Talk:Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Removal of "Piss Christ" link
editThe article has had a link in the "See also" section added to it, which is to the "Piss Christ" wikipedia page. I would remove this article from the see also section as it is only minorly related to Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus), (to my knowlage) in the fact that it is a piece of art which is to do with Christ. If no information linking this article to the Piss Christ page is added then I will remove the link --Dave (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. They are in the same category anyway. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- As the article already contains a link to Artistic_portrayals_of_Jesus[[1]] then unless a strong link is identified it should be removed. --Dave (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Incorporation of data from other wikipedia article?
editOn the page containing details on the image of Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus) ([[2]]), there is some information about the image which isn't included in the main article. I would suggest that this data is incorporated into the main wikipedia article on Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus), however it would probably have to be rewritten as it contains opinions. --Dave (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dali_Crucifixion_hypercube.jpg){kind=link}
Banchoff link
editPerhaps the opening section, discussing Dali's inspiration for the piece, should mention Dali's friendship with the mathematician Thomas Banchoff? Banchoff's models were Dali's artistic reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.25.136 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- As long as there is a source that we can cite for that, it would certainly be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
How to add a detail which may be just original research?
editThe article mentions the "chess board" floor a few times, but it fails to recognize that it’s a 2d pendant to the 3d main object in the painting: A 3d cube can be unfolded into a 2d cross, just like the 4d tesseract can be unfolded into the pictured 3d "cross", and this is shown in the dark squares on the floor beneath the cross.
So in a way, the "chess board" on the ground seems to have been a side effect of Dali’s wish to illustrate and clarify the unfolding mechanism.
Of course, this is what I see in the painting, so I’m not sure how that can be added into the article, if at all.
The best place would probably be in this sentence, at the end of the section "Tesseract": "The motif of the cube is present elsewhere: Gala is standing on one, and the chessboard is made up of squares."
By the way, does "Gala is standing on one" refer to a different painting? If so, that should be made clearer, and would also deserve a reference with the title of – and if possible a link to – that painting. Geke (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)