Talk:An Oak Tree

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Image[edit]

Would it be fair use to copy this image ? http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=27072&tabview=image Research Method (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this article, but you need to complete a fair use rationale, which is complicated. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not allowed here, because there is a free image available (an in use in the article, as it happens). Ty 23:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image size[edit]

Generally 300px max is ok depending on the picture. The size as it is now seems fine..Modernist (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC) OKResearch Method (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections[edit]

Too many sections for the amount of text. The article should be a flow of prose, not chopped up elements.

Also, there is an Oak Tree in the National Gallery of Australia, possibly elsewhere also.

Ty 01:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more text. This is an important work. Please add some.

Believe there are only two, but not sure...Research Method (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Oak Tree[edit]

I feel it is important to describe the piece as a oak tree. To describe it as a glass of water denies its status as art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not our business. We go by sources. The source says:
In the early 1970s you exhibited the seminal piece An Oak Tree (Image Above-now in the Tate collection). The work consists of a glass of water standing on a shelf attached to the gallery wall next to which is a text using a semiotic argument to explain why it is in fact an oak tree.
Kindly stick to the source and don't put your own ideas in the article per WP:NOR. Ty 12:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of the difference between a Primary Source, and a secondary source. The primary source, that is the art work, states
"Q. To begin with, could you describe this work?
A. Yes, of course. What I've done is change a glass of water into a full-grown oak tree without altering the accidents of the glass of water. " Please revert your destructive edit.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) Ty 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, are you aware of wikipedia editing policies per Wikipedia:Rs#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources"? If you want to edit wikipedia articles, then you follow wikipedia protocols, not the ones you think should apply. Alternatively, go to the policy pages and get consensus to change them. By all means, the statement you cite can be included to show the artist's interpretation, but not as a reference for a definitive statement that this item is an oak tree. You may note that even the Tate describes it as "Glass, water, shelf and printed text sculpture", not as an oak tree, and adds,"While this appears to be a glass of water on a shelf, the artist states that it is in fact an oak tree." [1] My edit conforms to wikipedia requirements. Your desired changes violate them. Ty 23:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself."Research Method (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"While this APPEARS to be a glass of water on a shelf, the artist states that it is in fact an oak tree." Does not support your argument.Research Method (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have said above. You can use the primary source to say that this is what Craig-Martin says, as long as it is clear that it is his statement. You cannot use it to make a statement of fact beyond that. Ty 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a work of art. It is not just about a physical object. According to wikipedia guidelines "Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself." The text, which is part of the primary source (or artwork) states that it is "a full-grown oak tree".The tate gallery source you quote does not deny that it is an oak tree. Research Method (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Then say that this statement is contained within the primary source. Then you will be following the guideline. Ty 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have not made the context of the statement clear, but just presented it as a fact: "It is a sculpture of a fully-grown oak tree." The only person who says this is the case is the artist, Craig-Martin. There are no secondary sources to substantiate the statement, so it needs to be changed from its present form. However, you seem determined to state that this sculpture is an oak tree, and refuse to inform the reader that it is Craig-Martin's assertion that it is an oak tree. That is completely unacceptable. Please amend in line with wikipedia policy of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Ty 00:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, he doesn't even say it is a sculpture of an oak tree. He says it is an oak tree. Ty 00:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It does not seem that a literal representation was intended, which is what the current statement implies, and which seems to be contradicted in the subsequent text. One is concerned that the description of it as a sculpture of a tree misrepresents the artist's intention, as sourced. Could the sentence be amended to read It is a sculpture which the Tate gallery describes as consisting of "glass, water, shelf and printed text", followed by the elaboration of the artist's rationale as already provided in the ensuing text? JNW (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been addressed. JNW (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clarify things in a way that did justice both to the artist's vision and to the physical realities of the sculpture. I hope this is acceptable to everyone? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, Kafka Liz. JNW (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as it should be. Thanks. Ty 01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this line - "the artist describes the work as "a full-grown oak tree," created "without altering the accidents of the glass of water." This is a quotation FROM the work not ABOUT the work. Can we not say that "The work describes itself as "a full-grown oak tree," created "without altering the accidents of the glass of water."" The current form is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 01:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your posts. We use sources. As already stated above, the Tate says, "While this appears to be a glass of water on a shelf, the artist states that it is in fact an oak tree."[2] Ty 01:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you refering to a different source to that which is referenced in the line i am questioning. Please READ the article, and check the references, before commenting on complex issues.Research Method (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article starts[edit]

As a result of your edits, this article now starts "An Oak Tree is an artwork created by Michael Craig-Martin in 1973. It is a sculpture consisting of "glass, water, shelf and printed text sculpture"[1], namely a glass of water on a glass shelf fixed to a wall with a printed artist's text beneath it containing a semiotic argument which explains why it is not a glass of water, but an oak tree.[2] Craig-Martin stated, "It's not a symbol. I have changed the physical substance of the glass of water into that of an oak tree. I didn't change its appearance. The actual oak tree is physically present, but in the form of a glass of water."

Please attempt to avoid duplication, and to conform to grammatical convention.Research Method (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are different points being made: 1) the literal components 2) how these components are actually arranged 3) a description of what the text says 4) Craig-Martin's own words on the matter. What exactly is the problem? It is grammatically correct. Ty 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't conform to Art Historical practice. If you read the article, and the references, you would see that Craig-Martin's own words on the matter are more important than the physical accidents. Moreover "It is a sculpture consisting " is a strange way to describe a conceptual art work that exists in two examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why What? Research Method (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the art work "Absolutely not. It is not a glass of water anymore. I have changed its actual substance. It would no longer be accurate to call it a glass of water. One could call it anything one wished but that would not alter the fact that it is an oak tree." Research Method (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why ""It is a sculpture consisting " is a strange way to describe a conceptual art work that exists in two examples."? Does existing in two versions make it less of a sculpture? It would be hard to find a definition of sculpture that excludes it. Calling it an artwork does not make the two versions any less sculptures. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please support your argument. Most references to the work do not describe it as a sculpture, while a few do. If the artist doesn't say it is a sculpture (but an Oak Tree) what makes it a sculpture? Research Method (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article also covers the Artist's Copy. This is not a sculptural term, and the current description excludes it.Research Method (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point of contention is not whether it is called a sculpture or not. Call it an "artwork" if you will. The article should, however, not say that it is an oak tree. The article should say that MCM states it is an oak tree. Ty 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not MCM who says it is an oak tree, but the text which forms part of his work. Are you happy with this formulation, or is there still a dispute?Research Method (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Ty 03:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture?[edit]

Here we conform to wikipedia practice. The majority of secondary sources say this is a sculpture that consists of etc, which MCM has said is an oak tree. Therefore that is what we say. If you want to be pedantic, then say the Tate's example of this sculpture consists of etc, but I don't think that's necessary. Ty 00:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only 655 of 15,800 secondary sources acessable through google describe this work as a sculpture. Please give a source for your statementResearch Method (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See preceding section. Ty 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents[edit]

I think this work should be hyperlinked in the quote, since very few people know what it means, and it is one of the central concepts of the piece.Research Method (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Prove it. Provide a source. Otherwise it's just editorial interpretation, i.e. original research. Ty 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking does not seem to fall under the definition of original research, and I cannot source your statement " words in quotations should not normally be wikilinked, as it's an editorial interference with the original" which you used to unwikilink the word. Research Method (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Quotations. Ty 13:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing that accidents is an unfamiliar term to most people?Research Method (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pronouncing on it. The text quoted chose to explain it to the world in that way, so let the world interpret it how they want. If you have a source that examines the text and explains it, then you can add more material to do so. Ty 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text contains the phrase "Q. The accidents?
A. Yes. The colour, feel, weight, size ...?".Research Method (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can quote the text. Ty 23:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not there any more.Research Method (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Critical Reactions[edit]

I think the following passage is a critical reaction, and belongs in that section. I do not see why it should belong in the section 'Work". Any views? It was once barred by Australian officials from entering the country as "vegetation". Craig-Martin was forced to say it was really a glass of water.[1] He said that "It was of course a wonderfully funny incident, particularly because it extended into 'real life' the discussion about belief and doubt, and fact and fiction I was addressing in the work."[2]Research Method (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is merely a misunderstanding. It was labelled "oak tree" so the customs reacted to that. It was not a comment on the work, but on the labelling on the crate. A critical reaction is one based on knowledge of what is being talked about. It is, as C-M says, "an incident" and appropriate in the history of the work. Ty 03:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But are not all critics reacting to "the labelling", without which the transubstantiation might not be apparent to them? The extra degree of "knowlege of what is being talked about" between a customs officer with a closed crate and an art critic with the assembled work in front of him is arguably not that large. Nonetheless, I think it should stay in the history section. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but I have created a history section for it, as you both suggest.Research Method (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I could not find any source that supposes the artist is making fun of Christ, Christianity, or sarcastically claiming to have Christ's powers of transmutation. The artist's wording is identical to the Bible's and all critical reactions not involving Christianity are risible...124.122.48.66 (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Damien, the oak tree and me. Spectator, Dec 27, 2003 by Bidgood, Jonathan
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference sherwin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

History of the work[edit]

This is about the external events concerning it, as opposed to the "art work" section, which is about the content and meaning of the work. Therefore its display, acquisition and suchlike should be in the "history" section. Research Method has reverted this on the basis that "where the artwork is now is not history".[3] Of course it is part of its history. Ty 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The location of an artwork is as important as it's nature. It's not history, as it relates to the present, and future.Research Method (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its location is a different category of information from its artistic qualities. The latter remain the same wherever it is, and involve aesthetics, materials, concepts and philosophy. The former can change, but have no effect on these things, which remain constant. "History" simply means the narrative of the external factors relevant to it, as opposed to the internal. These things are its history - its "story". The fact that they continue in the present/future is perfectly obvious. It is a pedantic quibble to argue this. The logic flows from where it was exhibited to who bought it and where it went next. Ty 02:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Art Historical Practice. Provenence is sepereate from histiry. Do we know who owns the copy?Research Method (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we follow wikipedia practice of constructing an article which is easiest to follow for readers. The artist owns the copyright to the work, as you can see stated on the Tate site.[4] Ty 04:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the copyright, that copy.Research Method (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean the artist's copy in the Tate? No, it doesn't say, and I don't know. Ty 05:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the Work[edit]

Currently the work is described as "An Oak Tree is an iconic[1] conceptual artwork created by Michael Craig-Martin RA in 1973. The work consists of a glass of water on a glass shelf with an accompanying text,[2][3] which states that the work is a fully grown oak tree which looks like a glass of water.[4] Craig-Martin sees the work as a deconstruction of art to reveal its basic component of belief.[3]" This is a misleading description of a dematerialized conceptual artwork. The idea is more important than the shelf etc.Research Method (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCM ="I considered that in An Oak Tree I had deconstructed the work of art in such a way as to reveal its single basic and essential element, belief that is the confident faith of the artist in his capacity to speak and the willing faith of the viewer in accepting what he has to say. In other words belief underlies our whole experience of art: it accounts for why some people are artists and others are not, why some people dismiss works of art others highly praise, and why something we know to be great does not always move us. " He doesn't mention shelves at all.Research Method (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is closely referenced to sources. Read them: "In an artist interview in May 2003 Craig-Martin noted that the piece consists of two units; the object and the text."[5] There are numerous references that begin discussing the work by stating, as the Tate does, that "An Oak Tree consists of an ordinary glass of water placed on a small glass shelf".[6] We follow the lead of such sources in our approach. Anything else violates WP:NPOV and becomes WP:OR. This is wikipedia policy and is non-negotiable. Please follow it. Ty 02:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV means including all view points. Your sources do not support what you are saying, within the context that you state it. If you read them, you will see that the "art" is in the Oak Tree or glass of water debate, not in the shelf.Research Method (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV means giving due weight to sources, i.e. the majority sources get the majority weight. The majority of sources discuss the work in the way which the article now discusses it, i.e. by describing what it physically consists of, before then examining the conceptual aspects and Craig-Martin's claim for the work. Your argument is an interpretation of the sources and not a following of them. If you have a problem with this, then state clearly and succinctly the text you object to and what you think it should say, and we will get outside input on this. Ty 02:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examine the section "WORK' it contains lots of stuff that doesn't describe the nature of work itself.
It starts "An Oak Tree is a celebrated[5] artwork created by Michael Craig-Martin RA in 1973. It is now recognized as a turning point in the development of conceptual art, although initially it was met with surprise, if not scorn[6]. It has been described as "questioning the nature of reality."[5]
Interviewed in May 2003, Craig-Martin said the work consists of two parts, text and object.[2] The text is in red print on white; the object is a Duralex glass, which contains water to a level stipulated by the artist and which is located on a glass shelf, whose ideal height is 253 centimetres with matt grey-painted brackets screwed to the wall.[2] The text is behind glass and is fixed to the wall with four bolts.[2] Craig-Martin has stressed that the components should maintain a pristine appearance and in the event of deterioration, the brackets should be resprayed and the glass and shelf even replaced.[2]"" I think it should start by saying that it is a fully grown oak tree, or at least that it should say that sooner than it does. Most sources talk of a glass of water. Critic's reception should be put in that section. The article is a mess.Research Method (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the element of critical evaluation into the Critical reaction section per your observation. The work section describes the content of the work, its nature, and its place within MCM's oeuvre and development. If this section becomes over-long, then it would be appropriate to split it into two sections, one about its construction and conceptual content, the other about its place relating to his other work. Articles should not, however, be divided into choppy sections each with a heading. The idea is for longer continuous sections of prose.

"I think it should start by saying that it is a fully grown oak tree" is nonsense. That is an assertion made by the artist as to what it is. The secondary sources do not say it is a fully grown oak tree; they say it is an artwork that consists of a glass of water on a shelf, which MCM asserts is an oak tree. We follow sources. You are pushing your own interpretation. You might like to read WP:TEND. We do not at any point say that it is a fully grown oak tree, unless you find sources that tell us that it is a fully grown oak tree. We can say the text asserts it is a fully grown oak tree, or that MCM says it is a fully grown oak tree, but that is as far as it goes. This fact is in the second sentence as is appropriate.

The article is well constructed and follows wikipedia guidelines.

Ty 04:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just explained that the article should not consist of short sections each with a heading. You promptly did just that.[7] Could you explain why you have done so? Ty 04:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the text did not fit the heading. As I understand it, it is appropriate to create headings while the article is still a stub, that will later be filled with text.Research Method (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not standard practice. Let the article evolve. When there is more text, then break it down, step by step and add headings. The heading is quite OK: "Artwork", which covers the content in general terms. I don't think the reader is going to have a problem with that. It's not a stub any more. Ty 21:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Irish Museum of Modern Art Website modernart.ie
  2. ^ Bery, Bryony. "An Oak Tree 1973: Technique and condition text", Tate, June 2005. Retrieved 8 November 2008.
  3. ^ a b Manchester, Elizabeth. "An Oak Tree 1973: Short text, Tate, December 2002. Retrieved 8 November 2008.
  4. ^ Artist's Text

Inclusion of the Text[edit]

Would it be legal to include the full text? Other's seem to think it is not copy right.Research Method (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. It would be a blatant copyvio. The text is copyright the artist. Ty 03:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although if the whole (ahem) artwork is regarded as a 3-dimensional work of art, then the version displayed in the Tate, & probably that in Australia, is ok to photograph under UK freedom of panorama law as it is in a public museum. So a photo of the text might be ok, with the photographers permission. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. But would that not also apply to the actual text in that case? Ty 06:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the guy says who has it up on his website. For what it's worth, it doesn't include claim copyright.Peas & Luv (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text is the most important part of this artwork. To include the text would be the same as quoting the text of literary art work such as a a poem. QuentinUK (talk) 01
33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag[edit]

Please state succinctly what is disputed here, or remove the tag. Ty 04:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relative importance of the conceptual and physical constituents of the art work, & specifically the importance of the text which forms part of the primary source, and has been extensively quoted in writing about the piece.Peas & Luv

That doesn't tell us anything. What is done at the moment in the article which is not NPOV? What should it be changed to, to make it NPOV? Ty 06:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the physical composition of the artwork is given priority over the change that mcm has effected. There should be a balance between the physical and the metaphysical in the treatment of the work.Peas & Luv (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal opinion, namely WP:OR. WP:NPOV demands that we follow the lead of the sources. Now where is that not done? All the sources start by saying what it is physically composed of, namely the glass of water and the shelf, before proceeding onto his statement about transformation. Ty 08:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have not included many sources.
I am puzzled by your source for "Craig-Martin sees the work as a deconstruction of art to reveal its basic component of being about belief." as it is a selective simplification of what he once said.Peas & Luv (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? There are 21 refs in the article. I have looked at many more. They all follow the form I've described. Are you disputing that? You have now raised a completely different point, which I will put in a new section below. Ty 13:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but google produces 18,500 on a simple search...Peas & Luv (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We choose major ones - national press of standing, national museums etc, not blogs for example. We ascertain the major viewpoints expressed and use representative examples for validation. If you think this is not being done, then make the case below - not your viewpoint, but the viewpoint expressed in the sources. As far as I can see, the sources are being followed accurately per WP:NPOV. Ty 04:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstruction[edit]

Per above post by RM, statement that "Craig-Martin sees the work as a deconstruction of art to reveal its basic component of being about belief" is a selective simplification. MCM said:

I considered that in An Oak Tree I had deconstructed the work of art in such a way as to reveal its single basic and essential element, belief that is the confident faith of the artist in his capacity to speak and the willing faith of the viewer in accepting what he has to say. In other words belief underlies our whole experience of art:

An accurate paraphrase of his text, I think. By the way, we are meant to be paraphrasing as much as possible, not quoting endlessly. Ty 13:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deconstructed the work of art differs from artPeas & Luv (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little pedantic that, but I've amended.[8] Ty 01:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Work of art or art - not pedantry, huge difference, thanks!
Belief oversimplified - religion? Have amended to artist and viewer - still think that better to quote in entirerty - otherwise it is just water in a glass!Peas & Luv (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to minimise direct quotations. See Wikipedia:Nfc#Text. Ty 07:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Craig-Martin sees the work as a deconstruction to reveal the artist's and the viewer's belief as the basic component of art" This is the current version, but is not supported by the quote, and may not make sense.Peas & Luv (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be precise and show exactly which words are not supported by the quote. Ty 03:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does he say that he sees the work as a deconstruction?Peas & Luv (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I considered that in An Oak Tree I had deconstructed the work of art..." Ty 05:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the same as saying that "I had made a deconstruction" please follow the source, paraphrase, but do not distort the meaning.Peas & Luv (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say, "I had made a deconstruction". It says, "Craig-Martin sees the work as a deconstruction". His words were, "I considered that in An Oak Tree I had deconstructed the work of art..." If in the work in question, namely An Oak Tree, he had deconstructed something, how else can he see this work other than a deconstruction of the something which he had deconstructed? There is no distortion (apart from your distortion of what the article says). Ty 07:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed to "Craig-Martin considered he had deconstructed "the work of art in such a way as to reveal its single basic and essential element, belief that is the confident faith of the artist in his capacity to speak and the willing faith of the viewer in accepting what he has to say"." The short quote more accurately reflects what he said.93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

The text "(from a leaflet at the original exhibition) is now considered part of the work" was inserted in the middle of a statement which is referenced.[9] The ref does not support the insertion, so the result is misleading. Also the lead is just meant to be a summary of the main points, not every little detail.

To the "anon" editor: please sign in with your user name. See WP:SOCK.

Ty 11:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK says nothing about using ip addresses, and is solely concerned with User Accounts.93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have revised the lede as follows - is supported by sources - and previous was wrong as did not mention accidents!

"The work consists of piece consists of two units; the object, a glass of water on a glass shelf, and the text.[2][3] [4] The text takes the form of a Q&A about the artwork, in which Craig-Martin describes changing "a glass of water into a full-grown oak tree without altering the accidents of the glass of water," and explains that "the actual oak tree is physically present but in the form of the glass of water." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Properties[edit]

When the water evaporates, what then is the work considered? Who refills the glass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.170.43 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:An Oak Tree/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article needs to examine the impact of the work on popular culture.Research Method (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on An Oak Tree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on An Oak Tree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:An_Oak_Tree&oldid=1198652146"