Talk:Found object (music)

Found art, Found object

I question this edit. Why would we consider the Found art article to be the "Main article"? Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's about 20 times longer? Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is longer, but the term "found art" is virtually unsourced. And most if not all of the content of the "Found art" article is unsourced. The "Found art" article has become a repository for unsupported statements about art and artists. The "Found art" article is not a scholarly exposition about anything found in reliable sources. The term itself is probably just a corruption of the well-sourced term "found objects". This list of artists is completely unsourced as to its assertion about those artists. OK—it is a long list. But it might be incorrect. Don't we require sourcing? That list has grown without restraint. If editors are the ones determining if a component of an artwork is a "found object" or if that artwork is "found art" then we are writing an unsourced article. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a merge. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that is exactly what is called for, with the title Found object as the title for the resulting article. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Objet trouvé redirects to Found art. I think the author(s) of Found art were trying to create an article specifically dealing with art. From what I understand Objet trouvé is the term used in the art world and (and to confuse matters) it translates literally as 'Found object'. I've yet to see evidence that 'Found object' (or 'Found art' for that matter) is a commonly used term. Presumably 'Found object' is an Americanization?

For the Found art article, I would much prefer is was renamed 'Objet trouvé'. Or, if a merger goes ahead, the poorly sourced fluff about found objects in music be removed. All in all its a confusing situation at the moment and, I agree, not at all satisfactory. Sionk (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk—we need not use the French term. The Museum of Modern Art uses the English term in addition to the French term:

1. ) "Prior to the 20th century unusual objects were collected in cabinets of curiosities, but it was only in the early 20th century that found objects came to be appreciated as works of art in their own right."[1]

2. ) "The development of Collage in Cubism heralded a greater dependence on found objects…"[2]

3. ) "In 1936 the Galerie Charles Raton in Paris hosted an exhibition, Exposition surréaliste d’objets, devoted to found and made objects…"[3]

4. ) "Many of the smaller examples of art brut collected by Jean Dubuffet, who coined the term, consisted of large quantities of found objects, as did many of his own works."[4]

In the book "Art Speak" by Robert Atkins there is an entry for "found object". The term "objet trouvé" is not even mentioned at that entry or anywhere else in that book that I am aware of. Bus stop (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.moma.org/collection/theme.php?theme_id=10135 (which you quote from above) is a definition of Objet trouvé from Grove Art Online (OUP), so it's a bit misleading to selectively quote from the definition to suggest its about something else. Sionk (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the English translation is well-established now. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Found objects are simply objects that have been found and used for a different purpose. Sionk (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk—my primary objection is with terms that are not supported by sources. We don't find sources for "Found art" but we do find sources for "Found object". We also find sources for "Objet Trouvé", but all indication in sources is that the two terms are merely translations of one another.

I prefer the English over the French as concerns the Objet Trouvé/Found Object discussion we have been having because I can discern no difference in meaning between the two. It seems to me that they are used interchangeably in the admittedly limited number of reliable sources I've been able to check.

The two-word term "found object" has a specifically art-related use. You say "Found objects are simply objects that have been found and used for a different purpose." Yes, but that "different purpose" is an art-related purpose. At the term Ready-made at the same online source there is more commentary relating to term Objet Trouvé. I would not be 100% opposed to the article being named "Objet Trouvé"; I simply think it is unnecessary. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we're both working towards the same objective here. The online dictionaries, Dictionary.com (based on Collins) and The Free Dictionary (based on the American Heritage Dictionary) define "Found object" like you say, as a translation of "Objet trouvé" and having an art/aesthetic related meaning. I'm just concerned that a Wikipedia article called "Found object" will have to include other meanings of the term where they exist. Possibly if other definitions exist, they can be created in separate articles (for example called Found object (music)), as long as we make it abundantly clear in the lead paragraph of Found object that we are talking specifically about art and "Objets trouvés".

On this basis, we probably need to launch a merger discussion here and at Found art. Sionk (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely glad we are working together on this. My inclination is to start from scratch. I don't think this should be a lengthy article, unless more good quality sourced material comes to light. My inclination, or working method, would be to save both articles as Subpages, and then to write the article from our sources first, and then to add in any material from either article that seems salvageable and which hasn't already been derived from our sources. This is just a suggestion. If you would prefer to proceed by a different working method I'm sure that would be fine too.

I would like to type up the entry for "Found object" I find in "ArtSpeak" by Robert Atkins and post it to this Talk page. Do you know if WP:COPYRIGHT would permit that? I would also like to do the same for the two short paragraphs I find in that same book under the entry "Neo Dada" because "found objects" are also mentioned in relation to Robert Rauschenberg's use of such material in his "combines", which are referred to as "hybrid painting-sculptures" (and are considered to be examples of "Neo Dada"). Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk—I agree with you that this article should be named Objet trouvé. I prefer the French term. The concerns with music should be taken up in a separate article. Your reasoning was right. After doing some searches I see there is some use of the term "found object music" and "found sounds". Bus stop (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think if you want the (either) plain term you have to include both, which there is currently ample room for. Otherwise disambiguate. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod—thank you for correcting my error.[5][6] The present article would properly contain the musical reference. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind there's no evidence put forward here that the term 'Found object' is used in music. Sionk (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod—it is not a matter of there being "ample room" or not. The musical reference is largely unrelated. For instance the article presently reads: "Their use in such contexts is as old as music itself…" whereas the "found object"/"objet trouvé" phenomenon is specific to the early twentieth century in the visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Main article

Looking at the edit history of Found art and Found object, the former was created in 2002 while the latter was created in 2004. Objet trouvé redirects to the older article. Found object seems to be far shorter, more basic and poorly sourced. The main article as far as I can see, is Found art. Neither of them clearly establish the parameters of the article, but I believe Found art contains the best art-specific content. The text in Found art repeatedly talks about 'found objects'.

As a WP:BOLD suggestion, I propose we move our discussion to Talk:Found art and seek to improve that article, preferably renaming it too. As a consequence, Found object could be nominated for deletion, as a duplicate of the earlier article. Sionk (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk—you say "preferably renaming it". I just have to say that in my opinion that is the number one priority. The reason is that the terminology "found art" is virtually unsupported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you agree on that. It is a proposal that needs to be agree at Talk:Found art, I think. I've started a thread there. I realise this may split the discussion between two Talk pages *but* if we are agreed Found art is the main article (wrongly named), the work needs to be done there first. Sionk (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Name change

I'm changing the name of this page to 'Found object (music)'. This topic has been discussed by several editors, who agree the current status quo is not good. The content here about Found objects in art is a duplicate of the main article Found art (which needs cleaning up).

I have my doubts that 'found object' is an established term in music, but the section has a couple of sources, so other people can decide whether it's a valid topic. Sionk (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I also have my doubts that "found objects" is an established term in music. Bus stop (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert. Many of the current links to this article are from subjects related to the musician Fred Frith, who is quoted as saying "It's more to do with my interest in found objects and the use of certain kinds of textures which have an effect on the string." I don't know if he uses the term literally, as 'objects that have been found', or as a musical term. But certainly he seems to use the phrase. Sionk (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be titled "found sound"?

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)