This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Actual Art may not be as "notable" as Abstract Art but neither are many of the other art movements included in Wikipedia, as articles, such as Art Brut, Outsider Art and many others, although I have no desire to malign or belittle any art movement. The Actual Art movement is an inclusionary, rather than exclusionary movement. It may include minimal, earthwork, arte povera, kinetic or many other aspects of art but is notable for adding the element of time to the work, in that the materials of the art, in themselves, change over time, without intervention by the artist, often including an aspect of self-destruction in lay terms, often over many years and sometimes, even long after the artist's death.
Actual Art has been written about, by name, in dozens of newspaper articles, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Examiner & Chronical ; in art magazines, including Art in America, Art News, ArtsMagazine, Studio International & Art Now Gallery Guide; by many art critics, including Alfred Frankenstein, Vivian Raynor, Mark Savitt, Peter Frank, Lawrence Alloway & Gregory Battcock. Many of the artists have received grants for their work in Actual Art, including several NEA laureates. Many major works of Actual art have been purchased by museums, the City of New York & sponsored by Lower Manhattan Cultural Council & Public Art Fund, who included it in their book, a survey of Public Art. Actual Art & Actual Artists have also been included in many books but I will add the Titles, authors & publishers after more extensive research. I expected that once the article was published, others would add information too.
I would add photographs of many public art installations of Actual Art, when I am authorized to do so. I object, strongly to deletion of the article. More than 20 artists, from all over the world have been included in exhibitions & articles about the genre. The purpose of the article was to let the facts about it be known to Wikipedia's audience. Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a list of books by or about Actual Artists & Actual Art, ranging from 1972 to 2007.
99.12.242.53 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now logged in. mabe I need to be logged in to use {{helpme}}. This is my talk page. I created it about my article. The instructions about deletion of an article tell me that I need to delete the tag or remove the "Proposed for Deletion" box, after I have made the changes/additions to the article, in order to prevent deletion within 5 days. How do I do that? I have made the changes & objected to deletion. Fvlcrvm (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few points, if I may. Last item first, this is not your talk page. It is a talk page about the article Actual Art, for the specific use of discussing improvements to the article. When someone proposes deletion of the article, they do so by adding the {{prod}} template and stating why they believe the article should be deleted. You, as the author of the article, are invited to discuss why it should not be deleted here, on this page - I see that you have done so. If the original editor who posted the PROD tag agrees, he/she (or another editor other than you) may remove it.
The concern here is that Actual Art is itself a fringe art movement of limited notability. Your course, then, would be to show that the movement is notable by providing reliable sources that verify that notability. You list multiple publications above, and articles from those outlets would be a good start, so long as they discuss the movement itself. Please add citations to the article, or list your references here. Books about the subject, prominent interviews with members of the movement, or other sources would work as well. Listing books that mention or discuss the movement has value, but it would be better if you could cite specific statements in the article to specific books - you might look at the {{cite book}} template for an easy means to do that.
Finally, I've moved this article (and the associated talk page) to Actual Art, in order to remove the quotes from the title. This will make it easier for other editors to find this article; they might assist you in improving it. Feel free to let me know if I can be of further assistance. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 20:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is my talk page. I created it about my article.
I did not mean to claim any exclusivity. I was only reacting to an admonishment for seeking help on this page. The message said I could only seek help on my own talk page - not someone else's talk page. Apparently, it occurred because I wasn't logged in at the time.Fvlcrvm (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this list to the talk page. There are some big claims being made. However, in a number of instances, these books are not about this supposed art movement. Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object is about conceptual art. Using it as some sort of reference after-the-fact for "Actual Art" would be original research. In other words, someone could write an essay about "Actual Art" using this book as a reference, get that essay published, and then that essay could then be cited for this Wikipedia article. But as it stands, Six Years is not a legitimate reference for this article. I'm sure there's more, so we'll need to go through this, format where necessary, and then re-add those references, if any, that are actually about Actual Art. freshacconcispeaktome 00:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Books by or about Actual artists & Actual Art include:
Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972 by Lucy Lippard, publ. University of California Press, 1973
Super Sculpture, New York: by Diana Chicure & Thelma Stevens, publ. Van Nostrand, 1974
Natual Phenomenon as Public Monuments by Alan Sonfist, publ. Neuberger Museum Press, 1978
Clockwork: Timepieces by Artists, Architects, & Industrial Designer by MIT List Visual Arts, 1989 (Specifically: "In New York City, an internal clock is physically inherent in the materials employed by Fugate-Wilcox in the construction of his many Diffusion Pieces.")
Andy Goldsworthy: a Collaboration with Nature, by Andy Goldsworthy, publ. H.N. Abrams, 1990
Studio International by Medical Tribune Group, publ. Univ.of Michigan, 1992
Mutiny and the Mainstream: Talk that Changed Art, by Judy Seigal, publ. Midmarch Art Press, 1992 (Specifically: "[Lawrence] Alloway included Helene Aylon here, showing two stages of her 'paintings that change in time'.")
Time and Materials by Merrill Wagner, publ. University Press, 1994
Dan Dempster: Waterworks, 1990 - 1997, by Peter Barton, publ. Peninsula Fine Arts, 1997
Originals: American Women Artists, by Eleanor C. Munro, publ. De Capa Press, 2000
The Art of Dove Bradshaw: Nature, Change & Indeterminancy, by Thomas McEvilly, publ. Mark Batty Publishing, 2003
Art's Prospect: the Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity, by Roger Kimball, publ. Ivan R. Dee, 2003
New Practices, New Pedagogies, by Malcolm Miles, publ. Routledge, 2005
The Art of Nathan Joseph: Building a Picture, by Michael J. Amy & Marius Kwint, publ. Antique Collectors' Club, 2007
Creative Time: 33 years of Public Art in New York, by Anne Pasternak, Michael Brenson, Ruth A. Peltason & Lucy Lippard, publ. Princeton Architectural Press, 2007
The heading said "about Actual Artists & Actual Art" Maybe it should have said "&/or" or just nothing at all. The Dematerialization of the Art Object by Lucy Lippard includes at least 2 self-proclaimed Actual Artists; Dove Bradshaw & Terry Fugate-Wilcox. In fact, Dove Bradshaw used the term "dematerialization" regularly, to describe her exhibitions of art that evolved & changed over time, especially in terms of oxidation. I think Bill Anastasie is in it too. Will find out & continue. These books should be references in the article, (without the heading): Not because claims are being made that the books espouse Actual Art, (though some do) but because they are references about the artists & artworks done in the past, that deal with changes occuring in the works, especially public artworks. Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started some basic copyediting, but this article is a mess. It may need to be edited down to a stub and rewritten. I'm not convinced that the topic is notable. However, there's an assertion of notability with some claims to major publications having written about this, so I guess we should give it a go and see if we can bring this up to standards. I'm not sure if this will need to go to AfD at this point. freshacconcispeaktome 00:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed for the quote by Alfred Frankenstein is Frankenstein, Alfred. San Francisco Chronicle, circa 1972. The exact issue, if it's not too old, should be findable in Google, "Helene Aylon". I did not see it mentioned in her wiki article, which is little more than a stub. I do not know how to add the citation, since references just says "reflist" & I don't know how to add anything to that. Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found some photos of the artworks that should be added. Can anyone tell me how to add a caption to a photo? Fvlcrvm (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(They will be uploaded from Wiki Commons.)Fvlcrvm (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to edit the {{reflist}} section; that just automatically picks up references put in the main text using a format like this: <ref>reference details in here</ref>. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HELP Can anyone tell me how to add a caption to a photo? Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just add the text you want to use after the last bit of image info:
[[Image:SANA MODEL NOLYRS copy copy.jpg|thumb|right|300px|This would be the caption]] and make sure to use a pipe (the | character) before the caption text. The image below is what it would look like. freshacconcispeaktome 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What did you all think of the Wikipedia broo-ha-ha over changes to Palin's article? I have been reading posted opinions on it, (AOL "welcome page"). Is there a place here to read Wikipedians' opinions? Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main general discussion pages are the village pump and community bulletin board. They are mainly about policy and technical issues, but I'm sure there's a thread on Palin there. I know there's some offsite Wikipedia forums run by Wikipedians, but I'm not familiar with any. I don't know what to think about the Palin situation. I'm sure it's all going to get worse before the election is over. I try to stay away from the political articles for that reason. Art is my thing--I understand it and it usually doesn't get that heated or controversial. Usually. Or at the very least art issues don't make headlines. I first heard about the Palin/Wikipedia situation at boingboing.net. What makes Wikipedia great is also its main flaw. When anyone can edit, anyone will edit. And if you have a political agenda (or work for a politician), you're going to try to game the system. freshacconcispeaktome 15:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So true. But I love Wikipedia for that. It certainly is getting a lot of publicity now. btw, I found the Palin page. It got really huge, really fast! Thanks again, for all your help.Fvlcrvm (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone went through & fixed all my captions so they read properly.
Thank you. It really looks good. (Wish I knew how to do that.) Fvlcrvm (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are citations & references now for just about every sentence in the article. Don't you think the "citation" box could be removed now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvlcrvm (talk • contribs) 14:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I see no information in the article about which some reference or citation has not been made. I think the tag should be removed.Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh. It looks like the preceeding comment was made by me, when I wasn't signed in. I still think the tag should be removed.Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, those Frankestein quotes. Just asserting that someone said something at an approimxate date isn't a published reference.
Second, this material:
File:Attention-me-09.jpgModel of the San Andreas Fault Sculpture, by Tery Fugate-WilcoxArticles about this sculpture include, Los Angeles Times Magazine “Tectonics, The Crack-up, Tery Fugate-Wilcox and the San Andreas Fault Sculpture Project” by Michael Walker, 12/3/1995; Syndicated Column, “Actual Art: A Cultural Earthquake” by Tracy Kampel, 1998; Cover Magazine, “Actual Arte Gig: Artist Tery Fugate-Wilcox Talks Tectonic” by Robert Costa, Spring 1997, pg. 48; San Francisco Examiner and Chronical, “Crack in the World” by Alfred Frankenstein, 1/11/76, p.27; & San Francisco Chronicle, 1/9/76, p.23; ArtWeek “The San Andreas Fault”, by Margaret Bartelme, Vol. 6-45, Vol. 7-1, 12/27/75 & 1/3/76; Village Voice Scenes: “A Slab in Time”, by Howard Smith & B. Van Der Horst, 6/30/75, p.16.
is drifting into the unencyclopedic. The thing doesn't even exist yet, so we don't need two pictures of it; plus these citations belong as references, and we really only need one signficiant one. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK So I dug up the original article & referenced it specifically.
picky picky (just kidding)Fvlcrvm (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
