Talk:Perceptual art

Utterly vacuous article

The introductory sentence / paragraph / section does not define the topic (perceptual art), referring instead to 'Perceptualism'. Perceptualism is then referenced in the second section. However, once again, it is not defined. Instead there are four sentences which refer to people who have discussed it. The question that is metaphorically shouted is: What, exactly, is it?

That constitutes the bulk of the article. One is left to conclude that there is no definition of 'Perceptual Art' and that it is a non-subject, the existence of which is a 'smoke-and-mirrors' linguistic trick perpetrated by a sort of critic whose approach is to confuse and distract by a tumbling out of words which, superficially, sound as though they convey meaning but turn out upon reflection not to. This is not surprising when the title is considered for is not all art 'perceptual' in that it is perceived?

So, it appears from this joke of an article that the subject itself is a clever joke designed to fool the 'hard of thinking'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.64.142 (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)