Talk:Post-conceptual art

revert on removal of Anthony-Masterson

I have reverted this edit with the editsummary (→‎As art practice: interview of Joseph Nechvatal by some random dude Anthony-Masterson is not a justification to include Nechvatal into this article.) Anthony-Masterson is not "some random dude", but Owen Masterson and Christine Anthony, documentary filmmakers. Vexations (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer: the above editor and I are involved in editorial disputes on the matters involving Joseph Nechvatal and Colab. The video description reads "Anthony-Masterson are Christine Anthony and Owen Masterson. Award winning husband and wife documentary filmmakers and photographers." Anyone and every with a camera can make documentary. I don't find that in itself adequate for inclusion and that video shouldn't be acceptable for inclusion simply because they've been awarded at some point in the past. The video falls under WP:UGC and most certainly not strong enough source to justify doing "names such as..." dropping into a broader category topic like this. Consensus has not been re-established on re-insertion per WP:ONUS. Graywalls (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The search results coming up under "Christine Anthony" "Owen Masterson" documentary do not give a hint that they have scholarly recognition to make their self published contents as acceptable referencing as experts per WP:SPS and I'm not convinced that introducing Joseph Nechvatal into this article on basis of an interview conducted by them with the subject as due inclusion, thus the contents should be removed, and inclusion consensus established by Vexations Graywalls (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, if this is about Nechvatal, which I'll get into later, then why did you also remove the mention of Manfred Mohr? Vexations (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, I put a disclaimer that we've disputed over Nechvatal. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that Mohr should remain in it if the sourcing isn't improper. My edits aren't about Nechvatal. If other contents aren't properly and duly cited, that should go too. Graywalls (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that Mohr should remain in it if the sourcing isn't improper. That doesn't make any sense. Vexations (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That name too lacked adequate citation, thus, leaving them, but removing Nechvatal would have been have been POV/improper. I see nothing suggesting https://vimeo.com/3908524 "Interview with Joseph Nechvatal, post-conceptual digital artist, composer and art theoretician" as anything close to WP:RS or WP:DUE, but you should take that to RS/N or NPOV/N. Graywalls (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, sigh... The triple negative "... does NOT mean that Mohr should remain ... if the source is NOT IMproper" says that Mohr should not remain if the source is proper. Or that Mohr should be kept if the source is improper. But that's not what you meant to say, of course. Vexations (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

, @Vexations:, get to the point. Mohr and Nechvatal were both attributed to non-conforming sources. Do other currently cited discuss Mohr? If then please quote. Graywalls (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, I think Nechvatal discusses Mohr somewhere. I'll see what I can find. Nechvatal is a scholar and an expert with a PhD, so that ought to meet your requirements of scholarly recognition to make their self published contents as acceptable referencing as experts Vexations (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Um, not necessarily. Just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean that their words are appropriate sourcing for introducing contents where due weight concerns are present, such as inserting names into a broader topic. If scholarly journals regularly cites Nechvatal as the authority figure on the subject of Post Conceptual Art, then using his words to rattle off influential players in this field is more plausible. I suggest you start this discussion on the relevant noticeboards. Graywalls (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, Have you ever met that standard for citing an author yourself? I'll make sure to take it into consideration should you ever add a citation. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Vexations (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, The standard in question applies to self published contents. You should also familiarize yourself with user generated contents guidelines. YouTube, Vimeo, forum posts are unacceptable references with very rare exceptions. The rare exceptions are YouTube links to something like confirmed official channels of a mainstream news, or including a supplemental Youtube/Vimeo type links to the exact personal video that is specifically referenced in the mainstream news contents, and even then, you can draw your own editorial decision using the video. You can only summarize the analysis that has already been reported within the reliable source, for example, what NY Times already said about the contents within the video, but not rattling out names dropped in the video if it hasn't been done by the media. I don't drop names into broader articles using some husband and wife, or one man show Vimeo (yes, Vimeo, really), YouTube, Myspace and such on the ground "that person has a PhD". If some person with a Wikipedia article and has something or another to do with basketball was added into basketball people who does basketball, for example ... using a Vimeo of a person who has a PhD in film making/sports related thing would indeed be undue. I'll make sure to take it into consideration should you ever add a citation. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What are you suggesting with this? Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, I am suggesting that you ought apply the standards that you impose onto others to your own editing, and that you might try to add a citation that meets your standard to the articles where you have contested citations or removed content added by others. Vexations (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations:, since you're alleging that it is "my" standard, the best place to take this matter to is the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to get other uninvolved editor with experience in sourcing to provide their input to determine if it is "my" standards or a reasonable implementation of Wikipedia commumity consensus. Graywalls (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, I have decided that I'm not going to try to source Mohr as a post-conceptualist. I thought about which artists would really epitomize post-conceptualism, and while the parallels to Sol LeWitt's work and the further exploration of it in that of Mohr is well-known and of encyclopedic interest, he is not the best example. I'm working on collecting some materials, complicated by the fact that one of my libraries is not accessible at the moment, so this is going to take some time. I am interested to hear who you think we should use instead. Surely you have an informed opinion on the subject? Vexations (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not Vimeo, YouTube, Facebook, or industry magazine. If you can find textbooks or reliably published material that recognizes people as being influential figures in "post conceptual art", then that would do. You wouldn't use some exercise sports science PhD's statement to insert a barely notable person into the page basket ball as you would Lebron James or Michael Jordan, but if BBC or Washington Post, or a well established scholarly journal names a certain personal as one of the most important figures in basketball, that would satisfy the due weight to include that person. Sourcing is not as selective if you were inserting so and so practices "post conceptual art" into that person's page. Graywalls (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, I'm not so good with sports analogies, I don't particularly enjoy spectator sports and frankly couldn't tell you what sport Lebron James plays if you had asked me. I have absolutely no competence in that field, and generally do not edit articles in that area, because I wouldn't even know what good sources are for sports topics. Back to this topic: The Washington Post and the BBC are useless as sources (easy to check [1], [2]), but I've compiled a small list of sources that I think may be useful for you if you intend to contribute constructively to this article.

• Skrebowski, Luke (2014). "Art after Conceptual Art". Encyclopedia of aesthetics (Second ed.). Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-974711-5. OCLC 890143187.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Smith, Terry (November 2011). "One and Three Ideas: Conceptualism Before, During, and After Conceptual Art". e-flux. 29. Retrieved 2021-04-28.
• Wall, Jeff (2007). "Depiction, Object, Event". Afterall: A Journal of Art, Context and Enquiry (16): 5–17. ISSN 1465-4253.
• Newman, Michael (1996). "Conceptual Art from the 1960s to the 1990s: An Unfinished Project?". Kunst & Museumjournaal. 7: 95–104.
• Crow, Thomas (1998). "Unwritten Histories of Conceptual Art: Against Visual Culture". Modern art in the common culture. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. pp. 212–242. ISBN 978-0-300-07649-3. OCLC 901162808.</ref>
• Osborne, 2013 Osborne, Peter. Anywhere or Not at All: Philosophy of Contemporary Art. London: Verso, 2013. Osborne, Peter (2013). Anywhere or not at all philosophy of contemporary art. ISBN 978-1-78168-478-8. OCLC 1200107302.
• van Winkel, C. H. (2012). During the exhibition the gallery will be closed: contemporary art and the paradoxes of conceptualism. Amsterdam: Valiz uitgeverij. ISBN 978-90-78088-56-1.</ref>
• Smith, Terry (2009). What is contemporary art?. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-76430-6. OCLC 268787791.
• Wall, Jeff (2012). "Conceptual, Postconceptual, Nonconceptual: Photography and the Depictive Arts". Critical Inquiry. 38 (4): 694–704. doi:10.1086/667420. ISSN 0093-1896. Vexations (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Potential future sources

My understanding on this matter is that further reading or external links are not places to stash sources for later use. Those parts are still part of the article space and editorial references to be used should go into talk page. Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Looking at this edit, it suggests the "further reading" section might be serving the purpose as a general repository of general references to be used for article expansion and trimmed off as they're utilized for expansion. The "further reading" as they're used into in-line citation. This suggests that it is used as a place to park sources, which according to the guidelines MOS:FURTHER, is not what "further reading" should be used for. It's not clear why there's such an extensive list of books in this article, and if they are listed as possible sources to use for source expansion, they should remain in talk page, and only in talk page. Graywalls (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC) @Vexations: Graywalls (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, your assertions about my intentions are false. Per the guideline: Publications listed in further reading are formatted in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. I was doing that, removing material already used as a source and fixing errors. If we are going to discuss which books should be listed, the very least we can do is make sure they can be found easily, and read. As for which books should be included, I was going to make sure we include the ones that the author of the article on conceptual art in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Aesthetics uses to point out the main representatives of different schools of thought on art after conceptualism. We should represent those views and suggest their books as further reading if we decide not to use those books directly, but instead a secondary source that provides analysis of those viewpoints. Let me finish that work uninterrupted, please. Vexations (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You didn't necessarily add all the items in the further reading list. The Further reading section is disproportionately and unduly long. Graywalls (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, I didn't add anything to the list. So far I have only fixed what was already there. The list has been in the article since it was created in 2013, it has remained there for 8 years, unchallenged, even though the article has been edited by 32 different editors since then.

Now please stop obstructing my efforts to clean up the list. I will eventually remove everything that is not due, once I have tracked down those books. I have some of them, but not all. I don't know if you have access to the sources. I don't know if you know anything about this subject, or know enough to determine what the most important points of view are, and who their most prominent authors in this field are. Nothing you have done on this article suggests that you have any domain knowledge. I don't know if you intend to read the sources or read reviews of them, or how you think that you're going to make a determination of whether or not a book should be listed, but I am not convinced that you have presented or proposed a method to determine what ought to be included. Vexations (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I say we move them to talk and selectively re-introduce rather than selectively remove. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, and what criteria do you have for inclusion then? Vexations (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The list definitely needs to be trimmed. The "Bibliography" section is more appropriate for an article on a specific author rather than this type of general article on a discipline, and it only had two items so I merged them with "Further reading". While not policy or guideline, there are great recommendations at Wikipedia:Further reading on how to proceed. Basically, the list should not be exhaustive but contain a sufficient number of notable and fundamental works on the subject. Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an general purpose encyclopedia (evolving more into becoming the Google of all-encompassing information on everyone and everything, no matter how trivial so long as least a few mass media mentions exist), should not overwhelm the end-user (regular people we're talking about, not academics who are a very small minority of Wikipedia readers) with a long, rambling list of works. Let's keep it to the most pertinent, respected and notable works providing a general overview of the subject. Wikipedia is a great starting point for the average person, but not if we overwhelm and confuse them. Mansheimer (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Mansheimer, I happen to have Alberro's Art after Conceptual Art in front of me. It meets all the citerial suggested: it is topical, that is, entirely about the subject of the article, reliable, edited by experts in the field, published by MIT press, with contributions from notable scholars, such as Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, Thomas E. Crow and Helen Molesworth and balanced, because if offers different, sometime contradicting points of view. I think it would make an excellent source, but it seems that at least one editor objects to including it in the further reading section if I'm considering using it as a source. Vexations (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Further reading. I have no idea why you insist on maintaining a bibliography section with only two titles when a further reading section already exists. What is the point exactly? This is not a biography article where you would have a bibliography listing of all the subject's works and possibly maintain a further reading section containing a list of works by other authors about the subject. In that case, it makes sense. I have no idea as to the quality and notability of the works listed, which is why I've not bothered removing any. What I'm saying is that there are too many works listed and should be trimmed per further reading guidelines, which state that such lists are not meant to the exhaustive but to contain only the most important and definitive works on the subject. Mansheimer (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)r

Mansheimer, I use shortened footnotes, using a template {{sfn}}, that's why. It makes it possible to cite a source just once, not every time you add a citation with a different page number. References formatted in that way require two sections, one that we tend to call references, and one that is commonly, but not always, called bibliography, or simply sources, which can be a subheading of references. Franz Kafka is a good example of that citation style. Vexations (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference with Neo-conceptual art?

Posting this on this page, as it is more active, but I'm wondering what the difference is between Neo-conceptual art and Post-conceptual art, as deployed on these two pages. In particular, if "The idea of neo-conceptual art (sometimes later termed post-conceptual art) in the United States was clearly articulated by Tricia Collins and Richard Milazzo" forms the basis of both pages, why are they separate pages? Honest question.

Second honest question: how much of this is ultimately about Peter Osborne (philosopher)? He seems to be the main sources on these. Is this UNDUE?

Third honest question: how does this NYC centric view of the phenomenon fit into a global view? Which is centered in these two articles, and why? And how does that affect the framing? Moscow seems to be something very different than NYC. And London again, something quite different in that it is much more market and media driven, and notably conceptual by virtue of the Stuckist opposition. Why isn't Brazil part of the equation?

Fourth honest question: is Post-conceptual art a permanent condition (eg. postmodern art) or a discrete movement (80's and 90's?)

Last honest question: the relation to internet art seems tacked on. Maybe as a way of negotiating that fourth question. But aren't there plenty of non-internet based artists working conceptually today? What does this idea as developed on this page have to do with Cameron Rowland, Park MacArthur, or David Horvitz?Theredproject (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Theredproject, I think that that there is a difference. When critics talk about an artist as a neo-conceptualist, they refer to someone who emerged and made their most impactful work in a particular time period (the 1980s), in response to an earlier movement (the pictures generation and neo-expressionism). I think this specifically excludes artists who were not working in that context. Post-conceptualist is used as a much broader term, and I've seen it applied to artists like Martha Rosler (in http://www.caareviews.org/reviews/370#.YJUqMuspBpQ for examle) and Gerhard Richter who precede the neo-conceptualists by at least a decade.

I'm not sure if we're overstating the views of Osborne, the encyclopedia of Aesthetics presents three views, for one of which Osborne's view is representative. I guess we could do better by articulating more clearly what those three POVs are.

A more global view of the phenomenon would be welcome, I agree.

To your fourth question: yes, post-conceptualist is a term that could be applied to an artist working now. It is a strategy, not a movement. I don't see anyone referring to an artist as neo-conceptualist who wasn't part of the original group.

To your last question: that idea seems to come from the fact that some artists have made work where an algorithm determines the outcome. There are parallels for example between the work of Sol Lewitt and Manfred Mohr (think of LeWitt's open cubes for example DOI:10.7559/citarj.v8i1.220) Vexations (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)