Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Casa de Vidro

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Casa de Vidro

FOP in Brazil doesn't include private residences or property and the architect of this house, Lina Bo Bardi, died in 1992. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2063.

Adamant1 (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Glass House is a heritage site listed by Condephaat(Conselho de Defesa do Patrimônio Histórico, Arqueológico, Artístico e Turístico do Estado de São Paulo), since 1987. This monument was on the Wiki Loves Monuments Brasil 2023 (code Q28105029). The purpose of these photos was under no circumstances to harm the architect Lina Bo Bardi. The idea for these photos was celebrate this important monument for the city of São Paulo. This house was the first in one of the most essential neighborhoods in São Paulo.

If there is any possibility of keeping these photos on Wikimedia Commons, I think it would be important for the preservation of the history of the Morumbi neighborhood, Casa de Vidro and Lina Bo Bardi. Vinícius Boaventura (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think people from 1063 would be very surprised to see these. :-) But seriously: Vinícius Boaventura, sure there's a way: Get in touch with the heir(s) of Lina Bo Bardi and have them contact COM:VRT if they choose to give permission to publish these photos under a type of Creative Commons license that's usable per COM:Licensing. Also, note that if it takes a while to find out who you need to contact and get permission and these photos are "deleted," that only means they are hidden from view, so any time the heirs would like to email permission would be great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Casa de Vidro is not a private residence, it is a museum. It is the headquarters of the Lino Bo and P. M. Bardi Institute and it's also listed as part of Brazilian artistic and architectonic heritage. It receives regular visitors daily. As stated in their website, "Casa de Vidro is a non-profit civil society organization based in the city of São Paulo", with the aim of "preserving and publicizing the artistic legacy of Lina and P. M. Bardi; ensuring the conservation and organization of its archive – comprising drawings, projects, correspondence, documents and others – and facilitating access to the public". It is a house-museum devoted to the life of one of the most importante architects from Brazil. [1] Dornicke (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand people can book advance reservations to tour the house but its closed to the public other then that and is still considered a private residence. All be it one that technically people can visit if they book a tour ahead of time, but that's not really what the law means by a public place. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't need to book. You can visit the museum on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, twice a day. You need to book the vist if you're a resercher, who wants to have contact with the archives or the collection, or if you want a private guide helping you out. The museum also offers temporary exhibitions, musical events, it has a store, it offers rooms to location for marriage and events. It's definitely not a private house. Nobody lives there. It doesn't belong to a family. It belongs to an art institute. People just go there to work, appreciate the collection, the architecture. It's a house museum. Like hundreds of house-museums all over Europe and United States. Dornicke (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I read and I've looked into it. So do you have a source for any of that? No one needs to live for it to be a private house. All the organization that currently owns it needs to do is have conditions on who can visit the place and when, which even if I go by what your saying sounds like they do. BTW, you know everything you said applies to plenty of private places right? Like private wineries that do wine tours and special events. Movie theatres, same thing. Same with pizza parlors. Or are you going to argue movie theatres or pizza parlors are public places because they do special events and you can watch movies in a theatre at specific times? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the museum website [2]: "The Instituto Bardi / Casa de Vidro is open to the public on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays at two times: 10am, 11:30am, 2pm and 3:30pm". My point is that it is not a house. It's not used as a house. It was a house until the 90s. When the Bardis died, they left the house for their institute and it was transformed into a museum. It's not a recognized as a house under Brazilian law. As it's informed in the previous link, it's a "non-profit civil society organization". This is quite easy to be verified. It's quite a famous Brazilian museum. Casa de Vidro was listed by Financial Times as one of the best house museums of the world, ranked #14 [3]. It's a museum. It's not a house. It's like sending Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum or Frick Collections files to be deleted saying it's a private residence. It makes no sense. Dornicke (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it is a house. I never claimed people still lived in it though did I? The building can be inhabited by a "non-profit civil society organization", but that's not really the point or what makes somewhere a private place. It has nothing to do with if an organization or person is using the building and I never claimed it did. You seem to be ignoring what I'm saying and bringing up a lot of irrelevant side points in the process though. Look, here's the way I see this since you don't seem to be getting the point. The building is being inhabited by an institute that does special events sometimes and lets people tour the building under certain conditions. No one is disputing that. I know I'm not. But what I'm saying is that the inhabitants of a building providing tours of the house at specific dates, times, and under certain conditions, doesn't make it the building a public place. Same goes for the fact that people have their weddings there sometimes. A place needs to have consistent, un-restricted access by members of the public to qualify as a public place and this house clearly doesn't have either one. Even you have said as much. But I'm sick of being talked past. So I'd appreciate it if we ended the discussion here. The closer will read the evidence both sides and close this appropriately. There isn't really anything else to discuss about it at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is wrong. You're saying that this is a "private residence". It is not. It is a museum. Museums are not private residences. Therefore, your justification for deletion is false. This is not a house. This is a museum. People have access to it regularly. They just need to go on visitation days and hours, just like any other museum of the world. That's the point. The fact that it houses exhibitions, musical events, marriages, are just extra information. The main point is that this is a museum. A museum that was pointed out by Financial Times as one of the best house museums of the world [4]. A museum that is listed as a tourist attaction and has dozens of reviews by visitors in TripAdvisor [5]. A museum that is included in the researches by the British Council fellowship [6]. I don't understand why you are sending pictures of a museum to deletion saying it is a house. Even after I proved it is a museum. I really don't. Dornicke (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that this is a "private residence". No, I said that's what a website I read called it. I even said in my original message FOP in Brazil doesn't include "private residences or property." I'm sure you get the difference. Now can we be done with the conversation like I said I wanted to be or do you have anything else you want to twist around about what I said? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't get the difference. This is not a private residence, nor a private farm, nor private plot of land. This is a museum. Unless you're saying that museums are included in the definition of "private property"? Other than that, I don't get the difference. Dornicke (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided absolutely zero evidence that it's a museum, let alone a public place, brought up a bunch of irrelevant strawman like your comment some random Flickr account, and ignored essentially everything I've said in the process. Including the multiple counter examples I've provided of other places that do exactly the same things you claim this place does that aren't public places, things I've cited from reputable websites, my saying what makes somewhere a public place or not Etc. Etc. literally the only argument you've made is repeatedly saying "museum, museum, museum!!" over and over while ignoring everything else. So it's no wonder you don't get the difference. You ignored it the multiple times I explained it to you! Now can we be done already? I told you there's nothing more to discuss here and I don't care how this closed. So get the hint and drop it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the museum website [7], I've posted the museum working hours and information to visitors [8], I've posted the link to Financial Times, where they clearly say this is one of the best house museums in the world [9]. I've posted a link to British Council [10], where they clearly say "Pietro Bardi opened The Glass House up as a museum of sorts in the mid 1990s". I am Brazilian, I live in São Paulo, I've visited this museum dozens of times. I understand you made a mistake, and it's perfectly understandable. But why are you insisting in your mistake? Dornicke (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you refuse to drop this for some reason, where exactly does their website say they are a museum? Because I read through it and I couldn't find them use that word anywhere. At least not on the page that you've linked to. And I don't care what the financial times calls them in some random travel blog post. Just like you don't seem to care that this website (which was Co-funded by the European Union BTW!) calls it a private residence. So where does the page that you provided me a link to say their a museum? And no I don't care that you've visited the place. There should be actual evidence that its a museum outside of your personal experience or a random travel blog. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your source just says it was designed to be a house. All sources will say this building was designed to be a house since it was designed to be a house. But now, it is a museum. It has been a museum for decades, as all the sources I've shown to you state. Just because you are chosing to ignore what all sources say doesn't make you less wrong about this. I understand you are embarassed for being proven wrong, but this is a collective project and requires responsability. You are sending legitimate pictures people took time to contribute, to share, and that serve educational purpose, to deletion just because you can't admit you are wrong. Dornicke (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words they don't say their a museum anywhere on their site. I thought not. But hey, a random travel blog calls them. So they must be right? Your the one who's unwilling to admit your wrong here and that's a perfect example of it. Your the one who linked to their website and acted like it was evidence that their a museum, which the page that linked to doesn't say, and then you ignore me when I asked you where it says what you claimed it did. I've said multiple times now I could care less now how this is closed and that I'll willing to leave it up to the closing administrator. Your the one who won't just drop it and keeps insisting on their position. I'm done here though. You clearly have no evidence from a reliable source that their a museum. Although again, I could really care less. Your the one making an issue out of this when there isn't one. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that COM:FOP Brazil includes "places available to the public", including private property and building interiors. I don't think that temporary requirements to email the museum in order to visit (see "How do visits to Instituto Bardi / Casa de Vidro works?" and "Is it necessary to schedule the visit?" under "VISITS") should be a reason to delete these photos, but if they really are, they should be undeleted immediately whenever people are again allowed to visit without emailing in advance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a news story or something that I can't find the link to right now that said they are currently closed and people need to make reservations to visit the place. I don't know or care which one is correct, but if they are closed and require people to schedule to visits then that does go against them being a public place. At least for the time being, if not permanently, and I'd have zero problem with the images being undeleted if or when they start regular visits again if they are deleted. I could really less either way outside of the ridiculously bad faithed, if not bordering on harassing, way I've been treated about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These restrictions were applied during the covid pandemics. And even if they were currently being applied, that doesn't change the fact that this is a museum, a historical landmark. Several historical landmarks limit visitations due to the need of conservation. That's the case of Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater, in the United States, which is a house-museum projected to be a residence that requires reservations. And it doesn't stop being a house-museum due to that. And no one will require their files to be deleted saying it's a private residence. Dornicke (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they don't even call themselves a museum and your acting the fact that a couple of travel blogs do like its somehow a free pass to say its a public place. Despite the clear evidence that they restrict access to the public. But regardless, just because there's a general exception in the law for "museums" context still matters and it doesn't every single minor place that some random blogger says is or that allows visitd to ths public with a reservation qualifies. There's obviously more to it then just the Financial Times saying they are a museum for them to then be a public place. That's not how this works. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "a couple of travel blogs". There are thousands of links saying it is a museum. I could spend days posting all of them here and you will still pretend they don't exist. Financial Times i not a "travel blog". British Council is not a travel blog. Casa de Vidro calls itself an art institute. Eva Klabin Foundation calls itself a foundation. Fallingwater calls itself a historical house. And they are all museums. You just need to understand the definition of a house-museum and then compare the definition to these institutions. A place which conserves, studies and displays an art collection, receives visitants to see this art collection, produces art catalogues, art exhibitions, art events is a museum. It's quite easy to understand what a museum is. And it doesn't depend if the museum calls itself a museum, an institute, a foundation, etc. Dornicke (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Financial Times i not a "travel blog". British Council is not a travel blog. The link is for a blog post about travel though, which isn't a reliable source on what kind of institution it is regardless of if the Financial Times itself is a travel blog or not. And as to the British Council, maybe I'd care if you hadn't of treated me like the multiple sources I provided saying they were closed outside of reservations or the one saying it's a private residence weren't invalid. You seem to want to have it both ways where your sources are totally legitimate experts on the subjects no matter what they are but mine aren't.

Casa de Vidro calls itself an art institute. Eva Klabin Foundation calls itself a foundation. That's been my whole point. According to Google an art institute "refers to a place, where an artist can give and get a professional training. It can be a school, a university, a guild or a private apprenticeship in a workshop." Now maybe it's just me, but whichever one of those describes Casa de Vidro none of them are a "museum" and at least a few (if not all of them) clearly aren't public places. I'm sure you'll find a reason to dismiss that while continuing to act like a blog post calling them a museum should be treated as gospel though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can rely on the name in your argument. Do you want to argue that the Art Institute of Chicago, one of the most famous art museums in the U.S., is not a museum because of its name? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that in reference to my comment or Dornickes? If it has to do with mine, I never said it has anything to do with their name. But what kind of organization they say they are or at least if they put themselves forward to the public as a museum, which I'm pretty sure the art institute of Chicago does. Their website header literally says "Downtown Chicago's #1 museum." So that's clearly what they think they are. Whereas that doesn't go for Casa de Vidro. I think they only use the term "museum" once on their website in some ad copy about the history of the house. They certainly aren't putting themselves out there as São Paulo's #1 museum or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Casa de Vidro Conservation Management Plan, funded by Getty Foundation, calling it a "house museum" at least 11 times [11]. 2 - Article published by Pin-Up Magazine calling Casa de Vidro "a historic house-museum" [12]. 3 - An article published by ArtReview talking about Casa de Vidro being included in a project about "house-museums". [13]. By the way, it's not an art school, or university, it's a house museum - but art schools and universities are also not residences. So saying that an art institute is a residence or "private property" is still 100% false.Dornicke (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Art institutes" can be on private property. Regardless, and for the 2 second time now, I never it was a residence. The article I've already linked to multiple times did. So I'd appreciate it if you stop treating me like that was or is my position when I was simply telling you what a website called it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You sent these files for deletion saying that Brazilian FOP does not cover private residences or property - which is already wrong, because it does cover private property available to the public. But that's even worse, because this is a house-museum and I have proven it with multiple sources. And, no, I won't stop proving you're wrong. Dornicke (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying it was a private residence. I was simply stating what isn't covered by FOP in Brazil. Like if I say "FOP in Italy doesn't cover paintings or statues" and the image is of a statue then it should be pretty obvious that I'm not claiming it's an image of a painting. And as to the "private property" thing, as I think I've already said I meant "private" as in "not public." This had and still has nothing to do with ownership. I don't care if you prove me wrong about anything but it should at least be based on what my actual stances are and what I'm saying, not just strawmen that I've already told you multiple times aren't my positions. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you please tell me which Brazilian law says that museums are not covered by FOP? Dornicke (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Clearly a museum and therefore FOP applies. —holly {chat} 21:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Casa de Vidro

Files in Category:Casa de Vidro

Navigation menu

Search