Talk:Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum

Potential GAN

I am thinking of sending the museum's article to WP:GAN at some point in the future, since I'm going to try to create a good topic on The 20th-Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright. Though this page is already substantial for the most part, I feel like the page may still be missing a few things about the collection, at least compared with other museum GAs like Frick Collection.

@Ssilvers, as one of this article's top contributors, do you have any thoughts on a potential GAN? Your feedback would be much appreciated. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think your analysis is correct. I do not have time to research the collection more, but if you want to undertake it, I think the history/architecture stuff should pass GAN with little difficulty. If you look at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation article, a few years ago I did some research for that one that may have something more about the collection than is currently in the museum's article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll likely circle back to the collection section in a bit - from the looks of it, the Guggenheim New York shares some of its collection with the Venice and Bilbao museums, so that issue will have to be straightened out. It also seems like there are additional objects that can be mentioned in the collection section, but currently aren't. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

...and also shares/will share with Guggenheim Abu Dhabi? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep. I'm still trying to find a source for that, since I didn't see it in the foundation's page. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I had seen this article, although I can no longer access it. I don't think it says that they will share. They have held two exhibits in Abu Dhabi in advance of the museum's opening. The one in 2009 to 2010, called "The Guggenheim: The Making of a Museum" says: "This exhibition, which includes a selection of more than fifty paintings drawn from the museum’s holdings, simultaneously provides an introduction to the early history of the Guggenheim collection and the history of abstract art in the West from the late nineteenth to mid-twentieth century." (my bolding). But that was very early on, and they may have decided to make the collection unique from the NY collection. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I could find so far, it does seem like Abu Dhabi is getting its own collection. There is no indication that they're sharing, though NY loaned two pieces to Abu Dhabi once (which I'm not even sure is all that notable). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

South Carolina

The first showing outside NY is interesting, and I am adding to the Foundation's article, but I wonder if it really needs to go in this article, which focuses on the NY museum -- I feel like it's too much detail for a reader interested in the history of the NY museum as opposed to the history of the Foundation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe this should be moved to the foundation's article anyway, as it relates more to Guggenheim's private collection than to the museum itself. Epicgenius (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I already added it to the Foundation's article. I'll let you remove it from this article if you feel confident. I do think that it's a bit tangential here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Peggy and the Thannhauser Collection

Hi, @Epicgenius. The article now says: "After Peggy Guggenheim's death in 1979, the Guggenheim New York began exhibiting abstract expressionist cubist and surrealist art from both the Venice and New York museums." This begs the questions as to 1. Why did they wait until her death, specifically? 2. Didn't the NY museum ever exhibit any of these from its own collection prior to this? If not, why not? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Secondly, I'm not sure how long the article is now, but if it is getting long-ish, I think that some of these new details about the Thannhauser Collection may be better off in the Thomas M. Messer article, per WP:SUMMARY. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ssilvers, good question. I haven't definitively confirmed whether the NY museum exhibited such pieces from its own collection before 1979, but I think it did. However, according to the source, pieces from the two museums' collections were displayed together after Peggy's death, which is what I was trying to get at. As for why they waited till her death, the Guggenheim Foundation didn't take over the Venice museum until she died, as far as I can recall.

You're probably right that these details belong in Messer's article. There is a lot of info from that source relating to the NY museum's collection during Messer's tenure. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I just made an adjustment in the NY museum's article to clarify. Take a look and see if you think that does the trick. As for the collection details, can you take a shot at streamlining the details about key works, and move the rest to Messer's article? Also, I am a little bit worried about using that non-independent source too extensively. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll probably take a stab at simplifying the key works in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Add section for "references in popular culture"

I wanted to mention that the Guggenheim was used as the basis for the Counter Strike Online 2 trailer with the line "The location in the trailer for Counter Strike Online 2 took place was heavy based on the Guggenheim Museum in New York." However it seems like Wikipedia just doesn't do references in popular culture / other media anymore. .............. . One can clearly see the architectural similarities in the trailer on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkO4N7P-Ys ............... . And it is directly stated as being in the Guggenheim on the CS website https://csonline2.net/trivia/ https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://csonline2.net/trivia/ Trivia fact #5 states "The location in the official trailer where the battle between GIGN and the Terrorists took place was inside the Guggenheim Museum, New York." Note that the location in the trailer is radically different on the outside and much larger on the inside that the actual Guggenheim.

Does Wikipedia still allow information on the subject of the Wiki article being referenced in other media? Gugen21 (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Generally, no. Wikipedia's guidelines on trivia and popular culture sections says that Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth. So, unfortunately the Guggenheim's appearance in a trailer would usually not be sufficient for inclusion, especially if the trailer depicts only a building inspired by the Guggenheim (and not the building itself). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. See also WP:IPC. If, for example, a mainstream review of a film says: "The Guggenheim Museum plays an important part in the setting of this film, where several scenes take place with the characters discussing the museum's collection", or something like that, then the film might be worth mentioning in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Too many images from the collection displayed?

Under the heading "Selected works in the collection", we display 31 images. That seems like too many, and I suggest that we weed it down to 2 dozen or less. The question is, which ones are the least important/representative ones shown? Or should we just eliminate ones where the artist is represented by two or more images? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

No, there are not too many images displayed. Many "readers" actually just look at images and captions. As an art museum article, visual arts are at its forefront. Retain. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, but I also think it could be good to add images of more recent acquisitions if possible (from a copyright standpoint). This begs the question of whether any of the exisiting photos could be replaced if necessary to make more space. The current photos suggest to the reader that the museum's collecting activities practically stopped after the 1960s, or that the museum's collection is limited to that period. See the 2024 and 2023 acquisitions for example: https://www.guggenheim.org/press-release/guggenheim-new-york-announces-2024-acquisitions https://www.guggenheim.org/press-release/the-guggenheim-museum-announces-2023-acquisitions Hegemoniconline (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Hegemoniconline, can you suggest substitutions that you think would make the Gallery more representative of the collection as a whole? Elsewhere, User:Epicgenius suggested eliminating images where the artist is represented by more than one image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that images of the most representative works should be included. I think 40 images are sufficient to showcase the museum's collection. I'll add three more images to fill that gap. JUANGARCIAMOTTA (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, File:Woman with Yellow Hair.jpg is probably about to be deleted for copyright reasons (painted by Picasso in France, copyrighted there through 2043). However, it's a 1931 painting, so its copyright in the US is presumably only through the end of 2026; after that it could be uploaded with {{PD-USonly}} in the English-language Wikipedia. If someone wants it restored on en-wiki at that date, let me know (ping me here 1 January 2027 or later); I'm an admin on both wikis, so I can access it there (complete with photographer info, needed because the photo shows the frame as well) even after it is deleted. - Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel, that would be great, thanks for the offer.

Bumping thread for 240 days. Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Bumping the thread till the beginning of next year. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)