Talk:Black Reconstruction Collective

Creation comments

The idea for this arose out of things at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuel Admassu and I've WP:BOLDly moved forward to create a redirect target for same while the AfD is going. I feel I need to give acks to Soupmaker for the work that inspired this article and Possibly who while I feel did a WP:CITEBOMB at AfD was conversely really useful in supplying a set of sources that could be selected from to create this (I've tried to choose the more accessible ones that won't linkrot). This is set up as a combined article with Reconstructions — Architecture and Blackness in America which is a redirect, I believe the article is stronger for having both together; the structure should allow for the Reconstructions section to grow without becoming WP:UNDUE and also allows for the BRC itself to grow or fade as time goes on. Please consider putting categories on the redirect when more appropriate. And feel free to check stuff and improve stuff and improve my prose ... and abstract art and art stuff is more the missus than me. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on the adjective "Disruptive"

@Djm-leighpark: can you provide clarification on the adjective "Disruptive" -- as in the caption "Disruptive BRC Manifesto at the MoMA" and the image description "This is a picture of the disruptive BRC manifesto exhibit used at the Reconstructions: Architecture and Blackness Spring 2021 exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York" on the image itself? I couldn't find that phrase in the sources. Is that how it has been characterized?Theredproject (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The poster is "disruptive" in as much as it disrupts the signage of the MoMA to the "controversial" founder's galleries. No objection to being removed; certainly in the short term. I may have changed precisely the wordage used. But to my interpretation how the "Arty" types are describing the abstraction. Basically if one went to the during the reconstructions exhibition and were seeking the Spellman galleries the BRC had symbolically been placed over that signage to "disrupt" the way there. Hopefully covered by Sources. In all events the source does not have to use the disruptive ... it it a question of whether it is an improper summary of the source and isn't WP:ORIGINAL. By nature the BRC aims to be challenging and disruptive. I'm a softie and not an arty type ... but I do feel peoples need to be feeling the "ambeience". This work is the key work in the exhibition. What amazes me is there are no images on commons I could use and I've had to hack up a free use and load it english wikipedia under a free use claim. If you'd like me to request a G7 deletion on it that's ok too ... Have I confused you more than helped. I've confused myself on this occasion. Thankyou, Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Theredproject I've just had another glance at things: My best efforts memory of my reasoning startpoint was the statement in (Miranda,20210319) "There is also a work that contends with the site of MoMA itself: The Black Reconstruction Collective" where I have used "disruptive" in place of "contends". If I really look deeper into that I concede that might not be the best choice, but it seemed reasonable at the time and I am expected to use my own words and not to copyvio. I note your edit [1] and in general welcome that expansion .... When I started that paragraph my aim (if I recall correctly) was to get something down with some context without going UNDUE on one work in the exhibition. Now there's a a little on three other works it feels less UNDUE for that to be exapnded. I can't,a at least directly, see the Bahr source you added but in the course of looking at this I did note (Myers , 20 May 2021) [2] describes several of the works Shaw did not. I don't know if this helps. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, thanks for this context. I would like to propose changing "Disruptive BRC Manifesto at the MoMA" to "BRC Manifesto at MoMA, covering sign bearing Philip Johnson's name." Again, per my edits on the page, I think that is more descriptive, and more clearly gets at what has actually happened, and what the artists intentions are. I don't think they wanted to be disruptive for disruptions sake, but rather to occlude a very specific name. Theredproject (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Theredproject: There were probably many aspects of this which could be good subjects for essays for undergraduates to analyze. "BRC Manifesto at MoMA, covering sign bearing Philip Johnson's name." almost seemed a little soft in a way and I might suggest (brainwave - not necessarily a great one) a variation: "BRC Manifesto at MoMA, deliberately placed to cover signage to the Johnson Gallery.". But in the end I'll leave it to you to boldly choose something. I'd probably (famous last words for me) only get involved if say Johnson (or some theme) began to inappropriately over-dominate the article or I might get involve in a multi-purpose discussion. I notice the BRC manifesting statement itself is here: [3], it has challenging statements, enought to question myself Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, thanks. Done. I used your language. Theredproject (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)