|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 Additions and deletions by George Kasey (Heartcalm22), 30 & 31 July 2012
- 2 Permission for Illustrations
- 3 Cleopatra
- 4 What is Mail art
- 5 First paragraphs
- 6 Wired Return to Sender
- 7 CMA acronym
- 8 MAIL ART NETWORKING
- 9 FREE trade?
- 10 Pruning links and artists
- 11 Odd tangent
- 12 Proposed merge
- 13 Punning
- 14 Deletion of References to 'Hairmail' and Astroturf + important External Links
- 15 External links - any suggestions?
- 16 References to 'Hairmail' and Astroturf
- 17 Neutrality and POV
- 18 "Well-known Mail Artists" ...
- 19 Unaddressed problems
Additions and deletions by George Kasey (Heartcalm22), 30 & 31 July 2012
Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates have reverted the Wikipedia Mail Art page to the version as of 7 June 2012 to remove the additions and erasures made by George Kasey posting as Heartcalm22.
We have both practised Mail Art for over 30 years and have never seen George Kasey's work in any mail art show or project.
Although the Mail Art Wikipedia page mentions Ray Johnson and inspirational Fluxus artists, the article steers clear of mentioning any mailartists since the rise of the movement for fear of appearing biased. We decided not to include any list of famous or notable mailartists, not only for reasons of impartiality but also so as not to suggest that there might be central characters or 'stars' in mail art. The naming of George Kasey is therefore totally incongruous to the spirit of the page, even if he were a well-known figure within the movement.
George Kasey removed the entire Bibliography section featuring works that have been meticulously chosen and added to over the last two years. He also removed almost all of the External Links that have again been carefully chosen for their relevance to the subject. Furthermore, he added self-promotional References that link to his own web sites.
Vittore Baroni and Keith Bates
Permission for Illustrations
Hello, The images I have uploaded to Wiki to accompany the new MAIL ART entry are pieces of Mail Art which have been given freely and intended for exhibition in myriad locations including display online. It is the nature of Mail Art. Works are sent as a gift, and implicit in that is the permission (indeed, the expectation) for the receiver to exhibit the work 'in the flesh' and/or display it on websites and blogs. All of the pieces I have uploaded are from the archives of myself (a mailartist for 30 years) or Mail Art historian, Vittore Baroni, all of the works have been gifted with the intention to have them shown.
I am nevertheless contacting again the artists whose works I have uploaded, asking them to submit their permissions directly to you. I understand you have received several of these already.
Where this becomes a problem is when artists have died and have no heirs to contact. This is the case with Norman Solomon who died in 2000. His piece – a xerox mail art piece on the reverse of a personal letter to myself (quite visible on the scan), was his gift to me in 1996 for a mail art show and I hope you will accept permission for use from myself, the person to whom the gift was made. There is no-one else to authorize Wiki use.
The Cleopatra thing is a light-hearted intro, but Mail Art began in the 1960s, what relevance has all the 19th century references? The article should really begin with Ray Johnson, or possibly Futurist experiments with mailing art. Keithbates51 (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What is Mail-Art for you?
Please state your name & answer:
This article should be a point of entry for anyone interested in Mail Art. Instead, it is patchy at best, at worst it is confusing, inaccurate and off-putting. The whole history section is NOT the history of Mail Art. Keith Bates, 3 August 2010
Wired Return to Sender
It would seem to me that Wired magazine's "Return to Sender" section would be an expression of mail art. Someone might want to work that in, or maybe it goes better somewhere else. —User:Mulad (talk) 02:41, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Uhh.. no, I'm not sure what you're talking about here, "Return to Sender" is common terminology in the postal industry unrelated to Mail Art, for all I know, the section in Wired has probably less to do with Mail Art and more to do with answering fanmail, possibly?--Mofomojo 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
"Return to Sender" is where people send in objects to Wired, and the best ones get published. It is definately mail art! Also, I added the link: mailart.info which is also mail art. it was deleted. it does not "promote" anyone. It is just a plain ol' Picasa album that shows about 3 years of correspondance. [-able]
There are a sudden abundance of mentions of CMA and comparisons with ATCs, but nowhere does it was what CMA actually stands for - any ideas? MA are obviously Mail Art, but the C could stand for just about anything - collective? collectable? card?
Oops, and that was written by me, sheridan 15:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've been participating in Mail Art for 30 years and I've never heard the term CMA before reading this unrepresentative, inaccurate and far too narrow article. Keith Bates, 3 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
MAIL ART NETWORKING
Hello to all Mail Artists and those interested in Mail Art; and hello again to all those Mail Artists with whom I corresponded between 1994 and 2001. It's been a long time since cLASSwAR Karaoke prowled the network. I am, though, not back,as it were. Life has moved on and I am occupied,very much so,with making soundart, improvised experimental music, and with my little blog at http://murmurists.blogspot.com - check out please, if you like. I still think fondly of the network; and do hope that the Internet has not wholly replaced the postal system as a way for like-mindsto come together in some way. The exchange of actual objects may protect it to some extent I suppose! Anyway, to those who knew me, I got the PhD in Mail Art. Thing is, I put the thing together using very outdated software on a very old AppleMac - which is now dead! I do not even have a copy of it myself! It is, however, soon to be available via the British Library, for those who are interested. I still think what I said about Mail Art was valid and well-researched, and is likely, still, to be if not the best then amongst the best researches into the subject. See for yourself if you will. Enjoy! It was a labour of love, and nearly killed me with the amount of work involved! Love to you all. And if anyone knows how to edit the info on this particular bit of the Wikipedia, then, humbly, I ask to have my name - Dov - inclded in the listing of Mail Artists! Best wishes, Dov / cLASSwAR Karaoke x x x x x
The sixth paragraph states: "As an art form the early genre produced low- and high-minded works ranging from the comic and satirical through commercial and industrial advertising to the promotion of social causes such as free trade, world peace and brotherhood, and the abolition of slavery." "Free" trade doesn't seem typically stated as part of the same agenda as world peace and brotherhood, etc. Might this mean "fair trade"? 184.108.40.206 06:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I just cut the list of artists in half, removing the red links. Sorry if this steps on your toes, but it was seriously getting out of control. In my opinion -- if you want on the page, get an article and make it stick. The list of links deserves a serious pruning as well, I'll support anyone willing to dive in. See WP:EL. All the best -- send stickers! ∴ here…♠ 22:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ironically mail art allows a wide participation. If you went by the numbers under this entry you'd come to the conclusion that the number of artists who use this medium is that of a small book clubLahtzu (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
HELP! - THIS IS AN EMBARRASSMENT This article on Mail Art does not reflect reality. Most mailartists accept the importance of Ray Johnson (the Father of Mail Art), is he mentioned in the article? It's pointless having such a big history going back to 19th century, mail art is a movement that started in the 1960s With Ray Johnson's New York Correspondance School (sik) To devote such a large section to ATCs is ludicrous, they are a tiny part of Mail Art, much less a part than Artistamps or rubberstamps which barely feature. What is CMA? I've participated in Mail Art for almost 30 years and never heard the term CMA apart from in this article! What is all that guff about envelope sizes and mechanical printing proccesses? It's all totally irrelevant. I've just tried adding some of the most important mailartists of recent decades and some of the most active now, my suggestions have immediately been cut. So you still have a poorly pared down, unrepresentative article about a vibrant, important, democratic art movement. Name more names, not less! Instead of pruning, this article should be more comprehensive to reflect the global, inclusive nature of Mail Art. It should also give new, would-be mailartists some real points of reference and needs to include a host of links to active mail art websites providing better histories and information about current Mail Art projects. Why not ask Vittore Baroni to write a proper article. He's one of the most important mailartists of the last 40 years (and a journalist) and even he doesn't even get a mention. Or ask former librarian John Held Jr., another giant of the movement who is totally ignored - he's also a comprehensive writer about Mail Art. Keithbates51 (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As one of the mailartists in Los Angeles in the early 1980s, I find it strange that the actual process of mailart (sending postcards and other objects through the US Postal Service as performance art) gets two sentences, while the rise of personal computers, the internet and using a printer to produce envelopes gets four or five paragraphs.
Also, the computer tangent comes prior to the two relevant sentences. The overall impression of the article is that mailart is primarily a phenomenon of the digital age, when this is emphatically not the case. The entire history of the movement from the 50s through the 80s is essentially ignored. I am not qualified to write the history myself as I have not been active in twenty-five years, but do feel that the omission is important and should be noted. Perhaps some of the old-school mailartists could contribute their expertise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
- This article needs serious reworking overall, for the reasons you point out and more. Freshacconci 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking this article can be stand alone. There's an extensive history to mail art which warrents an article. The current version needs major work, but I don't feel a merge is the solution. Freshacconci 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
- The merge proposes that Mail-interviews be merged into this article Mail art. It absolutely should! Both Envelope collective and Mail-interviews appear to be directly related to Mail art. Mail-interviews appears to be a specific work, or collection of works, within the field. If it is unrelated, why would that article begin: ...the body of which are now recognized as an influential contribution in the field of mail art. Mail-interviews does not appear to warrent its own article without further development. Unless expanded, the options are deletion or merging, likely into Mail art. ∴ here…♠ 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The concept of the mail-interviews is quite specific. I wouldn't consider it mail-art, but a large research project to discover the essence of communication (mail) as a medium in art. Merge of not. The Mail-Art article needs work anyway. To many stories are not included and the general line is somehow lost.
Ruud Janssen (see www.iuoma.org for contact-details)
- Thanks for your comments Ruud, please do jump in and help improve the article! ∴ here…♠ 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of References to 'Hairmail' and Astroturf + important External Links
The specific references to 'hairmail' and 'astroturf' have no place in a general account of the media and techniques used by mailartists. These materials/actions were certainly not common or well-known amongst networkers. The External Links section includes only carefully chosen sites that will add to the understanding of the subject, it's been a useful additional resource for two years, please don't delete it. Keithbates51 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to serve as a directory of external links, and such links must comply with out guidelines. Please don't restore these links. - MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
In undoing my alterations, you restored the inappropriate references to marketing (Mail Art is not about marketing) 'hairmail' and astroturf, which I presume you didn't intend to do. Most of the External Links had been in place since we wrote the entry and have provided useful additional sources of research. To delete all but the Open Directory link seems excessive and inconsistent, can we at least restore some of the most useful? In November 2010 you only objected to the most blog-like links like the Artistamp Museum, Mailart Forum and Lutz Wohlrab's site, and allowed the others to stand. They've stood for two years, we'd appreciate restoring at least some of them! Keith Bates and Vittore Baroni Keithbates51 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Mr Ollie has pointed out that 'External links are meant to be a very limited list of only the best links' and has suggested proposing what Vittore and I regard as the most important here on the Talk page, allowing others to suggest worthy links:
- A Brief History of Postal Art – Mark Bloch
- Mail Art History – Reshak Nairb
- Ray Johnson and New York Correspondance School by William S. Wilson 1966
- Mail Art at the Open Directory Project
- Mailartists at the Open Directory Project
- Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) - Mail Art Periodicals – Collected by John Held Jr.
- IUOMA – The International Union Of Mail Artists – moderated by Ruud Janssen, The Netherlands
- (mis)reading mailart – Matt Ferranto
- [http ://www.keithbates.co.uk/thesis_michael_lumb.pdf Mail Art 1955–1995 – Michael Lumb (University of East Anglia thesis, 1997)]
- I've removed stewarthomesociety.org from that list per WP:LINKVIO as their site states ; "Copyright © is problematic. Some rights reserved. Contact for clarification.". Also de-linked keithbates.co.uk per WP:NOPAY. Youtube and personal sites are of low value and fail the external links policy. the MoMA link may contain some sources to use to verify some visual content, however I see no pressing or compelling reason to add any of these. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, External links are generaly unhelpful to readers, nor do they verify content or add content or meaning to the encyclopedia. Yes, the internet is full of interesting material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content.
- Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.--Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Yet most good pages do offer links for interested Wiki readers, I certainly find them useful - the Dada entry has 10 External links, Abstract expressionism 18 – so these are a modest selection of links by comparison, sites that Vittore Baroni and I think are most useful to interested readers, surely there's no harm in adding relatively few. The Open Directory are indeed two of the list. Michael Lumb's essay that I put on my webspace is an excellent and relevant University thesis that's not available anywhere else online, 'mail art and money don't mix', so it's not a paid placement, is it still no go? If I contact Stewart Home and request copyright clearance, would that enable you to reconsider allowing that link? Keithbates51 (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of a reply from Hu12 or any further comments, I'll just add the eight remaining External links which Vittore and I regard as enriching. I'd still like to restore the link to Stewart Home's article which Hu12 removed, and also the link to Michael Lumb's university thesis which is not a commercial link. Can anyone help with this? Keithbates51 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- A lack of response isn't implicit permission to continue editing to a version which has been rejected and reverted by multiple editors. The fact that others haven't replied perhaps means no one cares. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition. Perhaps in web forums you can get away with repeating something until nobody cares enough to contradict you any more; on Wikipedia, that is unacceptable. Sure, the internet is full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content. Guidelines such as WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:COI are accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Again you pushing for inclusion of your website via the Lumb pdf. I have found a conflict free accessible copy that doesn't require external applications or plugins and have added Michael Lumb's university thesis to the External links. Links to Stewart Homes, as explained to you above are a WP:LINKVIO and wont be considered. Continuing to push, solicit or further attempts to add Stewart Homes (or similar) on wikipedia, a block may be necessary. --Hu12 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not true that these links have been rejected by multiple editors, they (and others) been part of this page since Vittore Baroni and myself wrote the original copy in 2010. It's only recently that Mr Ollie objected to some of the links that he'd hitherto not objected to! He suggested using this Talk page to give others the chance to suggest links or comment on the existing ones. Thank you for restoring Michael Lumb's university thesis, but I certainly was NOT 'pushing for inclusion' of a link to my website, I'd hosted the thesis only because the old Fortune City link was dead! Today I restored the eight links that Vittore and I feel are most important because I did not realise your comments equated to a ban. In view of the fact that other pages on art movements include far more External links than the pared down eight we are suggesting, Im asking you to reconsider. I did NOT re-link to Stewart Home's chapter precisely because of the copyright issue you raised, I'd asked you if I could contact him for permission and you didn't reply. So I repeat, can I contact Stewart Home for copyright clearance, it's a good, relevant chapter from a seminal book about Mail art. Keithbates51 (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Permission is irrelevant. Wikipedia servers are located in the United states and as such Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Answer; No, and quit asking.--Hu12 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You say 'quit asking', but I only restated my question about the Stewart Home link because you didn't respond first time I asked. I thank you for your help, but a more polite manner to someone volunteering their time would be appreciated. I've contacted Vittore again and we are both still confused as to why Wiki pages about other art movements contain many more External links than we've suggested - Abstract Expressionism 18, Dada 10. We request that a mere three be reinstated, we feel these are the most relevant and informative - William S Wilson's article fills in some fascinating background material to Ray Johnson's original Mail art practice:
You already suggested that John Held Jr's listing of Mail art publications held at MOMA could be useful, we agree:
This YouTube video is a most eloquent explanation of the 'heart and soul' of Mail art:
- I also am a volunteer. However your contributions show you have conflict of interest and are editing to advancing your own interests, rather than those of Wikipedia.
- "I only restated my question about the Stewart Home link because you didn't respond first time I asked"
- I explained and linked to the Copyvio issue in my first post and every subsequent post since. You clearly understood that when you omited the Stewart Home link from this edit (which included your link). Deception is not a sign of good faith. A WP:LINKVIO does not become allowable by virtue of you repeatedly asking.
- "we are both still confused as to why Wiki pages about other art movements contain many more External links'
- What is or is not in other articles is irrelevant, so by pointing out that more links exists in other articles doesn't prove that more should exist in this article. I see no pressing or compelling reason to add any of those links, as they don't appear to verify article content. However a more concerning issue has come to light about your "Keith Bates and Vittore Baroni" shared use of the account. I initiated a discussion here--Hu12 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The inappropriate references to marketing Hairmail and Astroturf appear to have returned (see above) so I've removed them again, I just received this note from Vittore Baroni, "I noticed Hairmail and Astroturf are still in there (though the name of the author has been omitted?) plus the link to the relative footnote leads nowhere (isn’t there a Wiki rule against that!?). On a more positive note, yesterday a person from the Mart Museum staff (one of the best Museums in Italy) asked me for a series of reliable links to Mail Art on the Web that they will include in a new section of their website, so I gave them our “obscured” list of External Links explaining the story behind it. Onwards we go… cheers, Vittore" Keithbates51 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
References to 'Hairmail' and Astroturf
Can anyone help to remove an inappropriate sentence about marketing Hairmail and Astroturf postcards? It's at Line 50 of the article, was apparently added by Nagle in October 2012. Neither Vittore Baroni nor myself, the original authors of the article, (nor any other mailartists we've mentioned this too) know of these postcards, and the 'Range of Activities' section doesn't detail specific artworks, it's a general overview of the most common art forms used in Mail art. The sentence states that these postcards were 'marketed', but this would transgress one of Mail Art's oldest tenets, that 'Money and Mail-art don't mix' (Lon Spiegelman c.1980). Also, the associated Reference (9) is unavailable and cannot be verified without a paid Washington Post subscription. I've tried removing this incongruous sentence, but having already crossed a few Wiki moderators regarding their removal of all the External Links, my alterations just get undone. Can anyone help delete this inaccurate sentence? Keithbates51 (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keith, there are some things about the Wikipedia community that are important for you to understand. Content added by Nagle meets the verifiability policy germane to creating and editing Wikipedia articles. This content will not be removed based on your assertions or pleas. You need to familiarize yourself with the policy pertaining to ownership of articles. Neither you or your colleague has any credibility pertaining to mail art or editing this article than anyone else in the community. This article does not belong to you. You cannot dictate content based on your personal opinions or professional tenets. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, but whether or not the content can be verified through reliable and independent sources. And certainly, the content can be verified, with or without a subscription to the Washington Post website. Removing the sourced content or asking others to do so on your behalf goes against the community's behavioral guidelines. Please spend some time familiarizing yourself with the verifiability and ownership policies. Asking others to violate these policies is highly disruptive. Cindy(talk to me) 15:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- The article lede indicates that mail art is simply mailable art: "Mail art is a worldwide cultural movement that began in the early 1960s and involves sending visual art ... through the international postal system." There's no cited indication that there are policies and procedures for being an approved source of mail art. (But see  for a reference to "Money & mail-art don't mix"; that was in 1980.) There was a textile mail art show in 2011. I'm amazed what will go through the Flats (USPS) sorting system.
- Looking for citations, here's one of interest. "ARTISTS’ STAMPS’ by E. F. Higgins III, PRINT COLLECTORS NEWSLETTER, NOV.-DEC. 1979". This traces mail art back to 1957, mentions Andy Warhol's "Bomb Hanoi" stamp, and lists many people active in the field in the 1960s. Wikipedia covers some of that under Artistamp, which refers to that field as a branch of mail art. --John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Administrator note: Keithbates51, Please stop your excessive Canvassing on this issue. You do not WP:OWN this article, nor do you control its content. This tendentious behavior has become disruptive.--Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Mail art page has been changed countless times over the last two years since we wrote the original. It has been improved over time and my comments are about accuracy not ownership. The sentence about marketing postcards simply doesn't reflect the true, non-commercial ethos of Mail Art. The other point I'm making refers to consistency, the Range of Activities being about art forms rather than specific examples, so to drop in two unknown (or little-known) examples is incongruous. My comments were intended to be helpful but are clearly unwelcome and appear to have elicited more general criticisms that were not of concern previous contributors and moderators. This Talk Page was suggested as the place to negotiate additions but I have found it unhelpful and hostile. Good luck with the rewrite, I quit. Keithbates51 (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality and POV
The article requires editing to address and remove personal points of view that lack neutrality and introduce a bias to the article about the subject. This bias includes areas where the article speaks about popularity, exclusivity, and proliferation that are not supported by reliable and independent sources. The article additionally uses terminology the community refers to as peacock terms. These are words that often equate to original research and generally lack attribution, in order to promote the subject. In essence, like a peacock, the words tend to "puff up" or inflate the viewpoint or image of the subject, while failing to provide verifiable and neutral information. Rather than claiming importance or popularity of the subject, it is vital to use facts, supported by reliable and independent sources which demonstrate that importance. Article also uses weasel words, which merely serve to disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. I have placed inline maintenance tags to identify puffery, lack of neutrality, weasel words, original research, editorializing, and citations needed. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style pertaining to words to avoid in articles, along with various examples for further guidance. The seemingly overwhelming number of inline tags are provided in order to present a thorough reflection of the level of work that is necessary to bring this article into compliance with the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Please feel free to contact me if you need help or have questions. I am more than willing to take a more direct approach and help in any way. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 18:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe you could've just added the top section? The article is terribly unsightly with every single inline tag added after every sentence. A total rewrite would be best, rather than struggling to fix the problems inherent in every uncited sentence. 8ty3hree (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- I came to this article hoping for a neutral, encyclopedic overview of mail art that I could share with some colleagues, but I was disappointed at what I found. I would like to help improve the article by providing authoritative citations and addressing the issues outlined by User:Cindamuse. I can't say that it will happen quickly, but I am willing to start chipping away at it. Obviously people care about this article and have strong feelings about what it should or shouldn't be, which makes me a little hesitant, honestly, to jump into the fray. I am not a member of the mail art community, but I am active in the GLAMwiki project, so my primary interest is in how library, museum, and archival resources can be used to improve the content and citations of Wikipedia articles. My plan is not to undertake a total rewrite, but to work slowly and save often, in case people have a problem with any of my edits. I will also consult If anyone has feedback or suggestions on my work, please feel free to contact me here or on my user talk page. Sarasays (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"Well-known Mail Artists" ...
A new editor added an uncited list of "well-known mail artists". We need a citation to a reliable source for these people. We have cites for a few of them, but each must demonstrate notability to be listed in the article.--John Nagle (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi & thanks John---very new to editing here & wasn't clear on how to add citations. I imagine you know many if not most of the names that i included. Many are from my own memory (my father was the late artist Buster Cleveland) but in an attempt to add references i found a list on his pal Ed Higgins Doo Da website. He in turn acquired it from PRINT COLLECTORS NEWSLETTER, NOV.-DEC. 1979 http://doodapost.com/about_stamps.html
If anyone i've added bothers you feel free to remove....
- Ah. That's more about artist's stamps, which are covered in the article Artistamp. Take a look at that article. Many of those names are already over there, with proper citations. New names of stamp designers belong over there. You have to find a citation to a WP:RS reliable source for each person you add. Wikipedia is rather strict about adding names to articles, because many people try self-promotion. --John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Have removed list of mail artist names due to contention that Mail Art & Artstampers can be considered mutually exclusive endeavors (after conferring with artist & family friend Ginny Lloyd) Still believe listing of historically significant Mail Artists is important here & should be included....
Herewith is the deleted entry derived from PRINT COLLECTORS NEWSLETTER, NOV.-DEC. 1979: Well-known Mail Artists include Ray Johnson, Buster Cleveland, Anna Banana, Bill Gaglione, E.F. Higgins III, Ginny Lloyd, John Held, Jr., Donald Evans, Robert Watts, Guglielmo Achille Cavellini, Robert Fried, Allen Jones, Endre Tot, Carl Camu, Pat Tavenner, m Harley Francis, Peter Below, Pawel Petasz, George Maciunas, Yves Klein, Dieter Rot, Rick Simon, Joel Smith, Klaus Groh, Horst Hahn, Barbara J. Hahn, Falves Silva, Henryk Bzdok, Tomasz-Schulze, Miyo Iida, GeOrge, May Wilson, Ken Friedman, Ed Varney, Tod Jorgenson, Rose Avery, William Rowe, Pat Beilman, R. Saunders, C.T. Chew, Gary Allen, Jerry Dreva, Rockola and Ko de Jonge Zach Trenholm
1. For there seeming to be active authors and editors, I see quite a few unanswered requests for citations, undeleted examples of apparent original research, and the unedited use of weasel words. Is this article so unimportant that these issues remain ignored?
2. I am a person who likes to see more of a description in images of artworks, such as date created, size, media, substrate, and location (if known). If readers knew how small some mail art is, I bet that they would be even more impressed by it. I am especially interested in the details of the eraser print of Duchamp.
3. On an artist's site, one who seems to be quite skilled, they used the acronym "LMAO" to refer to their own mail art and further stated that they didn't mean "laughing my --- off" and linked the acronym to this WP article. I do not find it in there, though. What does "LMAO" mean in reference to mail art? L[something] Mail Art O[something]?
4. Has the decline of the use of the postal services in the US and their abandonment of International Reply Coupons effected the grass roots level of this type of art?