This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Misspelled article title!
"Anti-art"; there is a hyphen.
This page should include a definition before anything else.
The article needs to be a "friendly" exposition to the reader of the place that "anti-art" and "anti-art" tendencies plays in the art world. It shouldn't be a screed about the "oppression" that visual art inflicts on the world. Visual art isn't slavery. It shouldn't be equated with slavery. Let's be real. Bus stop ( talk) 12:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It continually reoeats itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.91.187 ( talk) 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The references are way too long. They need trimming to say the least... Modernist ( talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Bus stop has added this to the article : "The Guerrilla Girls are a group of radical feminist artists established in New York City in 1985, known for using creative posters to promote women and people of color in the arts." Bus stop, could you please tell us why they are in Anti-art ? Because they use posters ? Could you please explain and also provide a reference linking them to anti-art ? Thank you. Armando Navarro ( talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it’s premature to draw conclusions about this article or my contributions now. It is far from finished, I only started working on it a week ago. Please give me (and yourself, and every other contributor) a little more time. I think we should all continue working on it, finding new references, adding hyperlinks here and on other relevant pages, and we’ll see what it looks like in a few months. This is still a work very much in progress.
But if you really want to make criticisms, you should take a look at the page before I started to work on it. You can see the last change before I intervened here : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anti-art&diff=271666457&oldid=233451641 There wasn’t a single reference on the page and it was all about Dada and practically nothing else. The anti-art article was created on 23 June 2005. So basically for almost four years it seems no one cared enough about the subject the make any serious contributions.
Armando Navarro ( talk) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
What is the "array of concepts and attitudes?" (First paragraph) "Array of concepts and attitudes" may have a source, but how does that phrase belong in the article? Is there really an "array of concepts and attitudes?" What are they? Perhaps that deserves to be expanded upon in the article. If there isn't truly an array of concepts and attitudes, then I don't think that phrase belongs in the article, even if it is sourced. Bus stop ( talk) 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
David Graver. “The aesthetics of disturbance: anti-art in avant-garde drama”. University of Michigan Press, 1995, p. 7. Graver states that “an array of concepts and attitudes (…) can be loosely grouped under the moniker of ‘anti-art’” Armando Navarro ( talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
What are they? They are the concepts and attitudes in
* 1.1 Anti-art art * 1.2 Anti-art non-art * 1.3 Depersonalization * 1.4 Destruction
They are also the concepts and attitudes in
* 2.1 Jean-Jacques Rousseau * 2.2 Karl Marx * 2.3 Incohérents * 2.4 Dada o 2.4.1 The Dadaist revolutionary central council o 2.4.2 Marcel Duchamp o 2.4.3 Tristan Tzara * 2.5 Constructivism o 2.5.1 Alexander Rodchenko * 2.6 Surrealism o 2.6.1 André Breton * 2.7 Lettrism o 2.7.1 Isidore Isou * 2.8 Group Kyushu * 2.9 Situationist International o 2.9.1 Giuseppe Pinot-Gallizio * 2.10 Fluxus o 2.10.1 Henry Flynt o 2.10.2 George Maciunas o 2.10.3 Joseph Beuys * 2.11 Black Mask * 2.12 King Mob * 2.13 Roger Taylor * 2.14 Stewart Home * 2.15 K Foundation * 2.16 Other movements
Armando Navarro ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I am getting the sense that anything anti-formalist; conceptual; postminimal; minimal; avant-garde; new - is being lumped together as anti-art. I agree with the question above posed by Bus Stop concerning these opening remarks, an array of concepts and attitudes [1] which reject art and then follow with lists and references to literally dozens of works of art and artists...seems like point of view pushing to me... Modernist ( talk) 03:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you please both be more specific and say which specific individuals, groups or movements should't be in this article ? Thank you. Armando Navarro ( talk) 13:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Specifically - these art movements that you mention:
and both Marcel Duchamp and Joseph Beuys both artists intended to expand the definition of Art as we know it to be; Rodchenko on the other hand intended the end of art - making art in the process of ending it - and wound up making second rate art at the end of his days.... Modernist ( talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting read about Rodchenko by Peter Schjeldahl: [4], as for Duchamp, he was always a first-rate artist like him or not; as was Rodchenko for a while... Modernist ( talk) 21:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
(which I have since changed) that I disagreed with... Modernist ( talk) 00:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article : "Anti-art can take the form of art or not.[2][3] Some of the forms of anti-art which are art strive to reveal the conventional limits of art by either redefining its properties from within or from without.[12] From within art, they reduce the definition of art to the fundamental properties of a given medium:[12] these types of anti-art can be monochrome paintings, empty frames, silence as music, chance art. From without art, they expand the definition of art to foreign elements:[12] these types of anti-art can be readymades, found art, detournement, combine paintings, appropriation (art), happenings, performance art, body art." Armando Navarro ( talk) 02:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 03:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
IMHO a misreading of Surrealism. Or rather once again a rather shadowy definition of Anti-art to mean whenever changes take place to the status quo - that becomes anti-art...until it becomes the status quo... Modernist ( talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 11:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
From the wikipedia article : Certain forms of anti-art reject only some aspects of art. Depending on the case, they reject (...) high art, individualism in art..." Armando Navarro ( talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article : "Certain forms of anti-art reject only some aspects of art. Depending on the case, they reject conventional artistic standards..." Armando Navarro ( talk) 02:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 02:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Where to begin? Anti-art is not a term with much of a definition. It is used. It is language. There is no such thing as anti-art. There is language that is sometimes used. In point of fact no reliable source goes so far out on a limb to say: this is what anti-art is. Anybody can pick up the phrase and use it. There is certainly no agreed upon definition of it, and nobody, in the sources so far given, even attempts a definition. It is only used; it is not defined. And those who use it, importantly, don't define it. That is why it basically doesn't exist. It can be categorized as fanciful language. Or creative language. It can be the title of an article on Wikipedia if this is borne in mind. In my opinion, all of the above should be brought out in this article. I have pointed out that anti-art is not an art movement, but more than that needs to be said. Worked into this article should be the blaring fact that art is always anti-art. (Or almost always.) There is no art of note that is not anti-art. Importantly, there can't possibly be anti-art that is not art. That is for the simple reason that art has the habit of being inclusive. (Its definition is always inclusive.) I know of no exception to this. Every "new" type of art has been given the stamp of validity by the cognoscenti of art. Is there one voice out there, of any scholastic stature, that denies that sound art is art, that installation art is art, that performance art is art, that pop art is art, that found objects are art, that conceptual art is art? If an artist or a group of artists ceased making art, and claimed that the fact of their not making art was a form of art, then that can be noted separately. But that sort of thing, which I might point out is not even solidly sourced in this article, should not be in the lead as a definition of anti-art. Anti-art does not have much of an definition, and that one exception should not be elevated to a key aspect of any definition proffered. By the way, the same thing is true of many terms. Hard edged painting is just a descriptive term, or it is a term that designates a particular output of art. The only difference is that in this article, so far, anti-art as a particular output of art -- has not been established, or at least not very solidly at all. Bus stop ( talk) 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You placed a template which says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" at the top of the article on Anti-art but it is not clear to what discussion you are making a reference to on the talk page. Is what you call "note bombing" supposed to be the problem of neutrality ? If so, could you please make the issues of neutrality you see in "Note bombing" clearer and in any case could you please make all this clearer by naming the section about the dispute with a clear name such as "neutrality dispute" for example. Thank you. Armando Navarro ( talk) 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
How can you talk about Rodchenko's monochromes and the incohérents' foreshadowing of it without mentionning anti-art once in the monochrome article ?
From the Wikipedia style guidelines :The "See also" "may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Armando Navarro ( talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art.... 6. The collective art of today is constructive life. (Elliot 1979,130; Lodder 1983,94-99) And what should take the place of "art"? Construction. One should simply participate in producing a useful object."
Armando Navarro ( talk) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said - I am getting the sense that anything anti-formalist; conceptual; postminimal; minimal; avant-garde; new - is being lumped together as anti-art. The definition here now of ANTI-ART is ten miles wide in every direction...one term fits all; over nearly 100 years; whenever changes take place to the status quo - that becomes anti-art...until it becomes the status quo.... Modernist ( talk) 02:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro has collected quite a number of references that appear to use that very term. That would support the claim that the term is used - at least by some. While some editors (me included) believe it is a misnomer, this doesn't change the fact that it has been published. But what needs to be worked out is:
IMO a way forward would be to start the article with:
and then describe the concepts it has applied to, source that, and don't unduly extend the original scope. (by "has been applied to" I don't mean: has been applied to Dada, but has been applied to express exactly what about Dada..."). Enki H. ( talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
There is an issue here, is there not? Why not acknowledge that issue from the outset, in the article? The article at present looks like a battleground. I have not removed anything placed there by anyone else, even though I disagree with it. I wrote a paragraph which acknowledged the difficulty the editors here are having. That paragraph has been peppered with "citation needed," even though I don't think there is anything there particularly controversial. I also placed in the first sentence the acknowledgement that this term is highly doubtful as a legitimate term in art, aside from its descriptive ability. That is simply an acknowledgement of the controversy that has been going on here. That first sentence has been replaced by the assertion, once again, that "Anti-art is an array of concepts and attitudes," even though nobody has the foggiest idea what those "concepts and attitudes" are, nor that there is an "array" of them. I've asked for that to be expanded upon. I am not aware that there has been an explanation forthcoming for what that "array of concepts and attitudes" is. I don't mean in cryptic terms. I can't understand it, and I don't think any reader will be able to understand it. If it is unexplainable -- it should be removed. If it is to be left in the article, common sense says that it should be explained in easy to understand language. Bus stop ( talk) 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have placed a note on User_talk:Armando Navarro's talk page. I propose that consensus on this topic needs to be established before more editing is done. The days' edit logs on the involved pages are atrocious. This is heading for dispute resolution. We all have better things to do. Here are two steps with which we need to start:
1: we need consensus on a definition of anti-art as used "in the wild". Without a definition, we can't even begin to discuss. Note that this is not our definition, but the definition of the sources.
2: we need consensus whether the term as defined is a legitimate term in the art-related discussion. This is where we ask: is this fringe, or mainstream.
Once this is out of the way, we can start discussing who it would rightfully apply to.
Is this process acceptable? Enki H. ( talk) 06:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I just took it upon myself to reorganize the content that was already in the introduction, to streamline it so it at least makes more sense now. So I've either made it much better or just as bad as it was... No offense taken if it all gets reverted. Postdlf ( talk) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Any reader should be able to come to the article and obtain a complete understanding of the term. This includes a definition, origin, where, when and how it has been applied, to whom and by whom, the changing usage of the term and its current status, plus examples. Per WP:NPOV all valid viewpoints should be presented with the majority view given appropriate weight, so the reader can form their own conclusions. The term originated in relation to the "traditional" concept of art being painting/drawing/sculpture etc using certain media. Different media and approaches were seen (and initially deliberately employed) as "anti-art" but are now largely accepted, at least within the art world, as being equally valid as art. There is, though, still contention about this and that too needs to be included. Ty 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are two sources that provide the basic definition:
There are many references to the ongoing use and changing implications of the term "anti-art". Here are some:
Ty 08:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reinstated my removal of the extensive quotes by Rousseau and Marx. Both philosophers did not comment on the subject of the article. Rousseau speaks about a particular instance of art; Marx speaks about the problem of the division of labour. These are both interesting philosophical contributions but (A) the way the material is presented here conflicts with WP:PRIMARY, (B) the way this is taken out of context and used to support a particular POV regarding the article topic conflicts with WP:SYNTH. Supporting secondary sources have not been quoted. To the best of my understanding the relevance of these quotes for the use of the term anti-art has not been established. Please establish consensus here before considering to revert (again). Enki H. ( talk) 02:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The first SECONDARY SOURCE reference describes Rousseau as one of the first secular anti-art writers. The second SECONDARY SOURCE reference shows that Marx refused the seperation of art. Their respective positions are rejections of "art as a separate realm or as a specialization" as written in the anti-art article. Armando Navarro ( talk) 09:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the SECONDARY SOURCES I added. Modernist, if you had read my contribution before deleting it, you would have noticed. When you delete someone else's contributions it would seem polite to at the very least make sure you read the contribution first. Armando Navarro ( talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Enki H., you say that there is a consensus "that anti-art positions are expressed from within the art" which is not true if you read the actual article. And in any case such a consensus should be supported by strong argumentions relying on reliable sources showing the current level of its acceptance among the relevant academic community which has not yet been done by anyone here as far as I can see - "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." Furthemore, I have provided reliable sources which contradict your view. And finaly even if this consensus existed among everyone here and everything I was doing was Fringe Theory as you seem to constantly imply, you should be aware that, according to Wikipedia guidelines "a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." and "ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." Armando Navarro ( talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked out Larry Shiner's book. It's been cited as a secondary source for: art was a consequence of the class system and therefore concluded that, in a communist society, there would only be people who engage in the making of art and no "artists". 3 pages were given as reference. The first page is a section heading only, no other mention of Marx. The third page list Marx and Emerson, Ruskin, Morris, the Arts and Crafts movement, the German Werkbund, Kiekegaard, and indeed Tolstoy's essay What is art (somehow we overlooked to include Tolstoy in the article ;-). The second page cited (p.236) discusses Marx' views. It speaks about:
Marx was critical of many aspects of what he considered to be manifestations of the Bourgeoisie. But in my reading this source does not check out: it does not literally support what is claimed, it does not accurately reflect Shiner's views and it claims support of aspects that are clearly not in the source. Now what? Enki H. ( talk) 01:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I vaguely remember reading a definition of anti-art that stated it was not against art, but simply believed life to be more important, and that art should serve life, not vice-versa. Can't find the source anywhere though, unfortunately. Instead, I have an early quote from Maciunas;
"The anti-art forms are primarily directed against art as a profession, against the artificial separation of producer or performer, of generator and spectator or against the separation of art and life. They oppose forms artificial in themselves, models or methods of composition, of artificially constructed phenomena in the various areas of artistic practice, against intentional, conscious formalism and against the fixation of art on meaning, against the demand of music to be heard and that of plastic art to be seen; and finally against the thesis that both should be acknowledged and understood. Anti-art is life, nature; true reality is the one and all. The bird song is anti-art. The pouring rain, the chattering of an impatient audience, sneeze noises... or compositions like "letting a butterfly caught in a net fly away" or "what an audience left to its own devices does for amusement"- all of these examples may be viewed in this sense as anti-art." Maciunas, Kleinen Sommerfest lecture June 9 1962, quoted in Fluxus Codex p23
The piece links Maciunas' ideas about concretism - real things as art, like the pebbles in the flux atlas (see [13] )- as a politically inspired opposition to the mimetic nature of most western art, and its value as arbiter of its worth. Anyway, feel free to use it if it's in any way useful. Franciselliott ( talk) 00:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The current article (Jan 2nd, 2010) uses the word, "important" twice in the first paragraph. Although technically this is permissible, it is impermissible from a literary stylistic point of view. Someone please change it. Thanks, -- {{subst:User:Skychildandsonofthesun/Skychildandsonofthesun/sig2}} ( talk) 10:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph seems to have a close paraphrasing issue. (see Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE)
Here is the entry:
Here is: http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/definition.jsp?entryId=571
I see that this entry has a particularly active and passionate talk page, so I do not want to change anything on the page itself, but I want to point this out and suggest that, some of this information could be integrated into the rest of the article, the sentences about the readymades and Duchamp's Fountain being noteworthy could be moved to the pages about those two things (if that information is not there already), and some of the other information condensed (for example the second and third sentence could become "The term is believed to have been coined by Marcel Duchamp around 1913."
Nb99 ( talk) 20:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There are two quotes of Duchamps on the subject of art and more specifically anti art. evidence of them can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=haon2DXWvLk I think the source of this interview is : The Late Show Line Up: BBC UK Interview with Marcel Duchamp, June 5, 1968 interview conducted by Joan Bakewell. this needs to be confirmed and checked.
Duchamp here states that he would like to get rid of art in the way many have done away with religion- this would lead one to assume that duchamp see's art as a social and ideological construct, by comparing it to religion and atheism i.e. lack of belief. and that something being seen as art or someone being an artist is something "purely artificial".
It should be noted that Duchamp both rejects certain elements of art expressed by his ready-mades, but also rejects art itself by stating he wants to get rid of it. PAB1990 ( talk) 10:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PAB1990 ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.generation-online.org/c/fcSurrealism1.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Misspelled article title!
"Anti-art"; there is a hyphen.
This page should include a definition before anything else.
The article needs to be a "friendly" exposition to the reader of the place that "anti-art" and "anti-art" tendencies plays in the art world. It shouldn't be a screed about the "oppression" that visual art inflicts on the world. Visual art isn't slavery. It shouldn't be equated with slavery. Let's be real. Bus stop ( talk) 12:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It continually reoeats itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.91.187 ( talk) 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The references are way too long. They need trimming to say the least... Modernist ( talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Bus stop has added this to the article : "The Guerrilla Girls are a group of radical feminist artists established in New York City in 1985, known for using creative posters to promote women and people of color in the arts." Bus stop, could you please tell us why they are in Anti-art ? Because they use posters ? Could you please explain and also provide a reference linking them to anti-art ? Thank you. Armando Navarro ( talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it’s premature to draw conclusions about this article or my contributions now. It is far from finished, I only started working on it a week ago. Please give me (and yourself, and every other contributor) a little more time. I think we should all continue working on it, finding new references, adding hyperlinks here and on other relevant pages, and we’ll see what it looks like in a few months. This is still a work very much in progress.
But if you really want to make criticisms, you should take a look at the page before I started to work on it. You can see the last change before I intervened here : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anti-art&diff=271666457&oldid=233451641 There wasn’t a single reference on the page and it was all about Dada and practically nothing else. The anti-art article was created on 23 June 2005. So basically for almost four years it seems no one cared enough about the subject the make any serious contributions.
Armando Navarro ( talk) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
What is the "array of concepts and attitudes?" (First paragraph) "Array of concepts and attitudes" may have a source, but how does that phrase belong in the article? Is there really an "array of concepts and attitudes?" What are they? Perhaps that deserves to be expanded upon in the article. If there isn't truly an array of concepts and attitudes, then I don't think that phrase belongs in the article, even if it is sourced. Bus stop ( talk) 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
David Graver. “The aesthetics of disturbance: anti-art in avant-garde drama”. University of Michigan Press, 1995, p. 7. Graver states that “an array of concepts and attitudes (…) can be loosely grouped under the moniker of ‘anti-art’” Armando Navarro ( talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
What are they? They are the concepts and attitudes in
* 1.1 Anti-art art * 1.2 Anti-art non-art * 1.3 Depersonalization * 1.4 Destruction
They are also the concepts and attitudes in
* 2.1 Jean-Jacques Rousseau * 2.2 Karl Marx * 2.3 Incohérents * 2.4 Dada o 2.4.1 The Dadaist revolutionary central council o 2.4.2 Marcel Duchamp o 2.4.3 Tristan Tzara * 2.5 Constructivism o 2.5.1 Alexander Rodchenko * 2.6 Surrealism o 2.6.1 André Breton * 2.7 Lettrism o 2.7.1 Isidore Isou * 2.8 Group Kyushu * 2.9 Situationist International o 2.9.1 Giuseppe Pinot-Gallizio * 2.10 Fluxus o 2.10.1 Henry Flynt o 2.10.2 George Maciunas o 2.10.3 Joseph Beuys * 2.11 Black Mask * 2.12 King Mob * 2.13 Roger Taylor * 2.14 Stewart Home * 2.15 K Foundation * 2.16 Other movements
Armando Navarro ( talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I am getting the sense that anything anti-formalist; conceptual; postminimal; minimal; avant-garde; new - is being lumped together as anti-art. I agree with the question above posed by Bus Stop concerning these opening remarks, an array of concepts and attitudes [1] which reject art and then follow with lists and references to literally dozens of works of art and artists...seems like point of view pushing to me... Modernist ( talk) 03:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you please both be more specific and say which specific individuals, groups or movements should't be in this article ? Thank you. Armando Navarro ( talk) 13:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Specifically - these art movements that you mention:
and both Marcel Duchamp and Joseph Beuys both artists intended to expand the definition of Art as we know it to be; Rodchenko on the other hand intended the end of art - making art in the process of ending it - and wound up making second rate art at the end of his days.... Modernist ( talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting read about Rodchenko by Peter Schjeldahl: [4], as for Duchamp, he was always a first-rate artist like him or not; as was Rodchenko for a while... Modernist ( talk) 21:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
(which I have since changed) that I disagreed with... Modernist ( talk) 00:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article : "Anti-art can take the form of art or not.[2][3] Some of the forms of anti-art which are art strive to reveal the conventional limits of art by either redefining its properties from within or from without.[12] From within art, they reduce the definition of art to the fundamental properties of a given medium:[12] these types of anti-art can be monochrome paintings, empty frames, silence as music, chance art. From without art, they expand the definition of art to foreign elements:[12] these types of anti-art can be readymades, found art, detournement, combine paintings, appropriation (art), happenings, performance art, body art." Armando Navarro ( talk) 02:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 03:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
IMHO a misreading of Surrealism. Or rather once again a rather shadowy definition of Anti-art to mean whenever changes take place to the status quo - that becomes anti-art...until it becomes the status quo... Modernist ( talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 11:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
From the wikipedia article : Certain forms of anti-art reject only some aspects of art. Depending on the case, they reject (...) high art, individualism in art..." Armando Navarro ( talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article : "Certain forms of anti-art reject only some aspects of art. Depending on the case, they reject conventional artistic standards..." Armando Navarro ( talk) 02:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 01:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 02:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Where to begin? Anti-art is not a term with much of a definition. It is used. It is language. There is no such thing as anti-art. There is language that is sometimes used. In point of fact no reliable source goes so far out on a limb to say: this is what anti-art is. Anybody can pick up the phrase and use it. There is certainly no agreed upon definition of it, and nobody, in the sources so far given, even attempts a definition. It is only used; it is not defined. And those who use it, importantly, don't define it. That is why it basically doesn't exist. It can be categorized as fanciful language. Or creative language. It can be the title of an article on Wikipedia if this is borne in mind. In my opinion, all of the above should be brought out in this article. I have pointed out that anti-art is not an art movement, but more than that needs to be said. Worked into this article should be the blaring fact that art is always anti-art. (Or almost always.) There is no art of note that is not anti-art. Importantly, there can't possibly be anti-art that is not art. That is for the simple reason that art has the habit of being inclusive. (Its definition is always inclusive.) I know of no exception to this. Every "new" type of art has been given the stamp of validity by the cognoscenti of art. Is there one voice out there, of any scholastic stature, that denies that sound art is art, that installation art is art, that performance art is art, that pop art is art, that found objects are art, that conceptual art is art? If an artist or a group of artists ceased making art, and claimed that the fact of their not making art was a form of art, then that can be noted separately. But that sort of thing, which I might point out is not even solidly sourced in this article, should not be in the lead as a definition of anti-art. Anti-art does not have much of an definition, and that one exception should not be elevated to a key aspect of any definition proffered. By the way, the same thing is true of many terms. Hard edged painting is just a descriptive term, or it is a term that designates a particular output of art. The only difference is that in this article, so far, anti-art as a particular output of art -- has not been established, or at least not very solidly at all. Bus stop ( talk) 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You placed a template which says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" at the top of the article on Anti-art but it is not clear to what discussion you are making a reference to on the talk page. Is what you call "note bombing" supposed to be the problem of neutrality ? If so, could you please make the issues of neutrality you see in "Note bombing" clearer and in any case could you please make all this clearer by naming the section about the dispute with a clear name such as "neutrality dispute" for example. Thank you. Armando Navarro ( talk) 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
How can you talk about Rodchenko's monochromes and the incohérents' foreshadowing of it without mentionning anti-art once in the monochrome article ?
From the Wikipedia style guidelines :The "See also" "may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Armando Navarro ( talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Down with art, long live technical science. 2. Religion is a lie. Art is a lie. 3. Destroy the last remaining attachment of human thought to art.... 6. The collective art of today is constructive life. (Elliot 1979,130; Lodder 1983,94-99) And what should take the place of "art"? Construction. One should simply participate in producing a useful object."
Armando Navarro ( talk) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said - I am getting the sense that anything anti-formalist; conceptual; postminimal; minimal; avant-garde; new - is being lumped together as anti-art. The definition here now of ANTI-ART is ten miles wide in every direction...one term fits all; over nearly 100 years; whenever changes take place to the status quo - that becomes anti-art...until it becomes the status quo.... Modernist ( talk) 02:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro has collected quite a number of references that appear to use that very term. That would support the claim that the term is used - at least by some. While some editors (me included) believe it is a misnomer, this doesn't change the fact that it has been published. But what needs to be worked out is:
IMO a way forward would be to start the article with:
and then describe the concepts it has applied to, source that, and don't unduly extend the original scope. (by "has been applied to" I don't mean: has been applied to Dada, but has been applied to express exactly what about Dada..."). Enki H. ( talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
There is an issue here, is there not? Why not acknowledge that issue from the outset, in the article? The article at present looks like a battleground. I have not removed anything placed there by anyone else, even though I disagree with it. I wrote a paragraph which acknowledged the difficulty the editors here are having. That paragraph has been peppered with "citation needed," even though I don't think there is anything there particularly controversial. I also placed in the first sentence the acknowledgement that this term is highly doubtful as a legitimate term in art, aside from its descriptive ability. That is simply an acknowledgement of the controversy that has been going on here. That first sentence has been replaced by the assertion, once again, that "Anti-art is an array of concepts and attitudes," even though nobody has the foggiest idea what those "concepts and attitudes" are, nor that there is an "array" of them. I've asked for that to be expanded upon. I am not aware that there has been an explanation forthcoming for what that "array of concepts and attitudes" is. I don't mean in cryptic terms. I can't understand it, and I don't think any reader will be able to understand it. If it is unexplainable -- it should be removed. If it is to be left in the article, common sense says that it should be explained in easy to understand language. Bus stop ( talk) 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have placed a note on User_talk:Armando Navarro's talk page. I propose that consensus on this topic needs to be established before more editing is done. The days' edit logs on the involved pages are atrocious. This is heading for dispute resolution. We all have better things to do. Here are two steps with which we need to start:
1: we need consensus on a definition of anti-art as used "in the wild". Without a definition, we can't even begin to discuss. Note that this is not our definition, but the definition of the sources.
2: we need consensus whether the term as defined is a legitimate term in the art-related discussion. This is where we ask: is this fringe, or mainstream.
Once this is out of the way, we can start discussing who it would rightfully apply to.
Is this process acceptable? Enki H. ( talk) 06:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I just took it upon myself to reorganize the content that was already in the introduction, to streamline it so it at least makes more sense now. So I've either made it much better or just as bad as it was... No offense taken if it all gets reverted. Postdlf ( talk) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Any reader should be able to come to the article and obtain a complete understanding of the term. This includes a definition, origin, where, when and how it has been applied, to whom and by whom, the changing usage of the term and its current status, plus examples. Per WP:NPOV all valid viewpoints should be presented with the majority view given appropriate weight, so the reader can form their own conclusions. The term originated in relation to the "traditional" concept of art being painting/drawing/sculpture etc using certain media. Different media and approaches were seen (and initially deliberately employed) as "anti-art" but are now largely accepted, at least within the art world, as being equally valid as art. There is, though, still contention about this and that too needs to be included. Ty 23:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are two sources that provide the basic definition:
There are many references to the ongoing use and changing implications of the term "anti-art". Here are some:
Ty 08:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reinstated my removal of the extensive quotes by Rousseau and Marx. Both philosophers did not comment on the subject of the article. Rousseau speaks about a particular instance of art; Marx speaks about the problem of the division of labour. These are both interesting philosophical contributions but (A) the way the material is presented here conflicts with WP:PRIMARY, (B) the way this is taken out of context and used to support a particular POV regarding the article topic conflicts with WP:SYNTH. Supporting secondary sources have not been quoted. To the best of my understanding the relevance of these quotes for the use of the term anti-art has not been established. Please establish consensus here before considering to revert (again). Enki H. ( talk) 02:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The first SECONDARY SOURCE reference describes Rousseau as one of the first secular anti-art writers. The second SECONDARY SOURCE reference shows that Marx refused the seperation of art. Their respective positions are rejections of "art as a separate realm or as a specialization" as written in the anti-art article. Armando Navarro ( talk) 09:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the SECONDARY SOURCES I added. Modernist, if you had read my contribution before deleting it, you would have noticed. When you delete someone else's contributions it would seem polite to at the very least make sure you read the contribution first. Armando Navarro ( talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Enki H., you say that there is a consensus "that anti-art positions are expressed from within the art" which is not true if you read the actual article. And in any case such a consensus should be supported by strong argumentions relying on reliable sources showing the current level of its acceptance among the relevant academic community which has not yet been done by anyone here as far as I can see - "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." Furthemore, I have provided reliable sources which contradict your view. And finaly even if this consensus existed among everyone here and everything I was doing was Fringe Theory as you seem to constantly imply, you should be aware that, according to Wikipedia guidelines "a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." and "ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." Armando Navarro ( talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked out Larry Shiner's book. It's been cited as a secondary source for: art was a consequence of the class system and therefore concluded that, in a communist society, there would only be people who engage in the making of art and no "artists". 3 pages were given as reference. The first page is a section heading only, no other mention of Marx. The third page list Marx and Emerson, Ruskin, Morris, the Arts and Crafts movement, the German Werkbund, Kiekegaard, and indeed Tolstoy's essay What is art (somehow we overlooked to include Tolstoy in the article ;-). The second page cited (p.236) discusses Marx' views. It speaks about:
Marx was critical of many aspects of what he considered to be manifestations of the Bourgeoisie. But in my reading this source does not check out: it does not literally support what is claimed, it does not accurately reflect Shiner's views and it claims support of aspects that are clearly not in the source. Now what? Enki H. ( talk) 01:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I vaguely remember reading a definition of anti-art that stated it was not against art, but simply believed life to be more important, and that art should serve life, not vice-versa. Can't find the source anywhere though, unfortunately. Instead, I have an early quote from Maciunas;
"The anti-art forms are primarily directed against art as a profession, against the artificial separation of producer or performer, of generator and spectator or against the separation of art and life. They oppose forms artificial in themselves, models or methods of composition, of artificially constructed phenomena in the various areas of artistic practice, against intentional, conscious formalism and against the fixation of art on meaning, against the demand of music to be heard and that of plastic art to be seen; and finally against the thesis that both should be acknowledged and understood. Anti-art is life, nature; true reality is the one and all. The bird song is anti-art. The pouring rain, the chattering of an impatient audience, sneeze noises... or compositions like "letting a butterfly caught in a net fly away" or "what an audience left to its own devices does for amusement"- all of these examples may be viewed in this sense as anti-art." Maciunas, Kleinen Sommerfest lecture June 9 1962, quoted in Fluxus Codex p23
The piece links Maciunas' ideas about concretism - real things as art, like the pebbles in the flux atlas (see [13] )- as a politically inspired opposition to the mimetic nature of most western art, and its value as arbiter of its worth. Anyway, feel free to use it if it's in any way useful. Franciselliott ( talk) 00:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The current article (Jan 2nd, 2010) uses the word, "important" twice in the first paragraph. Although technically this is permissible, it is impermissible from a literary stylistic point of view. Someone please change it. Thanks, -- {{subst:User:Skychildandsonofthesun/Skychildandsonofthesun/sig2}} ( talk) 10:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph seems to have a close paraphrasing issue. (see Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE)
Here is the entry:
Here is: http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/definition.jsp?entryId=571
I see that this entry has a particularly active and passionate talk page, so I do not want to change anything on the page itself, but I want to point this out and suggest that, some of this information could be integrated into the rest of the article, the sentences about the readymades and Duchamp's Fountain being noteworthy could be moved to the pages about those two things (if that information is not there already), and some of the other information condensed (for example the second and third sentence could become "The term is believed to have been coined by Marcel Duchamp around 1913."
Nb99 ( talk) 20:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There are two quotes of Duchamps on the subject of art and more specifically anti art. evidence of them can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=haon2DXWvLk I think the source of this interview is : The Late Show Line Up: BBC UK Interview with Marcel Duchamp, June 5, 1968 interview conducted by Joan Bakewell. this needs to be confirmed and checked.
Duchamp here states that he would like to get rid of art in the way many have done away with religion- this would lead one to assume that duchamp see's art as a social and ideological construct, by comparing it to religion and atheism i.e. lack of belief. and that something being seen as art or someone being an artist is something "purely artificial".
It should be noted that Duchamp both rejects certain elements of art expressed by his ready-mades, but also rejects art itself by stating he wants to get rid of it. PAB1990 ( talk) 10:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PAB1990 ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.generation-online.org/c/fcSurrealism1.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)