Talk:American Gothic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Beaverboard"?[edit]

What the heck is "beaverboard"? --SeizureDog 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a type of particle board. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, there is a wiki about it. Guinness323 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

I think some explanation of why it's called "American Gothic" is due. Perhaps people did not like the wording of my explanation. Okay, that is one thing. But the ideas should remain, I feel.

The text I wrote, which was removed, said: "Why is it called "Gothic?" Look at the windows in the background; They have the distinct look of gothic architecture. There are also hints in the clothing and perhaps facial expressions as well."

Isn't this something called "Carpenter Gothic?"

LionKimbro

The house is most definitely carpenter gothic and I think the title is explained sufficiently by the statement "house of Carpenter Gothic style". I also think the old line felt out of place with its abrupt change in tone to a question-answer dialogue. The focus on the windows overlooks the other equally important gothic features like board and bat siding, and I think seeing a gothic theme in the clothes and expressions is an opinion that may not be widely held.   —TeknicT-M-C July 7, 2005 00:34 (UTC)

ok

LionKimbro

"2nd most recognizable"?[edit]

This line just doesn't sit well: "The house, in Eldon, Iowa, is said to be the second most recognizable house in the United States, following the White House." It's not found in any of the external link sources, and I just don't see that being true. While I agree the farmers are very recognizable, I would suggest houses like Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater are far better known. Bobak 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of this article[edit]

Here's a proposal to expand this article on this important cultural icon. It's modeled on the "Mona Lisa" Wikipedia article. 

1 History of the painting
1.1 The painting of "American Gothic"
1.2 The Art Institute of Chicago contest
2 Aesthetics
2.1 The painting's style
2.2 Wood's compositional objective
2.3 Interpretations of "American Gothic"
3 Role in popular culture
3.1 Evolving popular reaction and understanding of "American Gothic"
3.2 Parodies
4 References
5 External links

What do you think?

--Dkwong323 04:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds fine, as long as people have significant valid content to contribute under each of the section headings (which is the real question). AnonMoos 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conan[edit]

Why is Conan's parody any more notable than a zillion other parodies? AnonMoos 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why it's more notable than being on the cover of Mad Magazine, in a Gary Larson cartoon, nor others of the huge number of cultural references to this famous work. I'm therefore moving the Conan O'Brian reference here to the talk page pending any explanation and consensus agrement of why this is of particular historic importance. -- Infrogmation 04:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: because it's been parodied a lot is sufficient rationale for excluding parodies? And last I knew, neither "notability" nor "historical importance" are found on WP:V in any shape or form.
Personally, I could go for a list of parodies with images.
And by all means you two are more than welcome to add any and all parodies (that are notably and of appropriate historical importance if you so choose). But considering AnonMoos has never touched this article and Information has only done minor wikification over 17 months ago....I won't hold my breath.
So really all you two are doing here is stunting an articles growth. Am I the only one whom finds it pathetic that "one of the (most) parodied images ever" has no list of parodies; no samples of parodies; and no descriptions and contexts of other parodies? You know, perhaps the existance of this conversation and, twice now, removal of the Conan section is all the explanation that is necessary to answer that. Cburnett 05:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm on the quasi tirade soap box here, I might as well throw this one out too. If this article had a list of parodies then us non-American-Gothic experts would know what is "notable" and of "historical importance." But since there's nothing here then I implore ye American Gothic experts to educate the masses as to exactly what are notable and historically important parodies! Until you do (I'm looking at you Infromation since you apparently know of enough references to make said judgment of its notability and historical import) you are only stunting the article's growth. Occasionally I could agree that something is worse than nothing, but I definitely don't see this as one of those cases. I anticipate your responses and discussion eagerly. Really. Cburnett 06:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ask "So let me get this straight: because it's been parodied a lot is sufficient rationale for excluding parodies?" I propose nothing of the kind, and if anyone else makes that argument, I don't see it. Quite the contrary, the fact that it's been parodied was even mentioned in the article before the addition of the Conan reference. To me, the question is: Why should the Conan reference be presented as more important than all the other references of the last 70 years put together?
I like Conan's show, but I don't catch every episode. I admit ignorance about this one. From the below, it seems like "American Gothic" was only refered to on a single episode. If this was just a passing stock pop-culture reference, I doesn't seem particularly notable to me. But if there was something important about this reference or if has become one of Conan's most famous bits, go ahead and explain.
I don't have a list of pop culture references, but off the top of my head I recall postcards with Ron & Nancy Reagan, Bill & Hillary Clinton, and a pair of dogs posed as the couple. Paris Hilton posed that way in "The Simple Life", and the sitcom "Green Acres" had a bit with the lead actors posed as the couple in the opening credits of every episode. It's appeared in classic Warner Brothers cartoons, though I dont' recall a title off hand (likely more than one), as well as Rocky & Bullwinkle... At the grocery store you can see Paul Newman posed that way on labels of his food product line... I'm sure some folks could make a much longer list. I havn't read Steven Biel's book on the painting; perhaps some are mentioned there? As I see it, the point isn't so much the individual references as the fact that it's a very famous image that is refered to frequently. If the Conon show reference somehow stands out so much from other references that it deserves its own header and paragraph, please explain why. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for completely ignoring and missing my point on the grounds of a technicality that you didn't propose it. Indeed you did not propose it in words, but by action. By removing the only example you have proposed such an example.
Look, I don't much care to argue about the argument so I'll put it much more succinctly for you. As one of the most parodied images, I see it perfectly fit for examples. You haven't added any. Youh haven't proposed any. You haven't done anything except to delete.
Is the conan example "notable" and "historically important"? I don't see that it matters. It's verifiable and it's an example of a parody. If you can put anything up that satisfies your criteria, then so be it. BUT YOU HAVEN'T I'm putting the image back because you haven't added any examples in almost 2 weeks, which says to me that you're here to hinder not help. Cburnett 03:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a classic Time Magazine cover a few years back (with a caption something like "Now everybody's hip, and that ain't cool", I'm sure you could find it with an online search) which was funnier than the Conan thing, and I bet it was seen by a lot more people, too... AnonMoos 18:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, get it and put it up. Like I said above, I'm restoring the image until one of you steps up to the plate and adds examples. Cburnett 03:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consolodated your information into the image caption. You still havn't given any reason why the mention on "Conan" deserves a special seperate section apart from other pop culture references. Examples? You can find over half a dozen references to specific tv shows, magazines, etc on this talk page that you are free to add to the article and wikilink. You can find more by looking at the external llinks in the article or a quick images.google search. -- Infrogmation 14:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are a month later and you haven't bothered to add a single example of more "notable" examples. You're all talk and delete, and no action! Cburnett 18:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you think more reference should be added, you have a pile of 'em on the talk page. Either get to work on wikilinking and researching them yourself if you think it's important, or stop the griping and snarky comments that no one else is doing it for you. -- Infrogmation, who you did not catch in the best mood.
Two spotted today to add to the list should someone think a list of pop culture references be warrented: video cover of the Whoopie Goldberg film "Good Fences"; cover of the book "The Art of the Laugh". -- Infrogmation 02:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter[edit]

The article mentions that the woman symbolizes a "housewife" but doesn't mention that she is the daughter. Every reference I find says that the woman is posing as his unmarried daughter. See http://www.artic.edu/artaccess/AA_Modern/pages/MOD_5.shtml or http://www.arts.ufl.edu/art/rt_room/wood/gothic.html Larsroe 16:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This blog posted a letter by Wood saying it was a daughter: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/they-are-basically-solid-and-good.html . Is that good enough to change the article? Cancilla (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context of that letter is pressure from his sister about being portrayed as the wife of such an elderly gentleman, which caused her public embarassment. This caused Wood to later state that she was his spinster daughter, but this is incorrect - the painting was absolutely intended as a farmer and wife grouping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.156.195 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reference speaks for itself. Your opinion is not required. Find a source for what you are asserting or find something better to do...Modernist (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a reminder to assume good faith and not bite newcomers is in order here. 90.244.156.195, your opinion is most certainly welcome and you need not "find something better to do". Suggesting otherwise is rude and very close to a personal attack. Feel free to ask more questions and/or bring other issues you see with the article here anytime. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me???? The above IP has been reverting this article without comment since November - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], you might read this WP:DTR by the way...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And then read this: [6]...Modernist (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously your ego was bruised by being templated for something so basic from the Five Pillars. After all, no matter how long we've been here, reminders in the form of templates do offer a reality check. None of us are above needing that from time to time. When looking at the above IP address's contributions, I only saw a short list from today. Looking at the edit links above, I see nothing so menacing or disruptive to justify your rude comments above. Don't want to be templated? Don't violate WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Regardless of the number of times the IP has edited this article, he still qualifies as a newbie. You, as a long-term editor, should know better (as I already stated). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: WP:DTR is an essay, not policy. Hint: it's not policy for a good reason (explained to you above). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me??? You must be kidding...All the IPs tagged above are from Manchester and they are - in all probability the same person...Modernist (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the reference?...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reference has nothing to do with you not following WP:AGF and WP:BITE by essentially telling a newbie to get lost. Nothing at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wood apparently has been caught saying first that it was a husband/wife, and afterwards that it was a father/daughter. I don't want to make such a change to this article as I'm sure it would be reverted, but if somebody who has been around longer would like to look into it, as the painter was once quoted as saying "I finally induced my own maiden sister to pose and had her comb her hair straight down her ears, with a severely plain part in the middle. The next job was to find a man to represent the husband." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.10.164.86 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic signifcance[edit]

Hi, I just sailed on in, and I usally don't get involved with art-related WP articles, as that's not really my area of interest. However, I noticed that for this rather famous work, there seems to be very little on the artistic significance, and why it's so famous. Is there a reason for this? Was such commentary removed before? I'd be glad to research it myself, but I get the feeling that if it hasn't been elaborated now, there's something I know before such an undertaking. MrVoluntarist 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to know more myself. The painting is obviously striking because of the direct gaze of the characters, the severity of their expression, their elongated faces, and the hint of aggression (and satan) implicit in that wickedly-pointy pitchfork. But all that's just my personal opinion and I think this article deserves some authoritative content from someone who knows what they're talking about. Csrster 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The woman is the farmer's unmarried daughter. The loose lock of hair and the brooche represent aspects of her doomed life, as does her glance, dress, lack of bosom and the drawn shades on the house. Her father warns people to stay away with the pitchfork. This is how Wood meant the painting to be understood and and why he gave it it's title. Unfortunately, people misinterpreted the painting from the beginning and Wood (being intelligent) decided not to interfere in the matter. Bill. June 18, 2007.

Parodies[edit]

I took out all of the parodies except for one representative sample. My reasoning is that the section is a summary of a main article, and so any descriptions of parodies should be in the main article (American Gothic in popular culture). Feel free to revert if anyone objects. Orpheus (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General vs US significance[edit]

The article says that the painting has "achieved an iconic status in mainstream culture as one of the modern world's most recognizable images". In the US, this may be true, and the article does offer evidence, but the painting is not particularly famous outside the US. The implication that it is of comparable general fame to the Mona Lisa or the Scream is ridiculous. I suggest that any references to mainstream culture, etc, be made specific to the US. DeanKeaton (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that it was parodied in Doctor Who, a BRITISH show, tells you that it isn't just known in the U.S. It is among the most parodied pieces of art worldwide. NileQT87 (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the best known example of American fine art among the British general public, up there with the Warhol tinned soup and Monroe stuff, but I agree with DeanKenton that it's nowhere near as well known as the Mona Lisa or other famous Old Master paintings. --Ef80 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Anglo" comment[edit]

I deleted the comment, "It is one of the most familiar images in 20th century American art and one of the most parodied artworks within Anglophone popular culture. However, the painting and its connotations are little-known outside the Anglosphere." This material is redundant with material that follows. Moreover, the use of "Anglophone" and "Anglosphere" are unhelpful from a cultural standpoint as this work flowed out of the context and values of Midwestern America rather than England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackerman (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarized[edit]

If anyone follows the link in note three they will discover that this wikipedia page is, in many places, copied word for word from that article. I'm not sure what we're supposed to do when we find this degree of plagiarism as it's pretty bad. 99.58.200.186 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The Wikipedia article is clearly lifted from the article in Slate. It's plagiarized and needs to be rewritten.74.196.205.92 (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How old is the County Corn Flakes commercial?[edit]

Does anybody know when the Country Corn Flakes commercial was filmed? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Parody; Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend[edit]

Also parodied for Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend, both on the cover (see here) and animated before/during the menu (see here). --82.170.113.123 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grant Wood - American Gothic - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Grant Wood - American Gothic - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 7, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-09-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Gothic
American Gothic is a painting by Grant Wood in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago. Inspired by what is now known as the American Gothic House, Wood decided to paint the house along with "the kind of people [he] fancied should live in that house." The work, using Wood's sister and his dentist as models, has since become one of the most familiar images in 20th-century American art.Painting: Grant Wood
Archive – More featured pictures...

Parody - Doctor Who[edit]

Doctor Who 3-03-Gridlock (2007), near 00m16s At the very start of the episode, Ma and Pa are seated in one of the camper-vans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.63.148 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Protestant Work Ethic?[edit]

There's nothing in the article that really indicates a relation to the protestant work ethic, and the talk page for it seems equally confused as to why the painting is included. Perhaps the article could make the connection more explicit? Or, of course, remove the reference to PWE if none is forthcoming. Systemchalk (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The woman looks like Jennifer Aniston[edit]

the actress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.207.162 (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Gothic. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Gothic. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Gothic. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Talyor?[edit]

The paragraph that deals with Sue Taylor's opinion i feel should be removed. I cannot find much about the person who made the claim besides that she is a professor at Portland State University. Does every college professor's opinion merit inclusion into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BE60:2B60:0:0:0:3E (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:BE60:2B60:0:0:0:3E: hi, wrt to your above query, please note that the Lady in question was just recently awarded the 2021 Benjamin F. Shambaugh Award by Iowa State University 1, who himself was a historian, political scientist, educator, and first Superintendent of the State Historical Society of Iowa. This alone should give weightage to Sue Taylors writings. Besides I recommend you take this discussion about notability of Sue Taylor to the Dispute Resolution Page, maybe the Editors there will help you decide.

Thank you. -- STC1 talk 00:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:BE60:2B60:0:0:0:3E: in addition, Sue Taylor did her BA in Art history from Roosevelt University and her MA and PhD from the University of Chicago.
She was A curator of prints and drawings at the Milwaukee Art Museum,
An adjunct professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and Northwestern University.
A corresponding editor from Portland for Art in America
& professor emerita of Art history at Portland State University (also Associate Dean) : Source

If this is not notable enough- I don't know what is. STC1 talk 00:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:BE60:2B60:0:0:0:3E: for the Sake of all that is good in this world Man, Sue Taylor was nominated for an Iowa State award for her book on Grant Wood. The same Grant Wood who drew this painting, man!
* How are you calling her non notable? She literally researched and wrote a book about the painter of this painting and Iowa State recognised her efforts.
* She has written articles about him - ( art-in-america )
* In 2005, Dr. Taylor's psychological essay "Grant Wood's Family Album" won the Smithsonian’s Patricia and Philip Frost Prize. Source 1 , Source 2
* She has done multiple campus lectures on Grant Wood too.((art-history-lecture-dr-sue-taylor))
* Good Lord man, a simple Google search would have cleared up your confusion mate. nomination, award , ((Davenport Figge art museum)), ((Visual art | Editorial - Sue Taylor)) STC1 talk 05:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)\[reply]

why isnt she listed in the psu notable staff then here on Wikipedia? If she met guidelines for notability then she would be notable

I had to dig to find an association with art with her in a google search. a simple search of "art sue taylor" doesnt yield anything about her and re: books she has written, I have written a couple books too. Its easy to publish a book of your opinions these days

@2600:1700:BE60:2B60:0:0:0:3E: Hello once again. Just because YOU couldn't find someone on google doesn't make them non-notable. In contrast, I found plenty of articles about her which I shared above.
Just because a person doesn't feature on Wikipedia - doesn't make them irrelevant. Wikipedia is not OFFICIAL source of information. It is user generated.
Congrats on publishing books, When you get awards from the Smithsonian and from Iowa state history society, or maybe when you get selected Associate Dean of a University, then maybe you too will be considered NOTABLE in your field, Till then do your best and keep publishing noteworthy books. Take care and have fun editing.

Oh and by btw - this one is a link to Portland University website, I shared this in the First reply to you. Kindly check all my links. (pdx.edu)
-- STC1 talk 18:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Gothic&oldid=1216894440"