Jump to content

Talk:Gilbert & George

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

Yellow Pages

[edit]

Could someone who knows more details enter in informationa bout them being listed in the Yellow Pages?

I saw their exhibition at the Tate Modern yesterday, and the guide says that due to their desire to make accessible art ("Art for All"), they were listed under the heading "Artists". They included their phone number and address on many of their pieces. I don't know how to reference a multimedia guide on wikipedia, though :) Dave420 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian

[edit]

The Guardian website has an article 'Gilbert and George unveil new hoodie art' [1] covering their latest work, a comment on the current UK media demonising of 'youth culture'- interestingly it links back to the wikipedia G&G article- have added the link tot he article, it would be good to incororate some text on their new 'hoody art', I'm too tired at the moment, anyone fancy having a crack at it? quercus robur 22:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fan site

[edit]

G&G are so cool, i love deatho knocko, but can someone actully put up a fan site or something.

Fournier Street

[edit]

Am including a reference to their house on Fournier Street. If anyone objects because thay are still alive and this sort of information is private, feel free to revert. However, it is no secret and appears in many journalists' profiles. Google 'Gilbert and George Fournier Street' for confirmation.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They include their address and phone number on many of their pieces. As I stated above, their desire for accessibility means they never tried to hide where they lived and worked. Dave420 14:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

[edit]

To justify the fact that the article is in the category Category:Gay_artists, and the article "falls within the scope of WP:LGBT" I think that there should be a little more discussion about their sexuality.--Malcohol 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. They are also described as "married" to each other.
George Passmore is known to have a daughter by a previous relationship.
He ought at least therefore to merit being referred to as a Bisexual Artist
Nuttyskin (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames

[edit]

An anon editor has been removing their surnames, stating Gilbert and George don't want to be know or remembered by their surnames. That's fine, if you are an artist and have these whims, I mean Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol a few years ago, but this is wikipedia, which records encyclopaedic facts like surnames of notable people. This is not the artists private website and they don't dictate policy here. Snappy56 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, Gilbert is often referred to as Gilbert "Proersch", "Proesch" or other variations of his real surname "Prousch". Whatever the Guggenheim archive may say, trust me, I´m family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.232.89 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first sentence

[edit]

It is quite ungainly. I really don't have the inclination to rewrite it right now as I have to go to work in a bit to spend 9 hours re-writing other people's sentences, but this is mainly a reminder for when I'm feeling a bit more motivated to sort it out - or a heads-up for anyone else who wants to. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I feel that there are too many external links but some of them might make good references. Lets try to move it in that direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy in many other language Wikipedias/inaccuracy of this article?

[edit]

An IP editor has been changing the spelling of "Proesch" to "Prousch". This is not, as I had assumed, vandalism but seems to be based on the German and Italian Wikipedia's using this incorrect spelling, despite all the RS references to all the articles agreeing that it is "Proesch". I have looked at other languages and most of them are wrong. Only French and Hungarian are correct. Here are all the incorrect articles:

Clearly this is a mistake which seems to have spread from one language to another as the articles are translated, but I am unwilling to edit these pages as I don't speak the languages.

Please can people who do speak the appropriate languages go and fix them. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the page
I think Prousch is the correct spelling. (In the French version of wikipedia, it says Prousch= correct, often misspelled as Proesch).

Gilbert was born in a German-, Italian-speaking part of North Italy. I think the german and italian people know the correct spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.21.47 (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think metroartwork.com is a high quality reliable source as it is a commercial site selling prints. I am not sure it writes its own bios. It certainly can't trump all the newspapers. You might be right that Prousch is a more common spelling (I have no idea about that) but it is not unusual for some people to have unusual spellings. For example, I constantly have to tell people that my name is spelled Rigal not Regal or Rigel. We need information about him as an individual not about the name more generally. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if you look inside the book art

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Over-Works-Cave-Contemporary/dp/0756639727/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1249470619&sr=8-3 you can find gilbert prousch but not gilbert proesch.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.21.47 (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallein School of Art in Austria:

http://www.htbl-hallein.salzburg.at/alt/Bildhauer/schuelerinnen_liste/liste60-69.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.21.47 (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you search at http://www.192.com you can find gilbert prousch in london, but not a gilbert proesch... --85.127.21.47 (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would be surprised if he was in the phone book. Famous people tend not to be. I think that the weight of evidence is still in favour of the current spelling but it is not as clear cut as I had thought. I would be interested to know what other people think and if there are any sources which can trump the newspapers by being more connonical. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
at creditgate.com you can find gilbert prousch, but not gilbert proesch --85.127.21.47 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prousch is definitely the correct spelling, I know him and ALL of his family in S. Martin personally. Here´s another source: http://www.amazon.com/Line-Beauty-Alan-Hollinghurst/dp/1906100055 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladurnm9 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Amazon listing is not RS and personal testimony is unverifiable. I did look up that book in the British Library catalogue. It isn't listed under that ISBN at all but I did find two other imprints of it. Both of these list Hollinghurst as sole author. Verification failed. Article reverted.
If you have any other references please feel free to post them here for discussion but please do not change the article without wider consensus. Bear in mind that references will need to be very strong RS as we have strong RS already for the current spelling. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I can also confirm that Prousch is the correct spelling. I read an article in the ff – Südtiroler Wochenmagazin (a journal from his native province South Tyrol) a couple of months ago, where the journalist talked to some of his relatives, all of them being named Prousch. I can't find the article online, but here you can see that the journal consistently calls him Prousch. And in this online phone book you can see that Prousch is a common name in his hometown, on the other hand there is no Proesch in sight. Apart from that you can also find high-quality sources for Prousch, for example here in the official archive of the documenta or this article in the KUNST Magazin or this Viennese exhibition catalogue (even named after a sentence of Gilbert). --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that getting in an argument with the major English language art galleries, art publishers and the Encyclopaedia Britannica is doing anybody any good. It may well be that his family name originally was spelled differently but that is not the point. In Wikipedia we call things (including people) by their commonly used name and as far as the English speaking world is concerned his name is spelled the way it is on the article. I agree that the other language sites preferring another spelling are puzzling but the case is nowhere near strong enough to justify changing the spelling throughout the article. I might be prepared to accept a single, cautious, mention on the variant spelling, as there are references for it, but that is as far as it goes. Taking a poll of names in a phone book is not just Original Research, it is silly. By that logic my surname would be a spelling mistake too. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gilbert's commonly used name is simply... Gilbert. So "commonly used" can't be a real argument here, what we are trying to find is the name which is printed in his passport and concerning that there is no English reality differing from other languages... I guess you saw that I didn't include my original research in the article, that was just an additional attempt to convince you. I already referenced the documenta Archive, which is an excellent research database. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is that it will take one hell of a lot to convince me that we should diverge from what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says on this. Also, every book on art that I own that has a surname for him has the long-standing one in the article. I am going to revert it back and then add back the variant spelling in what I think is a more appropriate way. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's time to remind you that you don't own this article. I'll see what you do, and if I think that your article version inappropriately hides an excellently sourced information, I will correct it again. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming to own this article. It was just easier to revert and then change that than to unpick your edits piece by piece. I am not trying to hide anything. I have put the variant spelling in the lead, which would be a funny place to hide anything. I do not think it should be mentioned every time we use the surnames and I will very strongly object to any attempt to elevate it to equality with the main spelling. While the sources are good they are clearly neither as good or as numerous as the ones for the main spelling. I think this gets the balance right. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm way too tired now to explain you that the documenta Archive is a better source than the Britannica or The Oxford history of the twentieth century regarding modern artists, let's leave it that way. At least the correct name is mentioned now, thanks for your patience. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallein School of Art in Austria:

http://www.htbl-hallein.salzburg.at/alt/Bildhauer/schuelerinnen_liste/liste60-69.htm

Phone Book

http://www.192.com (gilbert prousch!)

Credit Gate:

creditgate.com you (gilbert prousch!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.189.22.166 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

foyer sail: T-shirts and catalogues

[edit]

Gilbert & George produce t-shirts and catalogues, for all visitors to any exhibition, who wish to buy them. If this is possible in Centro Cultural de Belém (CCB), it can be happening elsewhere. It is my anonymous wish that one catalogue will be accessible, at Centro de Documentação Gonçalo Diniz, management of International Lesbian and Gay Association Portugal (not mine). Deslize (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To ampersand or not to ampersand

[edit]

Artiquities, I take your point about the MOS, but we now again have a mixture of 'Gilbert and George' and 'Gilbert & George' in the text, and that was what I was attempting to resolve. Rothorpe (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rothorpe - Like Marks & Spencer or Marks and Spencer - ampersand is acceptable in context of title or company name, but when referring to them as individuals, e.g. "Gilbert and George both studied at St. Martins . . " then 'and' should be spelled out in full - so there might be a mixture, no? Artiquities (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good rationale, but there is a difference: Marks & Spencer is a company, singular, while Gilbert & George are a duo, always plural, whether we are looking at them as individuals or a unit. Perhaps it's simpler to keep the same form throughout: carefully mixing them could, paradoxically, look sloppy. There is also the option of "Passmore and Prousch", I suppose. Rothorpe (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point - I notice NY Times style concurs. Artiquities (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, nice article, and it uses "Gilbert & George" every time. Rothorpe (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manner of attire in lead

[edit]

Why does the fact that they wear suits belong in the lead? Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because a) there's hardly anything else there - far too little, and b) they are extremely famous for their consistently maintained distinctive clothes, & the earliest phase of their career consisted of not much more than them turning up and standing around in them (aka performance art).
Now questions for you: a) why did you remove the characterization of their art from the lead, saying it didn't belong, and b) have you ever read WP:LEAD? Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the inclusion of such unimportant material in the lead, such as their dress style, is dismissive of them as artists. Their notability is as artists, not as clotheshorses. Additionally, although not to such a great degree, I find the characterization of their art ("brightly coloured graphic-style photo-based") to be glib or facile and somewhat dismissive of their visual art. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well improve it then, don't just remove all reference to what their work looks like. It doesn't seem too bad for a quick summary of their work in recent years to me. If they felt discussion of their clothes was "dismissive of them as artists" they would have switched to jeans years ago. Did you get as far as "They rarely appear in public without wearing them. It is also unusual for one of the pair to be seen without the other. The pair regard themselves as "living sculptures". They refuse to disassociate their art from their everyday lives, insisting that everything they do is art"? Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...everything they do is art", found in this paragraph, does not contain a source. Even if that is sourced to Gilbert & George, do they single out their style of dress as important them as artists? You are saying that they "refuse to disassociate their art from their everyday lives". Even if this is reliably sourced, I see no reason to highlight their dress style from all other aspects of their "everyday lives". If sources other than Gilbert & George comment on their style of dress, I think this could justify inclusion of their dress style, but probably only in the body of the article, unless those sources attribute considerable importance to their dress style. As concerns the wording "brightly coloured graphic-style photo-based" I would be interested to know where that description comes from. Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found it here: "brightly coloured graphic-style photo-based". I still think the description is "dismissive" and would better be left out of our article. Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree. Let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First exhibition in Australia

[edit]

I don't know whether it is a big enough event, but the first ever Gilbert & George Australian exhibition opened at MONA in Tasmania on Saturday 28 November 2015. The two men were at MONA for the opening. The exhibition will end 28 March 2016. 118.208.212.199 (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a major retrospective exhibition and I'd certainly say that any exhibition that they were willing to travel half way round the world to see opened is major enough to include. Trouble is that we don't have a key exhibitions list to include it in so I am not sure where it should go within the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The truelife spelling of the lastname of Gilbert is: "Proesch" not Prousch

[edit]

'Prousch' looks like an lazy pseudo Frenchification of an Elsass-Lothringen German lastname. The true spelling (like in the telephonebooks that bit of Italy is: Proesch or Prüsch.

No. Since you brought up telephone books, I just checked the entries for his hometown San Martin de Tor: no Proesch, no Prüsch (by the way, both last names are nonexistent in South Tyrol, have a look yourself), only Prousch. Here is a website of San Martin de Tor's tourist board showing Prousch's birthplace. It's unimaginable that they are unaware of his "true" family name. We are talking about a municipality with less than 2,000 inhabitants, with family members still living there... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gilbert & George. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morecambe and Wise

[edit]

Their physical resemblance to Morecambe and Wise (accidental or deliberate?) needs to be discussed. FangoFuficius (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Stewart: Sweet Dreams influenced By Gilbert & George

[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOchdtnRSVg 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:F00A:5217:9A27:B993 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilbert_%26_George&oldid=1207423556"