Talk:Art manifesto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Contemporary Art    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contemporary Art, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

"World wide web 1999–" Notability?[edit]

I came here to delete references pointing to the non-notable term Neo-Gothism, and was rather shocked to see quite a few other "Manifestos", which seem to have no evidence of notability, and appear to be nothing more than someone posting on a webpage (e.g., "Tom 7" and his "Crap Art manifesto"!) Is anyone against me deleting these? Maybe we could have some of them as external links, at best. Mdwh 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Well, I am (at the moment), because I spent a long time researching this, and I think it needs an overall concept. But let me give you my starting rationale to see what you make of it. I basically wanted to have a comprehensive survey of art manifestos, a sort of one-stop shop, where you could get access to information that is not readily available, hence improving Wiki's stature as an invaluable source of knowledge. I think I've got everything that google could turn up under art manifesto. Now I realise this is pretty shot-gun in its approach, but then another consideration comes into play also, namely history. Obviously the further back you go, the more established and acceptable such documents will be.
When we come into the present and the internet age, a different consideration presents itself, namely a proliferation of manifestos, easily published potentially to the world, but probably to a relatively small audience. In order to trace the evolution of thought through the decades, it is necessary to have comparative examples. With the most recent ones, the notability lies not necessarily with the specific manifestos published on the web, but with the phenomenon of web-published manifestos. They are, as it were then, samples of this phenomenon. Another reason for highlighting some of them was to keep the structure for the sake of seeing the progress of ideas, nomenclature and presentation from one age to the next.
This does, however, give rise to the impression that perhaps all of the manifestos are deemed of equal weight, which of course is patently not the case. A drastic pruning of 1999- might well end up leaving us with only the Stuckist manifesto, which at least people have heard of (certainly in the UK press and art world) and is in the Tate (I've added the external link, long overdue).
I am definitely against deleting, because the idea is to aim for comprehensiveness. That won't be achieved obviously, but I think it would be great for someone to hear of some obscure manifesto by chance and find the only place that can give them any information on it is Wikipedia. That will doubtless not actually be the only place that has information, but it might well be the only place they can find easily, as so much of the art world happens with the cognoscenti in relative obscurity in Shoreditch backstreets for example. I have adopted a new motto today:
"The mind reels that Wikipedia has an entry on Jim 'The Hammer' Shapiro. Wikipedia knows all." - which I read on a - blogsite and which paraphrases (unintentionally) Jimmy Whales' proclamation for Wiki.
It's synchronistic that you should highlight the Crap Art manifesto, because I'd forgotten all about it till last week when I paid a visit to the Saatchi Gallery web forums, only to be confronted by it there.
So no, these aren't necessarily notable in their own right (which is why they don't have their own article), but I feel strongly it is right to record them and even to give a flavour of what they contain. However, there are different ways of doing this, and you have suggested one. I have now added a qualification that these are samples of the genre and not necessarily in wide circulation. Neo-Gothism was quite useful as pat of a sub-culture and also a development of punk.
The early years could do with filling out. I think my original idea was to have some commentary on every manifesto, and then make up a separate article with a list of contemporary ones.

Anyway, I would be happy to hear any of your ideas on the subject.

Tyrenius 06:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just feel that we need to be careful that information comes from reliable sources. It seems you are saying that I could write a joke "art manifesto" on a webpage, let Google find it, and you would then include it here?
As for Neo-Gothism (which I've now put up for AfD), you seemed to agree on Talk:Neo-Gothism that there is little to verify this? Mdwh 00:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Material on the web can be used to verify its own existence, but not necessarily anything beyond that. If we are examining what material is currently on the web and something on the web is a joke manifesto, than it is a fact to say that that is the case. To say anything beyond that would not be verifiable unless there were other sources to say so. I've put in another qualification to try to point this out. A recurrent theme in contemporary art anyway is the "joke" that then gets taken seriously, so that aspect has to be taken in context with current practice, and I don't see it as a particular concern in itself. Tyrenius 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but there is still the question of notability. It may be a fact that there exists a website saying such-and-such, but I don't see any evidence of it being notable, if there is just one website. Mdwh 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of notability. The notability is in the article subject, namely "Art manifesto". It doesn't then mean that everything within that article has to be notable. In the same way a biography of a person gets space if that individual is considered notable for some reason, but the article will include lots of details about that person's life which in themselves are not at all notable. That's not to say I think this article as it now stands is perfect, because I don't think that. However, I think we have to find the right criteria to be able to sort out what to do with it. Tyrenius 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the level of notability to be mentioned in an article should be less than that required to have an article of its own - but surely some level of notability is required still to include things on Wikipedia, otherwise people would get away with including all sorts of stuff (e.g., I could insert details of a non-notable piece of software I wrote into software). That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I feel that a collection of non-notable webpages where someone has written a "manifesto" counts as an indiscriminate collection of information. Mdwh 21:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability is an essay, not even a guideline, and, although it is often used, of course, and is often relevant, there may be other valid considerations in different circumstances. You say "people would get away with including all sorts of stuff", but this is not a consideration here, as it was not the authors who added the material you've mentioned (although it looks as though there may have been something since that qualifies). It is not indiscrimate information, as it is directly applicable to the subject, which we have agreed is valid. List of computer viruses (A-D) includes viruses that may not have notability in their own right, but are included to make a comprehensive article. This article is not "a collection of non-notable webpages"; it merely happens to mention some non-notable webpages as part of it, which is an entirely different matter.

I have added the quote which describes the effect of the web on art manifestos. It seemed to me that anyone reading this and following the historical evolution of the manifestos would be interested in what type of manifestos were being put on the web and to see their relationship in form and content with previous (pre-internet) manifestos. Thus a representative sample are described. Does this not seem reasonable? Any argument about the inclusion of these has to be taken in context with the whole article. If you still feel it is wrong, perhaps you could outline what changes you think need to be made. Arguments about non-notability might also apply to certain manifestos in the early sections as well, just to complicate matters.

Tyrenius 05:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to limit the topic of "art manifestos" to the 20th century. Someone looking for a reference to the works of John Ruskin or the preface to Leaves of Grass, for example, is going to be pretty surprised that these documents are not considered. These authors definitely composed great and influential art manifestos, whether or not the term had political currency in their day. Chairease (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)