Talk:Installation art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.


While this article has become quite in-depth I feel it does not really conform to the Wikipedia standards policy. I am considering placing a notice to this affect on the page. Please leave any comments on the state of the article so I can gage other Wikipedian's feelings before I do this. --Maria N 23:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A large part of it is from, I'm removing that as a copyright violation, since it's verbatim from that website. Relevant material can be extracted from that website. --sparkit (talk) 04:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Merging Installation Art with Street Installations[edit]

While it's is a form of installation art, I see this as a subcategory within the Graf/Street art realm similar to stencil graffiti, or sticker art and think it should be a stand alone topic. Candice34 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What would you think about a merger of Street installations with Street art instead of with Installation art? Pan Dan 16:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be merged except that then too you'd really need to merge sticker art, wheatpasting/street poster art, stencil graffiti into it. Instead I just included the right sidebar for the wikigraffiti project. Street installations should be added to this sidebar as a format type (in the first link block) but I dont see a way to do it. Are you involved with this project? Candice34 17:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. To add things to the sidebar, I imagine you'd want to edit Template:Street Art. Pan Dan 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is best as a stand-alone article, as it can then be linked to easily from other articles it has connections with such as Installation art and Street art with a summary and the "main article" template. Tyrenius 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Please do not delete long passages from the article and replace it with unvarified opinions. Freshacconci 15:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits need to be verified with reliable sources, then footnotes used. Tyrenius 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed (Interactive installations)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was to merge Interactive installations into Installation art, except for the final paragraph. --B. Wolterding 07:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose to merge the content of Interactive installations into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. Since the topics seem to be directly related, it might be best to merge "Interactive installations" into here, if it is relevant. (Unfortunately that article is currently unsourced.) Please add your comments below.

Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Merging would probably be a good idea. However, this would need a complete rewrite: it's terribly written (the final paragraph in particular). Freshacconci 09:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. The issue of artistic interactivity in general is already addressed at both interactivity and new media art. No need for a third separate page. -- Futurano 09:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to submit as an External Link a primer on installation art. Here's the link: Thanking you for the consideration, Artsandopinion (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis


I noticed that the first sentence defines installation art as being "site-specific", though this is not necessarily the case. Though minor in importance to the general validity of the article, I think this is misleading. Perhaps "usually site-specific" would be better. Sorry if this does not conform to "Discussion" standards, this is my first post. (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, your comment is completely up to standard and you are quite correct. Although installations can be site-specific this is not always the case. I'll see if I can reword it. freshacconci talktalk 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)