Talk:Kinetic art

Untitled

See Talk:Kinetic sculpture for additional discussion.

Beginning

Hello. I'm going to be expanding this stub within this week and I wondered if anyone had any ideas. Feel free to add here. --Think Fast 01:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Kinetic painting

There really needs to be more discussion of ~2D Kinetic Art - as suggested by the merge request, a lot of this material duplicates discussion on Kinetic sculpture. Bridget Riley probably isn't the best example, but I'm not sure of the names of the leading proponents. There was some discussion of this on my talk page over a year ago, and the anon comment at the top of Talk:Kinetic sculpture - but the information is more useful here. - Solipsist 08:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Kinetic sculpture

This is a slightly suspect page as it confuses two terms.

• 1 Kinetic Art - which was coined as an art movement in the 1960's as a branch of Pop Art
• 2 Art which is Kinetic - which implies 'art that moves' according to the standard definition of the word kinetic. this is about as useful as saying that 'red art' includes all art that is red. many works of art move but have no relation at all to Kinetic Art as a school or movement (excuse the unintentional pun).

I would suggest that in its current state this page is not adding anything to anybodies understanding of art, but is simply reinforcing a rather pathetic misconception. DavidParfitt 01:20, 21 May 2005.

Copied from User talk:Solipsist/archive8

Kinetic art was split off from Kinetic sculpture after some discussion on a confusing #Redirect. And as it happens, I just found an old make-and-do book on the subject in my loft - Tim Armstrong, Make moving patterns [1]. They are mostly based on moire pattern type of effects - sometimes with a grid of lines painted on a transparency suspended just above the main canvas. A few of the examples may also be exploiting some of the steroscopic effects seen in Magic Eye books to produce the impression of a moving pattern in the eye.

Many years ago I also saw an exhibition at the Tate, where several of the artists used deeply corrugated canvases so that the perceived image changed as you walked past the painting. I wouldn't be able to remember any of the artist's names though. -- Solipsist 4 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)

Art works are made by artists who should be referenced when a work is illustrated as per standard publishing requirements pertaining to a work of art. Is Whirligig the title of the piece illustrated on this page? Who is the artist who created Whirligig? The photographer of Whirligig is credited but not the artist? This page would have more credibility of conventions such as those mentioned were followed. Just a helpful suggestion to improve the page. 68.237.15.124 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'll look it up and add it later this week. Rklawton 04:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

When works of art are illustrated, the medium, dimensions and the year the work was created, in addition to the name of the artist, are cited as per convention to publishing standards. I just went to the Picasso page which mets most criteria but neglects to include dimensions of the illustrated work. Ditto the Jackson Pollock page. Ditto the Bridget Riley page. Ditto the Ansel Adams page. Photogrpahic prints are physical objects - like a piece of sculpture - so dimensions are important. But - go to the Marcel Duchamp page and note caption for Nude Descending a Staircase which includes all criteria. Enlarge other images on that page and see complete captions. That would indicate that editors on Wikipedia are not consistently adhering to the caption standards for illustrated published works of art. As a guide, have a look at any museum art book for caption standards. 68.237.66.74 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

you should really think about talkingmore about marcel duchamp and how world war 2 had a big influence on his art work. just go into more detail about everything its to simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.224.192 (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge considerations

Kinechromatic art should be a stand alone article, because it is about two dimensional art. Kinetic art and Kinetic sculpture should be merged because they are both about three dimensional art. Bus stop 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

On further reading, Kinechromatic does seem quite different than the usual concept of kinetic art/sculpture. Though Kinetic art tries to touch on 2D aspects with "...or implied, as in the Op art paintings of Bridget Riley and others." We could add Kinechomatic to that sentence. --sparkit^TALK 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source relating Op art to Kinechromatic art, or to Kinetic art? I am not inclined to consider implications of motion with actual motion. I have never heard of Op art being called Kinetic art. I think that Kinetic art involves actual motion, not just the implication of motion, and I've never encountered a source saying otherwise. As far as Op art being related to Kinechromatic art, I don't think that makes sense either. Op art does not use any of the techniques suggested in the Kinechromatic art article. Op art is simply ordinary paint applied to an ordinary surface, as is the norm in conventional painting. Bus stop 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is the same as yours. Long, long ago that was included in the article, and some of the discussion above may explain it. In any case, I support the removal of the 2D references/links/sentence. --sparkit^TALK 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading the top of Talk:Kinetic sculpture explains how there came to be two articles Kinetic art and Kinetic sculpture. It looks like the idea at the time was to have Kinetic art cover both moving art and art that seems to move, with Kinetic sculpture a linked article that covered just 3D moving art. Then at some point a lot of sculpture info was added to the art article rather than the sculpture article.

I'm now thinking that merging to Kinetic sculpture is the way to go. It's the phrase that first comes to my mind when thinking of this type of art.

Also, is there a term that's used for 2D art that appears to move? Nothing is coming to my mind at the moment. --sparkit^TALK 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Appearing to move" is almost meaningless, in my opinion. An artist such as Yaacov Agam makes works that can appear to move, but it is often, if not always, three dimensional, to some degree. I don't think his works involve moving parts, but, being three dimensional, they appear to move as the viewer's orientation to the artwork changes. Similarly, I am not aware that any of Victor Vasarely's pieces incorporate motion (though I could be wrong about that), not his three dimensional works nor his two dimensional works. Film is the primary category of two dimensional works that incorporate motion. Of course in that same category go such things a videos, cathode ray tubes, liquid crystal displays, and all methods of projecting light onto a surface. And there are probably lots of other varieties of these types of technology that I am not aware of. But, no, in answer to your question, I don't know of any term used for two dimensional art that appears to move. Even Op art is not probably defined simply by it's propensity to "appear to move." That might be it's most often mentioned quality. But it is also often geometric. It is often also rendered in a very limited number of colors -- some of Bridget Riley's paintings are just in black and white. The imagery is often very minimal. And it is often symmetrical. Bus stop 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Kinetic art generally means Kinetic sculpture so I agree with you that merging the two articles is called for. If anyone else has any input they should speak up. Bus stop 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kinetic sculpture is a subset of kinetic art. I'd hope that at some point, we'd have enough material for a separate article. However, if other editors want to merge them now, I won't object. Rklawton 21:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way is Kinetic sculpture a subset of Kinetic art? Can you think of any Kinetic art that is not Kinetic sculpture? Bus stop 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure - just look at the article. Rklawton 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Are you referring to Bridget Riley's paintings? Bus stop 21:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Some or most of the types listed under "Types" in this article probably don't qualify as "sculpture". Rklawton 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I pulled out Bullfinch (West, Shearer (1996). The Bullfinch Guide to Art. UK: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. ISBN 0-8212-2137-X.) and it reads, in part, "...and Op art paintings, which use optical illusions to cause the picture surface to move."

So, I now propose that the bulk of the 3D info from Kinetic art be moved to Kinetic sculpture. I'll reference the op art parts. --sparkit^TALK 21:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• They may not be sculptures but they also may not be kinetic art. For instance, I've never heard of pyrotechnics as kinetic art. And as concerns some of the other things mentioned, if they are not considered serious art, then it follows that they are not kinetic art. A mobile, by Calder, may be art. But a whirligig by someone anonymous may not be art. A self destructing sculpture by Jean Tinguely may be art, whereas a moving model of a Tyranausaurus Rex may not be kinetic sculpture. Bus stop 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Kinetic sculpture is the most appropriate heading, in my opinion. Bus stop 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the 3D info to Kinetic sculpture and arranged Kinetic art in a manner that leaves an opening for the Op art info. I think this covers all the considerations. --sparkit^TALK 22:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• CORRECTION: I think the most appropriate heading for one article to cover the two presently existing articles, Kinetic art and Kinetic sculpture, is Kinetic art. Bus stop 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about not making myself clear the first time. It was unintentional. Bus stop 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[grin] I'm done with it for today, but it works either way for me. My main concern was that we had the 3D info in two separate articles. --sparkit^TALK 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Op art, such as Bridget Riley's paintings, are properly considered Kinetic art. Bus stop 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Rklawton 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop suggested that a whirligig by an anonymous person isn't art. First, we're not looking at specific artists here, we're writing an article about kinetic art. If a whirligig can be art, and if it's kinetic, then it rates mentioning in an article about kinetic art. Related to this, the illustration that Sparkit removed today was by a very well known artist in his field, Lyman Whitaker - a person whose work is far from anonymous.[2][3][4]. Op art, on the other hand, seems to fall under the realm of "optical illusion" and given the static nature of the examples provided in the article today, really doesn't belong in an article dealing with motion. Rklawton 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• I only said that the "whirligig by someone anonymous may not be art." Yes, we are writing an article about Kinetic art. But I think the example provided should leave no doubts about their identity as being this type of art. The problem I had with the whirligig by someone anonymous is that we really cannot know if this truly is Kinetic art, according to authoritative opinion. My reasoning, also, is that it may not be considered serious art. Bus stop 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I may have made a mistake. (I'm making a lot of mistakes.) I thought the whirligig pictured was by someone anonymous. Sorry. Bus stop 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The image didn't have artist attribution. It does now — on the Kinetic sculpture page. --sparkit^TALK 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I removed any illustrations today. I moved them to Kinetic sculpture. Lyman Whitaker certainly is a notable sculptor. I started a stub about him.

We have resources (Bullfinch for one) that includes some op art in the kinetic art category. Unfortunately Bullfinch doesn't go into detail about it. --sparkit^TALK 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• You said that "Bullfinch" says, "...and Op art paintings, which use optical illusions to cause the picture surface to move." But where is the mention of Kinetic art? Bus stop 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The entry heading (dictionary/encyclopedia style) is "Kinetic art", it first describes the sculpture type, then comes that phrase. --sparkit^TALK 01:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Recap

To recap where we're at with these articles:

1. Move Kinetic sculpture info to Kinetic art and make sculpture a redirect
2. The op art/kinetic art variety. (see below)
3. Remove Bridget Riley as an example of Op/kinetic art. (removed from lead)
4. Lyman Whitaker article started and he's mentioned in the article
5. Concerns remain about the Energizer Ball Machine, T-Rex gutted, Pyrotechnic art images being valid representations of art.

Op art/kinetic variety - These two web pages explain the op art variety.

• http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/C20th/opart.htm
• http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/C20th/kineticart.htm

--sparkit^TALK 03:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Kinetic sculpture article should be merged into the Kinetic art article. (The redirect from Kinetic sculpture is a good idea.) From that point I would start paring down the less essential ingredients and adding in the more important ingredients. That step I think would be radical but necessary. I think that important examples of Kinetic art are missing and less important examples are present. That will probably be the most contentious stage of this process. As far as Op art is concerned, I see no reason for Op art to have a presence in the Kinetic art article. I see nothing in the two references you've provided that indicates that Op art is Kinetic art. I believe they are two separate things. Let me add my own recapitulation: The reason that Kinetic sculpture is being merged into Kinetic art is because there is no Kinetic art which is not sculpture. Bus stop 07:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The merge to Kinetic art is done.

Because op art is sometimes described as "kinetic" I think it calls for mention on the page. Whether an entire section is warranted, I don't know. --sparkit^TALK 12:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Why ask for confusion? Even Futurism concerns itself with motion. Even Vorticism concerns itself with motion. Any writer can fancifully throw the word "kinetic" into a descriptive piece about something unrelated to Kinetic sculpture. Thanks for taking care of that merge. Bus stop 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the word (kinetic) does come up a lot more in descriptions of Op art, but it is only a descriptive term. Bus stop 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we've already found several types of art that art kinetic but not sculpture. Rklawton 13:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Name them. What types of art are kinetic but not sculpture? Bus stop 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pyrotechnic, for one. Rklawton 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a source for pyrotechnics being art? Bus stop 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Google "pyrotechnic art" and you'll find over a thousand of them. Rklawton 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not any Google hit for "pyrotechnic art" qualifies as a source. It would have to be a source that joined "pyrotechnic art" with "kinetic art." Or, at the least, it would have to be a source that indicated that "pyrotechnic art" was considered a serious art form. That is not a matter of opinion, that is, your opinion or my opinion. That is a matter of reliable sources. For instance, if an art critic mentioned "pyrotechnic art" as an art form, then that would carry some weight. But if someone advertising a product referred to it as "pyrotechnic art," that might not carry as much weight. It depends on the specifics. But I think the most telling thing is that if you look up Kinetic art or Kinetic sculpture, you don't find mention of "pyrotechnic art." Therefore I think we would be going out on a limb to consider "pyrotechnic art" to be Kinetic art.

OK, I've joined the search terms together and found a lot of hits. It'll take awhile to go through them all. Rklawton 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Robotics: I did find a nice article linking kinetic art with robotics, however - so that's an example that illustrates a related question you raised regarding robotics.[5] Rklawton 14:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Music-Kinetic: Here's another nifty article dealing with a topic no one had thought to add to these articles.[6]

And another music-kinetic art reference: A.B.Klein, "Colour Music: The Art of Light" - London: 1926). Rklawton 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Others: this kinetic art museum includes numerous examples of kinetic art some with and some without sculpture.[7] Rklawton 15:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm still looking for a reasonable acadmic source for fire art, firworks, incidiary art, etc that links them to kinetic art (there's just a lot to plow through), I think it's reasonable given the above that we can lose the notion that all kinetic art is kinetic sculpture. Rklawton 15:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So if all KA (kinetic art) is not sculpture does that open the need to have a KS (kinetic sculpture) article of its own? If this one is going to get filled with fireworks and smoke bombs and who knows what, then I say that a KS article is needed, again. Carptrash 16:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Kinetic art is not just anything that involves motion. It specifically refers to fine art. And I think the core meaning of the term refers to art within certain time periods. I don't think any new kinetic art has been produced since the 1960s. And I don't think any of it was other than three dimensional. While kinetic art is said not to be a style, the term refers in it's original and I think still it's basic meaning which concerns a fascination with twentieth century technology. Anyone can call anything anything. But we should be trying to stick to scholarly applications of the term. The article should deal with the basics. And only after that, perhaps, suggest other possible applications of the term. And even then it should be pointed out to the reader that this is not the art historical use of the term. Bus stop 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Most of the article is incorrect, as it stands. Start with the Lyman Whitaker picture opening the article. It is doubtful that Lyman Whitaker should even be included in this article, let alone have the opening picture devoted to his work. Kinetic art has a primary, core meaning. That, so far, is largely absent. And present are many things unrelated to the basic, scholarly application of the term. Bus stop 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this " I don't think any new kinetic art has been produced since the 1960s " is a little severe. Calder produced KA until he died in the mid 1970s and Rickey produced a nice (opinion) piece for the Gerald Ford Library in 1982. However when I see statements such as that I tend to just go away and not get into it. Carptrash 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Those would clearly be exceptions based on the continuity of a practitioner's life. And yes, my statement was a bit severe. But I think there is undue weight given to speculative examples of what might be kinetic art, and a dearth of exploration of the core meaning of the term. Bus stop 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO the article is most certainly lacking a history section which would resolve some problems. Also, IMO, it needs to reflect the fine art/scholarly/academic usage of the term and the not-so-scholarly usage. It's just weighted to one side right now. --sparkit^TALK 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Scholars are not in agreement about whether implied motion is or is not kinetic art. Grove art (requires a login available from some libraries) says "Kinetic art: Term applied to works of art concerned with real and apparent movement. It may encompass machines, mobiles and light objects in actual motion; more broadly, it also includes works in virtual or apparent movement, which could be placed under the denomination of Op art." --sparkit^TALK 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• --sparkit -- Do we have any examples of individual works of art that are both Op art and Kinetic art? Bus stop 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

not yet. --sparkit^TALK 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Most of this stuff strikes me as mumbo jumbo. I want to hear a fairly scholarly source go out on a limb and say that this example of Op art is also an example of Kinetic art. Someone's vague reference to an unspecified artwork and involving the word kinetic is hardly convincing. Bus stop 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The resources I've found so far are not specific. unfortunately. --sparkit^TALK 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• These terms require appropriate specificity, in my opinion. I don't think it makes much sense to include too much in a term, or to define the term in too restrictive a way. We have to rely on sources. But I don't look for sources that will include everything under the sun in a term. Bus stop 18:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking it up in ART SPOKE (Atkins), he calls the movement started by Duchamp and going through Calder and "after World War II," as being Kinetic Sculpture, so perhaps that term should be used for the Movement and kinetic art for art incorporating movement (as opposed to being in one)? Carptrash 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it is a movement, or a style. It was an idea that, like so many ideas, was not accepted at first. But once it has been accepted, it just becomes a normal descriptive term, for any art with moving parts. During it's decades of nonacceptance, it only took on the form of three dimensional works. But it is possible that two dimensional works could have moving parts (though highly unlikely). Kinetic sculpture would not be entirely unacceptable, as a name for this article. But sculpture is fine art. So, why narrow down the category that it is in prematurely? I think that within the category of Kinetic art should be found the category of Kinetic sculpture. The reason is that there was no real reason why Kinetic art could not have been two dimensional. Bus stop 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I woukd be quite happy in having kinetic sculpture as being a sub-section of kinetic art. I would tend to define it as sculpture that moves as opposed to, say sculpture that gives the impression or sensation of movement. And it has to by 3D. Carptrash 22:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Kinetic art is not sculpture that gives the impression or sensation of movement. That has been taken out of the article, I think. And yes, it is three dimensional. The items that were removed are not kinetic sculpture at all. Just because a model of a dinosaur moves doesn't make it kinetic sculpture. Ditto for science displays involving rolling balls. Ditto for dominoes that knock over other dominoes. Ditto for fireworks. What do they all have in common? Virtually nothing. Bus stop 23:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a picture of Alexander Calder's International Mobile from the 3rd Sculpture International Exhibition in 1948 that might work better than some of the other pictures in the article. I had a category of sculptors who exhibited at that event that was recently decommissioned, [8] (#1:21) along with all the data contained, that has me very pi**ed off - which is why I'm not editing much. Anyway, if I go looking for support to re-activate that category can it get that support here? I recently contacted a sculptor who was at the event and saw Calder's piece being installed, and .... whooops, original research, can't go there either. Carptrash 01:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's fine with me. Put it in the article. Bus stop 01:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Reworking the article

I think it's great that you all are willing to put in some effort at upgrading this article. However, I'm a bit concerned about the "fine art" and related comments I've read above. No where in the Fine art article did I see any reference to something as modern as kinetic art. This leads me to believe that kinetic art is far from "fine art." And I've gotten a sense of a certain degree of snobbishness (for lack of a better word) regarding "art" and what it is or isn't. While sorting out how I feel about that, it occurred to me that so long as we stick with high quality academic sources rather than our own speculation, then we pretty much can't go wrong with our edits. So I'm writing this to encourage more use of JSTOR and similar sources and less use of speculation and opinion. In short, I think it would be great if we built this (and related) articles from the ground up – with high quality sources supporting each fact and assertion. Rklawton 01:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• But that's what kinetic art is. It is a type of fine art. It is a type of visual art. What is "JSTOR?" Bus stop 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is not your fault. It is a logical misunderstanding. And yes, you are right, there is little mention of this type of art on Wikipedia. As you point out, there is no mention of kinetic art in the fine art article. Bus stop 02:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

JSTOR is something that you've got to pay to use - but don't worry about sources, I've got books for my stuff. When my radio partner (KLDK - where I am now) was memtioning my favorite beer/wine, it was, "Anything free." It's the same with sources. Carptrash 02:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• But what is "JSTOR?" Do you have a web address for it? Bus stop 04:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Visit www.google.com (it's way cool) - and when you type JSTOR into the little search thingy, it will tell you straight off the correct URL. Or just type in JSTOR.com or JSTOR.org into your favorite web browser. As far as "free" goes, once you find a relevant article, you can go to your public library and request a copy - it may take a few days to get it, but it's worth it. If you're a university student, you may find your school library has the particular journal you need, so you won't have to wait. Since JSTOR is an index of peer-reviewed journals, you won't have to worry about RS. More significantly, you'll be able to see what articles your article is citing and what articles have cited your article, too. This is a great way to locate additional articles about the topic you're studying. In fact, if another academician publishes an article taking issue with your article, you'll end up with both sides of the debate. I can't image writing an encyclopedic article on a scholarly topic without it. Rklawton 13:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• It sounds good. I looked at the web site. I of course couldn't access it, but it sounds good. Thanks. Something good to know about. Bus stop 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So, perhaps, what we do is reduce the article to a series of sentences and then either find a source to support it or . . ... it goes? Carptrash 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So long as there's a few of us willing to put in the work, then I see no problem to reducing the article to whatever's sourced. We can build it back up from there (why does an image of Marine boot camp spring to mind now? I was never a Marine). Let's work to keep opinion out of this article (see below) and stick with what we can support. The art world has a huge diversity of opinion on this (and any) topic, so the article will end up covering a lot of ground. JSTOR access if free and easy at most local libraries, so that shouldn't slow us down too much. Yes, it won't be as simple as searching CNN for articles on Paris Hilton, but at least we'll learn something useful. Rklawton 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm happy leaving the USMC outta here too (being a former PCV myself) - but my local library is NOT a public library, so they lack some of the services that are taken for granted elsewhere. However I'm going to email the Moholy-Nagy Institute (or something) and ask for some info on his take on kinetic art. I am finding some of the early manifestos on line and it's not always helping all that much. Questions such as , "Is a rock band in 1967 playing in front of a light show "kinetic art?" are starting to keep me awake at night. Carptrash 02:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Piece by piece

After making a few changes, I lopped off this section as being (opinion) a good place to begin.

In fact, [never a good way to begin anything] it contains within in it two opposite impulses. Kinetic sculpture is understood (by whom?) to involve a preoccupation with the technology that characterized the twentieth century. Thus some kinetic sculpture can convey hopefulness, while other examples convey darkness and gloom.

So some examples of these two types of sculpture would be in order here. I myself don't see it this way, but am always open to a new and different POV, particularly when backed by something in the way of a footnote. Carptrash 22:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile,

here [9] is page 1 of a two page discussion of 2D kinetic art. Do we wish to include this sort of work in our article? Carptrash 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And if you go here [10] you'll find the Gabo/Pevsner reference to 'kinetic" - and I feel (opinion) that it has nothing to do with the way that we are using the word kinetic , that is, the actual moving of the sculpture. I am not comfortable having this be the begining, or an early feature in the history of kinetic sculpture. What do you think? Carptrash 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Ball Sculpture, etc.

Just because a model of a dinosaur moves doesn't make it kinetic sculpture. Ditto for science displays involving rolling balls.

I assume "science displays involving rolling balls" means Rolling Ball Sculpture and that's why the article contains neither a link nor a reference to this type of (object created by people who seem to consider it to be) kinetic art. If this is true, I'm curious about what part of the definition these works fail to meet. If I'm wrong, I move to include such a reference and link.Originalname37 (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, I realize that I'm waiting in vain a response from Bus stop. I'm also noticing a lot of cool stuff in this old version of the article and would like to know how many people object strongly to bringing some of it back.Originalname37 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Psychocinetic Art into Interactive art

A recent Article for Deletion (AfD) debate resulted in consensus to merge the two articles above. It might be of interest to editors of this page (I am no subject matter expert on this). regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

KAO

I'll delete the link to the website to the KAO - Kinetic Art Organization, because it's down since a year. The KAO was made by Ralf(onso) Gschwend, who is also linked on this article. Please have a carefully look on this artist, quite a lot is simply untrue. Kineticus (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I just chopped a chunk

of this artice out and moved it here.

Kinetic sculpture was an international phenomenon, though its roots were primarily European. The term "kinetic sculpture" does not indicate any specific style. The term kinetic sculpture refers to a class of art made primarily from the late 1950s through 1960s.

Kinetic sculpture has been around since ancient Egypt. The golden age of autonama is generally thought to be 1848-1914 when Europe overflowed with kinetic sculptures.

All of the claims made here need to be sourced if they are going to remain and have me still be happy. So if you are vested in these statements . ... let's work something out. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What? No sources? I'm with you. Reliable sources make me happy. Rklawton (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Article has been butchered

The article has been butchered and totally re-written in a non neutral tone with inadequate referencing.Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted photos

I am concerned that the photographs that User:Sallyaul2013 has added say they are her own work, when clearly they are not?Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - the images should go. I switched the Rodchenko and it can stay as well as the gallery of 3 that came from the earlier version of the article. Ironically all the paintings should be in the public domain, but the newer work and the Pollock should go. The article is farfetched so far, very strange...Modernist (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Original research

I have serious concerns about the vast amount of original research in the "Origins and early development section", that has been added to this article by User:Sallyaul2013 and the section seems to overpower the rest of the article. According to the Guggenheim Museum "Kinetic art or kineticism, is an international movement that refers to art of both real and apparent motion created between 1920 and 1970. Although it was not recognized as a movement until the 1955 exhibition Le mouvement (Movement) at Galerie Denise René in Paris." http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/474-collections_movement/4518-kinetic-art The article as it stands now does not reflect this definition?.Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Make the changes that you feel are required...Modernist (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Jackson Pollock

Jackson Pollock may well have been described as a kinetic artist but he did not create kinetic art. This article is way off the mark in a lot of ways. Kinetic art should be in Wikipedia but it should be about the subject. The section about Pollock should be removed because it is not about the subject of Kinetic Art. Kanuk (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please review entire article

I am sorry to say that I find this article to be completely off. It concentrates almost entirely on the forerunners of kinetic art and almost not at all on kinetic art in itself. Impressionism has been confused with kinetic art. There is no mention of the exhibition Le Mouvement (1955) in Gallery Denise René in Paris, which is considered by scholars to be the actual inauguration of kinetic art. This article is in urgent need of a complete revision by someone specialized on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.152.83 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Also there is no link to lenticular printing. --Spunionztastic (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Video image

I think we need a good one of these in the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Entire Alexander Calder section needs rewrite or deletion

The entire section under the heading "Alexander Calder" falls afoul of WP's rules and should be substantially rewritten or deleted. It is rife with weasel words and handwaving, as I have emphasized in bold:

"Alexander Calder is an artist who many believe to have defined firmly and exactly the style of mobiles in kinetic art. Over years of studying his works, many critics allege that Calder was influenced by a wide variety of sources. Some claim that Chinese windbells were objects that closely resembled the shape and height of his earliest mobiles. Other art historians argue that the 1920s mobiles of Man Ray, including Shade (1920) had a direct influence on the growth of Calder's art.

When Calder first heard of these claims, he immediately admonished his critics. 'I have never been and never will be a product of anything more than myself. My art is my own, why bother stating something about my art that isn’t true?' One of Calder's first mobiles, Mobile (1938) was the work that 'proved' to many art historians that Man Ray had an obvious influence on Calder's style. Both Shade and Mobile have a single string attached to a wall or a structure that keeps it in the air. The two works have a crinkled feature that vibrates when air passes through it. [NB: how would "a single string attached to a wall" keep an object in the air, rather than simply keeping it against the wall? What is a "crinkled feature", how does it "vibrate"?]

Regardless of the obvious similarities, Calder's style of mobiles created two types that are now referred to as the standard in kinetic art. There are object-mobiles and suspended mobiles. Object mobiles on supports come in a wide range of shapes and sizes and can move in any way. Suspended mobiles were first made with colored glass and small wooden objects that hung on long threads. Object mobiles were a part of Calder's emerging style of mobiles that were originally stationary sculptures.

It can be argued, based on their similar shape and stance, that Calder's earliest object mobiles have very little to do with kinetic art or moving art. By the 1960s, most art critics believed that Calder had perfected the style of object mobiles in such creations as the Cat Mobile (1966). In this piece, Calder allows the cat's head and its tail to be subject to random motion, but its body is stationary. Calder did not start the trend in suspended mobiles, but he was the artist that became recognized for his apparent originality in mobile construction.

One of his earliest suspended mobiles, McCausland Mobile (1933), is different from many other contemporary mobiles simply because of the shapes of the two objects. Most mobile artists such as Rodchenko and Tatlin would never have thought to use such shapes because they didn't seem malleable or even remotely aerodynamic."

Weasel words such as "some", "many" and "other" have no place in an encyclopedia, and must be replaced with actual examples, or be removed. Making claims like something being "obvious", or that someone "would never have thought" of something are also unencyclopedic. Use of the passive voice, such as "it can be argued" is likewise inappropriate here. The editor who added this text added their own original research here, in opining about influences upon Calder's work; such claims must be supported by citations from reliable sources, or be removed. Bricology (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Sarnikoff"? Internet says "who?"

Under the heading "Selected works" there is an animated .gif with the caption "Sarnikoff 'Goldflakes' Mobile cardboard animated by an asynchronous motor, also recycle art to bring spirit in this contribution France". A Google search of "Sarnikoff" + "sculptor OR sculpture" returned just 168 hits, most of which are either irrelevant or devolve upon this page. Apparently "Sarnikoff" does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Consequently the image and caption should be removed. Bricology (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)