Talk:List of found objects

Expand

This is a very meagre list at the moment and needs more artists and works. Tyrenius 13:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Referenced ones, at that. -- Trevj (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No Consensus for move. Mdann52 (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

List of found art → List of artworks containing found objects –The term "found object" (French: objet trouvé) is supported by sources but the term "found art" is not. Consider this source. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion, but very valid! As far as I understand 'Objet trouvé' is the generally used term in the art world. In my Oxford Dictionary of Art the term 'objet trouvé' is listed but not 'found art' or 'found object'. Also, Duchamp did not consider his works objets trouvés' (though I think he was splitting hairs, haha).

I would prefer the list to be called List of objets trouvés, with a redirect from 'List of found objects'. It would be wrong to call it 'List of artworks containing found objects' because the objects are the art. Sionk (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, you've potentially opened up a can of worms - the Found art and Found object articles could do with some work. There seems general unresolved dispute about what the terms mean. Sionk (talk) 13:38, 27 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]

You say "I would prefer the list to be called List of objets trouvés, with a redirect from 'List of found objects'. It would be wrong to call it 'List of artworks containing found objects' because the objects are the art."

A found object is generally not the entirety of a work of art. A work of art consisting of nothing more than one found object is rare although not nonexistent. More commonly non-art objects, or "found objects", are combined with other non-art objects or with materials conventionally considered art materials, such as paint. Please see the following:

"Term applied in the 20th century to existing objects, manufactured or of natural origin, used in, or as, works of art. With the exception of the Ready-made, in which a manufactured object is generally presented on its own without mediation, the objet trouvé is most often used as raw material in an Assemblage, with juxtaposition as a guiding principle."[5]

You say "…the Found art and Found object articles could do with some work." I think the Found art article merely should be deleted, with salvageable material merged into the Found object article. That terminology—Found art—is basically not supported by sources. (Therefore I disagree with your edit here.) Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I take your point that artworks can be made up of several 'found objects'. This list article is still problematic because we do not have an agreed definition of the topic. It may be better to sort out Found art and Found object first, so the list article can have an unambiguous inclusion criteria (in the meantime, my hatnote on the Found object article seems to be valid).

In my view, if you call this list article 'List of artworks containing found objects', the subject becomes too general to be useful. You would need to show that 'artworks containing found objects' was a notable topic of study. I would prefer 'List of found objects' or 'List of objets trouvés'. Sionk (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk—you say "in the meantime, my hatnote on the Found object article seems to be valid". In my opinion your hatnote is not valid. Upon what do you base your apparent conclusion that the "Found art" article is the "Main article"? Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to help improve/merge/rename/delete Found art and/or Found object I'll be glad to help. But not here. The Talk pages of the respective articles would be better.

If no agreement can be reached on renaming this list, maybe it should be nominated for deletion, having almost no sources and being on a non-existent topic with ambiguous inclusion criteria. Sionk (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk—I'm still wondering: why, in your estimation, would the Found art article be the "Main article"? Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it is an extremely lengthy standalone article with the title "Found art"? As I said in my previous comment, if you have issues with that article you'll need to address them there Sionk (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk—why are there two different articles? Does the Found art article serve a different purpose than the Found object article? Does one have a different scope or focus from the other? This is relevant to the move I am suggesting, from the title "List of found art" to the title "List of artworks containing found objects". Though I think the topic is relevant to this discussion, I have questioned your specific edit suggesting that the Found art article is the "Main article". I have raised a question about that here on the Talk page of the article Found object. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose pending outcome of ongoing discussion about the terminology (Talk:Found art#Found art v. Found Object, Talk:Found art#A source—ArtSpeak, by Robert Atkins). -- Trevj (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed: Music

• Nicolas Collins

Still Lives (1992), ten measures of a piece by Gioseffo Guami (1540-1611) on a skipping CD player

Still (After) Lives (1992), Still Lives notated for performance

The above was removed as it is music. However, if the inlcusion criteria is unclear, I'm not sure if it doesn't qualify. Hyacinth (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hyacinth—you mention two pieces by Nicolas Collins for potential inclusion. To avoid original research I think a source would be called for. Please show us any source that you think supports inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonexistent term

There is no source for the term "found art" or at least none has been brought thus far. The individual works of art comprising the "List of found art" are not verified as being examples of "found art" because the term "found art" is not mentioned in any source whatsoever. Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added a 'misleading' clean-up template. As Bus stop says (and as discussed and agreed at Talk:Found object) there is no common definition of the term 'Found art', which is therefore a neologism. Neither is there any agreement to change the name of this article. Overall it is confusing and not much use to any reader. Sionk (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

One editor has taken it upon themselves to move the page to "List of found objects" without any consultation with other editors. Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's called 'being bold' ;) To be honest, it is a better solution than the previous article name (List of found art) though not perfect. In fact, if you read the above discussion about renaming this list article, it suggests waiting till the issue on the Talk page of the main article, Found art, is resolved. 'Found art' was renamed Found object after much consultation and agreement. In effect, there's been consultation and discussion, but in lots of different locations. Sionk (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sionk inexplicably says that this is an example of "being bold"[6] yet it is marked as a minor edit. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm still here. No need to tak about me in the third person! We were talking about the page move, not the removal of clean-up templates (which I agree is not a minor edit). Sionk (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Even when the move was less controversial I followed procedure. I posted my intention to move the page at List of found art to List of artworks containing found objects on the WikiProject Visual arts Talk page. Then I initiated the discussion found above on this Talk page here. Extensive discussion resulted in a finding of "no consensus" for my suggested move. But unilateral actions such as changing the article's title such as we see here are not conducive to improving the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor who moved the page, is an admin, and therefore well aware of process. If you have concerns about the incorrect use of minor edit tags, that would be best discussed at the user's talkpage, not here.

Do you object to the new title (if so, do you still prefer the title you suggested in the thread above?), or can you live with the new title and primarily object to the lack of process?

Or a third option: This list is very short (~18 items by ~5 artists), and has barely changed in 3 years, I would suggest merging&redirecting this content into Found object#Artists, which would improve that subsection drastically and provide a solid direction for growth (adding specific notable pieces. ie. those that have articles, or strong citations indicating notability within the subgenre). It would also eliminate any need to discuss this list's title. —Quiddity (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I can understand Bus stop's frustration. We have both tried almost every option to improve/rename/remove this article, resulting in no consensus. There was no consensus in the AfD discussion to remove/merge this article either. And then an admin (also the original creator of the article) renames it anyway! As I say above, in my view the new title is a slight improvement so I don't want to complain for the sake of it. Thanks for your positive suggestions! Sionk (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Quiddity—thanks for getting involved. I think you suggested merging and redirecting this List into the "Found object" article. I think that would mean deleting this List. And that would entail salvaging anything salvageable from this List. Question: can anyone (not just Quiddity) tell me anything on this list that is salvageable which isn't already in the "Found object" article? Do we find a source supporting Ron Arad's "Rover chair" as being a "found object" or containing a "found object"? How about Michael Craig Martin's "An Oak Tree"? I am in favor of deleting this List. The important part—defining the term—is missing from this List-article. I have provided a couple of sources for the term on the "Found object" Talk page. Explaining to the reader what the term means and how responsible writers use the term, as well as its origin—that is the most important thing. Compiling a "List" of supposed instances in which non-art objects are found in twentieth and twenty-first century works of art is not of much use to anyone. So what if a chair is found in a work of art produced in 1981 (Rover chair)? So what if a glass of water is found in an artwork produced in 1973 (An Oak Tree)? Marcel Duchamp presented a shovel in 1915 as a work of art. Marcel Duchamp presented a urinal as a work of art in 1917. Are reliable sources really calling the late twentieth century artworks "found objects"? At best they are merely drawing comparisons to Marcel Duchamp's work. This List could go on endlessly if we are not diligent in using the best quality sources. The term "found object" (or "objet trouvé") has a core meaning. It is a misunderstanding to think that any artwork containing a non-art object is an example of a "found object". A mere construction of non-art objects is not necessarily an example of "found objects" in art. Merely assembling non-art objects into constructions is a perfectly legitimate sculptural technique. But in such a use these non-art objects are more correctly called "art materials". Marcel Duchamp was not using a shovel or a urinal as art material. Perhaps the distinction is a subtle one but we should think about the distinction before we run headlong creating potentially misleading articles. Bus stop (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion/exclusion

Should Ron Arad's chair be included? After all, it is a piece of furniture ( a chair) made from a car seat. Sionk (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How could Ron Arad's artwork Rover chair be included in an article titled List of found objects unless a source is supportive of a contention that the artwork is a found object? Do you know of such a source? If so, please present it for our consideration. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a 'No' (which would be my opinion too - NB the current source described it as a "furniture readymade", but I think this list should include artworks and nothing else). Sionk (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is only making a comparison to the Readymades of Marcel Duchamp. The source says that the Rover chair is "a kind of furniture 'readymade'".[7] By calling it a kind of readymade it is merely comparing it to the Readymades of Marcel Duchamp. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)