Disambiguation between statue and sculptural group

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

Hi,

I am working on mapping artworks in Malaga, Spain. I have found some difficulty in choosing the value for the artwork_type key. The reason is that, although the wiki defines the use of artwork_type=statue both for the statue of a single person/animal and for a group of people/animals, IMHO a sculptural group is not a statue.

Below I share some examples illustrating the difference between a statue and a sculptural group:

Example 1. Olletas’s Chanticleer, example of a statue in Malaga, Spain. Source: own work (CC BY-SA 4.0) available on Wikimedia Commons.

Example 2. A family, example of a sculptural group in Malaga, Spain. Source: own work (CC BY-SA 4.0) available on Wikimedia Commons.

Example 3. The Galvez, example of a sculptural group in Malaga, Spain. Source: own work (CC BY-SA 4.0) available on Wikimedia Commons.

There are some cases in which a sculptural group can be considered a statue. For example, a statue of a saint or a virgin accompanied by cherubs or animals that function as scenic decorative elements or not particularly significant. In such cases, the object may be considered a statue of the virgin or saint. However, this thread I am referring to more obvious cases of sculptural groups, where there is more than one person/animal represented and significant.

If I follow the wiki recommendations, I should use statue for a sculptural group, but that is clearly deficient: these sculptural groups are not a statue. It would be more accurate to use sculpture, since these sculptural groups are indeed a sculpture, although in this case the value is not specific enough.

I could simply use sculptural_group, although I would be introducing a value for a type of artworks that in OSM are tagged with the value statue. As you can see, the problem cannot be solved without modifying the documentation for artwork_type=statue.

So I propose to update the documentation to differentiate between artwork_type=statue (sculpture of one person/animal) and artwork_type=sculptural_group (sculpture of group representing two or more people/animals).

[Kovoschiz]

Is this an RFC? Where is the proposal page? There are 0 artwork_type=sculptural_group; while 8 artwork_type=sculpture_group and 1 site=sculpture_group, as well as 6 mentions in one description=. OpenStreetMap Taginfo
The noun form is used in group of statues - Wikidata , as embedded in your linked Category:Sculptural groups - Wikimedia Commons adjective.
As shown above, a well=organized solution can’t be worked out until art groups, art pieces, and art parts relative to points or areas and =site or =cluster are defined comprehensively. In example 3, can someone add each individual statue inside separately? It may be that =artwork should not be used for both pieces / joined groups and disjoint connected groups in that case. If you take wiki literally, “piece” is used. By this logic, it may only be appropriate for joined groups, but not disjoint connected groups. Indeed the site=sculpture_group has 2 artwork_type=sculpture . Relation: ‪NYPL library lions‬ (‪11520253‬) | OpenStreetMap

Other (conforming) options:

• =sculpture + sculpture= : There are 704 statue=, and only 102 sculpture_type=. The useless *_type= suffix doesn’t need to be promoted. OpenStreetMap Taginfo
• Wikidata synonyms (“sculpture group” still doesn’t show they are statues)
  • =statue_group
  • =statue_set

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

Thanks for your comments!

@Kovoschiz

Is this an RFC? Where is the proposal page?

No, it is not. This is a proposal to clarify the use of artwork_type=statue.

@Kovoschiz

In example 3, can someone add each individual statue inside separately?

No, it is not possible in this case. The work includes several statues, but it is a single work, The Galvez by Jaime Pimentel (2017).

Using artwork_type=sculptural_group was just my initial suggestion. If it is more common in English artwork_type=sculpture_group or any other, I would have no objection to use any of them.

Using sculpture_type= or sculpture= or statue_type= could be an alternative, but the values used by the contributors for these keys do not seem to follow any standard of sculpture types.

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

What value would you use for such an artwork?

Sculpture representing of two or more people or animals (including abstract concepts allegorically represented as people or animals), normally full-length, at least close to life-size, or larger, and on the same support (base, pedestal, etc.) which concur in the same action or are united by a common situation.

• artwork_type = sculptural_group
• artwork_type = sculpture_group
• artwork_type = statue_group
• artwork_type = statue_set

This poll is only for knowledge purposes. I would like to know the community’s opinion on which value you consider most appropriate among the ones proposed by @Kovoschiz.

Note: It is publicly shown who voted. The results (at the time of voting) will be shown after voting. The poll will close on April 30, 2023.

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

Would it make sense to map both individual statues and entire group?

(probably sooner or later someone will do this)

How you would distinguish it from case where there are say 5 statues over entire city? Or over multiple continents? Or over entire park? Do you need/want to distinguish such case from 5 statues next to each other?

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

@Mateusz_Konieczny

Would it make sense to map both individual statues and entire group?

It depends on the artwork being considered. If the object is a sculptural group as defined above, I think it would not make much sense to map each statue separately. It is a single artwork. On the other hand, the composition of some sculptural groups do not allow mapping each figure as an individual statue.

A different case would be if in the same place there are several statues forming a composition where each statue is considered a artwork in itself. Where I live there is an example of this case, a group formed by statues of the same author, made at different times and with different titles each, but grouped in the same place. Each of these statues is a artwork individually, and now they form a sculptural group in addition. In special cases like this, it might make sense to map each statue separately and the sculptural group as a whole (if appropriate).

For a particularly large sculptural group, I would consider mapping it as an area.

@Mateusz_Konieczny

How you would distinguish it from case where there are say 5 statues over entire city? Or over multiple continents? Or over entire park? Do you need/want to distinguish such case from 5 statues next to each other?

Sorry, I didn’t understand the question.

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@dcapillae

Sorry, I didn’t understand the question.

Your specific example is about sculptural group with statues in very close proximity.

But there are are also sculptural groups with statues more spaced - by hundreds of meters, by kilometres, sometime more. Do you intend this new tagging to apply also in such cases?

@dcapillae

If the object is a sculptural group as defined above, I think it would not make much sense to map each statue separately. It is a single artwork.

I bet that sooner or later someone will do this anyway. It would be nice if tagging scheme would not implode on such attempt.

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

@Mateusz_Konieczny

But there are are also sculptural groups with statues more spaced - by hundreds of meters, by kilometres, sometime more.

A posible definition of sculptural group was shared above:

Sculpture representing of two or more people or animals (including abstract concepts allegorically represented as people or animals), normally full-length, at least close to life-size, or larger, and on the same support (base, pedestal, etc.) which concur in the same action or are united by a common situation.

I do not imagine a sculptural group on the same support (base, pedestal, etc.) and an extension of hundreds of meters or several kilometers. Do these objects really exist?

@Mateusz_Konieczny

I bet that sooner or later someone will do this anyway. It would be nice if tagging scheme would not implode on such attempt.

The principle “One object, one OSM element” should also apply here: “One artwork, one OSM element”.

On the other hand, I don’t see why it would implode now. Sculptural groups have been added to the map without imploding. They are tagged as artwork_type=statue according to the wiki guidelines.

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@dcapillae

I do not imagine a sculptural group on the same support (base, pedestal, etc.) and an extension of hundreds of meters or several kilometers. Do these objects really exist?

Oh, so “or are united by a common situation.” still requires common pedestal?

(though I guess there is possibility of a single pedestal existing in one place then being segmented into parts…)

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

@Mateusz_Konieczny

Oh, so “or are united by a common situation.” still requires common pedestal?

Yes, it is required a same support (base, pedestal, etc.). At least, according to this definition.

@Mateusz_Konieczny

(though I guess there is possibility of a single pedestal existing in one place then being segmented into parts…)

Art can be very confusing. I am now working on mapping artworks and am discovering how confusing it can be. If you know of any examples of peculiar sculptural groups, you can share them and we’ll take a look at them. The proposed definition can be improved if necessary.

P.S.: IMHO the most significant aspect in a sculptural group is that the figures “concur in the same action or are united by a common situation”.

[IanH]

Artwork > sculpture > statue.

A statue is just a sculpture of a person and possibly thier immediate surroundings. A group of sculptures are called an “installation”. An installation can be one or more single sculptures as well as a set that relate to each other some way.

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

@IanH

A statue is just a sculpture of a person and possibly thier immediate surroundings. A group of sculptures are called an “installation”. An installation can be one or more single sculptures as well as a set that relate to each other some way.

A statue is a sculpture. We use different values for statues, busts and sculptures in OSM.

An installation is an artistic manifestation between object and conceptual art, between sculpture and performance. We use a specific value for installations in OSM.

I do not discuss installations in this thread (perhaps in the future). My purpose in this thread is only to discuss the difference between a statue and a sculptural group, and if we could clarify this in the wiki.

[IanH]

It shouldn’t be that complicated. You can group by pretty much any reason ; artist, set, named area.

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

@IanH

It shouldn’t be that complicated.

Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. What shouldn’t be that complicated?

[dieterdreist]

| dcapillae Daniel Capilla
April 9 |

• | - |

Thanks for your comments!

Kovoschiz:

Is this an RFC? Where is the proposal page?

No, it is not. This is a proposal to clarify the use of artwork_type=statue.

Kovoschiz:

In example 3, can someone add each individual statue inside separately?

No, it is not possible in this case. The work includes several statues, but it is a single work, The Galvez by Jaime Pimentel (2017).

is this really a problem? Why can we not map individual statues when they are part of a bigger work? We can also map different "building"s (which are not just parts but actually buildings) when they are part of the same complex of buildings.

Using artwork_type=sculptural_group was just my initial suggestion. If it is more common in English artwork_type=sculpture_group or any other, I would have no objection to use any of them.

while it is possible, it does not mean you cannot map the individual statues as well. Or rather than introducing a new tag, use a relation type=group where the individual statues are combined into a sculptural group (does not even require to add features tags, as does for example “site”, because in absence of additional feature tags, the nature of the group is defined by the tags of it’s components).

Using sculpture_type= or sculpture= or statue_type= could be an alternative, but the values used by the contributors for these keys do not seem to follow any standard of sculpture types.

the tag for “statue type” is “statue”: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:statue

“sculpture_type”, albeit unilaterally defined in the wiki in 2021, is used just 102 times globally, similar to “sculpture” (90).
The most used values for “sculpture_type” are “bronze”, “stone”, “marble” (together 80% of usage which is completely neglectable compared to “material” on sculpture objects (e.g. 66k with tourism, 44k with artwork_type), so basically this is currently just another invention of the wheel which does not seem to be needed.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/material#combinations

[dieterdreist]

I don’t think any of the proposed tags is suitable, because we already have artwort_type=sculpture (73k uses) which completely covers sculpture groups. I’d rather use a “type=group” relation or have an additional qualifier like sculpture_group=yes (just an example), definitely not a new “artwork_type” (these are sculptures.)

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

@dieterdreist

I don’t think any of the proposed tags is suitable, because we already have artwort_type=sculpture (73k uses) which completely covers sculpture groups. I’d rather use a “type=group” relation or have an additional qualifier like sculpture_group=yes (just an example), definitely not a new “artwork_type” (these are sculptures.)

If you reread my first comment, you will find that I would also prefer to map them as sculptures. What’s the problem? Well, these sculptural groups are tagged as artwork_type=statue according to the wiki. That is why I am proposing to clarify this point.

@dcapillae

If I follow the wiki recommendations, I should use statue for a sculptural group, but that is clearly deficient: these sculptural groups are not a statue. It would be more accurate to use sculpture, since these sculptural groups are indeed a sculpture, although in this case the value is not specific enough.

I could simply use sculptural_group, although I would be introducing a value for a type of artworks that in OSM are tagged with the value statue. As you can see, the problem cannot be solved without modifying the documentation for artwork_type=statue.

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

@dieterdreist

Why can we not map individual statues when they are part of a bigger work?

I am proposing to clarify how to map the bigger work, a sculptural group in this case, not the individual statues.

@dieterdreist

the tag for “statue type” is “statue”: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:statue

They are all individual statues, and the values proposed refer to what the statue represents: animal, virgin, equestrian, saint, buddha. A value like sculptural_group does not refer what is represented, but that it is a class of single arwork with several represented people/animals without specifying which ones.

As I said, the rest of the tags in use could be an alternative to solve the ambiguity, but IMHO they are useless. They are already being used for something else.

[dieterdreist]

Well, these sculptural groups are tagged as artwork_type=statue according to the wiki. That is why I am proposing to clarify this point.

then I agree, artwork_type=statue is for a statue, not a group of statues

[Kovoschiz]

Any comments on =sculpture + sculpture= eg =statue_set ?