This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles Museums High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 21, 2011, October 21, 2015, October 21, 2019, and October 21, 2022.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The following quote is in the Design Process section and is attributed to Paul Goldberger: There were only two common models for museum design: Beaux-arts Palace ... and the International Style Pavilion. Unfortunately, I can't find the original source for this, and the reference link is dead.

This is especially strange, since I can find plenty of sources for Goldberger's other quote: socially and culturally acceptable for an architect to design a highly expressive, intensely personal museum. In this sense almost every museum of our time is a child of the Guggenheim. – Epicgenius ( talk) 22:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I seriously doubt that someone made that up out of thin air. I see it here. -- Could it have come from Brittanica ore one of the other sources cited there? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply

While I don't doubt that the quote is genuine, I think it would be much better if we find the original source. Sadly, the first quote wasn't in Britannica or the other sources listed on the linked page. It may have been in either The New Yorker or The New York Times, where Goldberger worked as an art critic, but I could not find the quote in either of these publications. That's why this situation is so strange, since normally, the sources of Goldberger's quotes are very easy to identify. – Epicgenius ( talk) 23:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Well, it's a bold and nifty quote, but the second quote does really cover the situation. What if we add a cite needed tag and, if no one comes forward within, say, a year, axe it? Or, given that the article is quite long, feel free to delete if it doesn't strike you as being so sharp. I can live with either approach. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Your latter suggestion sounds good, so I'll remove the first quote. The article is pretty long already, so we should go with the other quote ("socially and culturally acceptable ... child of the Guggenheim"), which seems more impactful to me, anyway. – Epicgenius ( talk) 01:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I've increased the banner assessments to B-class. If you agree, please increase the Vital Articles assessment likewise. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Remagoxer, courtesy ping in case you didn't see this comment. – Epicgenius ( talk) 17:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

While TBV isn't directly linked to the Vital Articles WikiProject, I've taken a short look over the article and agree that this should be re-assessed as B - therefore, I have done so accordingly. Thanks for your work on this article! Remagoxer ^(talk) 18:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

In the Lead, we mention that the collection is shared with other Guggenheim museums, but I don't see that anywhere in the body of the article. Epicgenius, can you add that? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ssilvers, sure, I have just done that. By the way, I'm not sure if the works in the permanent collection belong to the foundation and are rotated out between NYC/Bilbao/Venice, or if they belong to the NYC museum and are loaned out to the other locations, or if something else is going on. But the Guggenheim's website seems to imply that the private collections described in this article all belong to the NYC museum. – Epicgenius ( talk) 14:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Either way, they are in the permanent collection of the NY museum and "loaned" to the other museums. I think that NY has also exhibited some of the other museums' collections in the past, too, but I'm not sure. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply

User:Epicgenius: In the section called "1970s and 1980s", we say that the annex design was 11 stories. Everywhere else we say ten-stories. Was there a change, or is the 11-story mention just wrong? Also, in the Architecture section under the Annex heading, we say that Gwathmey analyzed Wright's design but built the tower on "the 1968 wing's steel framework". Can we say what major differences/similarities there are between the final annex and Wright's original annex design? Does it have the same dimensions Wright envisioned? Does it still contain the artists' studios, apartments and balconies? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ssilvers, thanks for bringing this up. The annex was originally planned as an 11-story structure, but it was downsized to 10 stories during the planning process due to opposition by residents. I'll add some detail about the annex later, but basically, the 1968 wing was demolished except for the steel framework, and six stories were added on top of the existing frame. The apartments and studios in Wright's design were removed before the museum even opened; the current annex contains galleries and administrative spaces. I don't know if the current annex has the same dimensions as Wright's design. – Epicgenius ( talk) 16:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the change you already made on this. Any further clarification you can make of the major changes to the Annex from Wright to 1968 to present will be much appreciated. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

We say that the museum "can only show about 300 works at a time", but the source is from 1992. Is this still true after the Annex was completed and ban exhibiting works? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply

We also say "620 of the remaining works were designated as part of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Founding Collection". Do we mean that only 620 of the original collection remains, or that there are more that remain, but only 620 were so designated? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ssilvers, sorry, I did not see this before. In regards to the "620 remaining works" sentence, officials designated 620 works as part of the collection. I'm not sure whether 620 of the original collection remain, in which case all of the original collection would've been designated.

In regards to "about 300 works", the source actually says about 6% of the collection (compared to about 3% before the renovation). There were about 5,000 works at the time. – Epicgenius ( talk) 17:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, User:Epicgenius. Please update if you find a newer source stating how many works can now be displayed since the Annex and other additions were added. Also, if you ever see further clarification on the 620, please add it. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply

In the Design section's 2nd paragraph, we have a nice quote by Goldberger about the design. But the 3rd paragraph under "Impact and retrospective commentary" could use something like it. Anyhow, good job on upgrading the article! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I'll work on adding something to the third paragraph of "Impact and retrospective commentary", as that paragraph is mostly a description right now. Also, thanks - hopefully this could be improved further to GA in the future. – Epicgenius ( talk) 17:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC) reply