Talk:Alexander Archipenko

Birth date - which calendar?

"May 30, 1887" - is this a Julian or a Gregorian calendar date? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Archipenko.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Archipenko.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Archipenko.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

KKHU - no article?

"From 1902 to 1905 he attended the Kyiv Art School (KKHU)". Is/was this The National Academy of Fine Arts and Architecture [1]? Did that exist in 1902? A Google search for KKHU leads here: [2] which is presumably the "Kiev Clerical College"? Or was it something else entirely? ru.wiki seems not to have anything to offer [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

1,000 words

Yes, an image, even of a sculpture, can be worth 1,000 words. But if we applied that dictum rigorously we could dispense with all of the text and just have a gallery of images. It's very good to now have such a strong image in the info box. But I am concerned that the first image in the text is too close to it, squeezing the text, especially at higher zoom levels. It's also novel to have a left-justified image at the top of the first section like that. So I think both images in the text should be moved down somehow. The material in the captions might also be better integrated with the text body. But what do other editors think? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Statuette, 1916 and gravesite image

The picture of Statuette, 1916, from the 1920 book Der Kubismus; ein künstlerisches Formproblem unserer Zeit by Paul Küppers, is included in the "Public collections" section, but there is no information about it, or its location, in the text. Is it, in fact, still in a public collection and if so where? Küppers was the first director of kestnergesellschaft in Hanover - is this where it first exhibited? Perhaps it is still there now?

Also should the image of Alexander and Angelica's grave really be in the Gallery? Such images are usually integrated into the text, perhaps near details of death and burial. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article layout

While I'm sure "La Vie Familiale (Family Life)" (1912) is a very significant work, I think its current location makes the article look crowded and unbalanced. Yes, I realise that in an article about an artist, his works are of prime importance. But is there really no other way of laying out this article than the current one? Images may well speak "louder than 1000 words", but some people really do need the words. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think MOS:SANDWICH applies here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC))

American?

Wasn't he American after 1929? So doesn't his article belong in the USA Project? Is there ongoing discussion somewhere? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not fair to say that Archipenko was "Ukrainian born American avant-garde artist, sculptor, and graphic artist". Doesn't matter where he lived and what passport he had. First of all, he was UKRAINIAN! 73.178.187.55 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)