Talk:Site-specific art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Public Art (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Public Art, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of public art 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 

Exploding Cinema[edit]

I am concerned thaat the amount of copy space devoted to the arguments of Exploding Cinema is out of proportion to the issue that it supports. the issue of wether the inhabitants of a given location are alienated by the 'bourgeoisie' when an art work is installed is worthy of mention. but it is not a particularly good example of the issue: a better one might be the representation of 'great men on plinths' and the masculine and military bias towards public statuary.

this article makes me think that it has a tinge of vanity associated with it. using a film to illustrate such a minor issue when the introductory para barely lays the ground for understanding its complex contexts, seems to me to be more obscuring than informative. DavidP 00:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Living water[edit]

Is Betsy Damon's living water work (link) a piece that could be mentioned here? Daviddec 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Orgreave![edit]

That work is a terrible example to use - and the reference is contradictory. There must be something better such as a Matta-Clarke.Piersmasterson 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

vandalism - but is it site specific?[edit]

I just reverted this page back something like 30 versions to get rid of some repeated 'alterations'. To be honest I dont think that the page was much worse with the vandalism, at least it was quite funny. In fact it occured to me while reverting that the 'interesting changes' were almost the perfect example of site-specificity - they were completely in keeping with the medium, and were absolutely appropriate to the democratic anarchy of wikipedia.

Any way I clicked the link and, for now at least, the page is vaguely coherent (in a rather dull wikisense) - Now perhaps it is time to work this page up so that it actually says something encyclopedic about site-specific art. DavidP


I am not at all familiar with talk page but I was looking for a place where I could tell my surprise about this article Site specific art. I would like to contribute, I know some things but this article needs a real expert, I mean a art historian to clean and construct it. There is obvioulsy a need for definition, categorisation , hierarchy some times betwen some categories. Public art, land art, site specific art, contextual art or relational art... There is a need for illustrations, there was a "dan flavin" image perfect for illustration in an older version , it disappear.... To say it very simply, site specific specification is the difference between buying a painting or a video to put it in your living and asking an artist to come at your home and do somethingon the wall or floor or anywhere. It is not always only the fact of the artist but also of the "provider" of the space. That is why state, mecene... and the cultural policy are very involve into , specifically into urban intervention. A lot of ephemeral manifestation are site specific , it is also part of the "société du Spectacle". Anyway, I wanted to support DavidParfitt opinion. --Ildiko Dao (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Headline text[edit]

There is a bit of a mess here with the different terms - site-specific, environmental, art/sculpture, etc. This confusion of terms is a real-life problem, not a wikipedia one, but we need to consider how we deal with it - would one, merged article be better? or a disambiguation which clearly outlines wikipedia's chosen subdivisions and allows the reader to chose the appropriate article? I've done a patch-up job on the Environmental art article, but a more comprehensive restructuring might be in order.

And incidentally, why does Environmental Art redirect to Site-specific art rather than to Environmental art, and how can I change it? --Jethrobrice 09:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

General Etimology/ History of Term Usage Needed.[edit]

This entry could use some background concerning the use of this term "Site Specific," as well as some examples of work pertinent to yet predating the usage. In particular, was this previously an architectural term, or did architecture co-opt the term from the visual arts?````B.Clement, 2007:October:28. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.186.136 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional citations[edit]

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The October 1975 issue of ARTnews does NOT have an article by Peter Frank titled "Site Sculpture." If I can find where that article is located I will change this citation or parenthetical reading suggestion or whatever you call it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.68.177.235 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)