm quite sure Rodin did more substantial painting&amp;as the article says, during his 30s. 2. The WP:LEAD is not satisfactory and in my limited efforts to create one, I've not come up with much. WP:SOFIXIT does apply. The lead should summarize the content of the article. 3. Fine, but if it said "according to some critics", someone would claim that that was a WP:WEASEL phrase. With only one citation, the plural "critics" would not technically be truthful. We are left with trying to convey a general impression, and we cite one critic because it's better than nothing. In comparison to the sculpture around him, and immediately before him, #3 is undoubtedly true. We are not in the business of "proving claims". (What is truth in art?) We are in the business of WP:ATTributing reliable sources. –#112299Outriggr&amp;§ 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC) OK - I understand the principle of "no original research" -- but at the very least, the composers of an entry must choose among a variety of published authorities -- and as they do so -- shouldn't that choice be informed by their own experience with the items being discussed -- in this case --- with the other sculpture made before - during - and after the career of Rodin -- before presenting statements about his place in art history ? The problem with having that experience, today, is that so many of the prominent sculptors of the late 19th - early 20th century are ignored in contemporary surveys of the period -- so that when you write that "In comparison to the sculpture around him, and immediately before him, #3 (Rodin less concerned with monumental expression than with character and emotion) is undoubtedly true." --- I have to wonder how much of those things you have actually seen ? How many names do you know ? Even the entry as it stands, contains contradictions --- for one the one hand he had a "pivotal role in redefining sculpture" but on the other "Rodin did not spawn a significant, lasting school of followers" (as Maillol did). Please be patient. Over the course of the upcoming months, I'll keep an eye out for various quotations that might be relevant to this entry. Here's some surveys of sculpture from that period that might interest you: http://mountshang.blogspot.com/2006/09/modern-tendencies-in-sculpture.htmlhttp://mountshang.blogspot.com/2006/10/modern-french-sculpture-part-2.htmlhttp://mountshang.blogspot.com/2006/12/taft-on-modern-german-sculpture.html Mountshang 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text> 1. A recent editor splashed a number of references to printmaking. Out of balance I'd say. Watercolor isn't painting? In addition to the sketchy, minimalist watercolors, I'm quite sure Rodin did more substantial painting&amp;as the article says, during his 30s. 2. The WP:LEAD is not satisfactory and in my limited efforts to create one, I've not come up with much. WP:SOFIXIT does apply. The lead should summarize the content of the article. 3. Fine, but if it said "according to some critics", someone would claim that that was a WP:WEASEL phrase. With only one citation, the plural "critics" would not technically be truthful. We are left with trying to convey a general impression, and we cite one critic because it's better than nothing. In comparison to the sculpture around him, and immediately before him, #3 is undoubtedly true. We are not in the business of "proving claims". (What is truth in art?) We are in the business of WP:ATTributing reliable sources. –</turn_text>