Talk:Art & Language

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lacyew (article contribs).

As a person with an interest in art history I have problems with this page: it is utterly incoherent, and it is totally inaccurate. For example, there is a less than subtle attempt to exclude the founding member, Michael Baldwin, and the current member, Mel Ramsden. This is merely to serve as an example of the absurdities which are, unfortunately, persistent throughout the article (there are countless and less trivial examples)... I hope they will be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.233.89 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the referenced and wiki'ed version is superior. There's been no mention of the sources for the current, and no communication from the new accounts who changed it so I'm going to revert. Syrthiss (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, guess I'll be back by on monday to revert from your unformatted mess. Cheerio. Syrthiss (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of encouraging dialogue: IP address, I don't understand why you think Baldwin and Ramsden are excluded in the article. They are mentioned throughout. You say there are absurdities in the article. Please state here on the talkpage what specifically you want changed and we can consider one thing at a time.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article not a resume

This is an encyclopedia article. References good. Dumping exhaustive lists of exhibitions/awards etc. and removing references bad.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

give up

Ethicoaestheticist: I am already tired of trying to correct your text. I have no desire to list its absurd misapprehensions, omissions and oversights. It is simultaneously provincial and tendentious. In a word: goofy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgpjlggvtp (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your grasp of big words, if you can cite specific examples where the text is wrong...with references to why it is wrong...I'm sure that the article can be improved. Otherwise I expect the wall of text will continue to be reverted for the referenced text. Syrthiss (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to wade in with an opinion on this confusion, even if it is two years too late. The entire article reads like a discussion of Australian cricket in the thirties which is desperate to ignore Donald Bradman; it's like a description of quantum mechanics acknowledging Enrico Fermi as important as Paul Dirac. I'm not comparing Art Language's contribution to that of quantum mechanics or cricket. Nor am I comparing Michael Baldwin, Mel Ramsden and Charles Harrison to Paul Dirac. Rather (if this isn't too big a word for you) it was a metaphor, serving to highlight the absurd skew in the article. The thinly veiled - and moderately juvenile - attempts to radicalize and politicize the ex-members reeks of a desperate need to make them sound more important than they really are. I'm sorry for whoever you are, but please stop editing this article, and find a more constructive way to make yourself feel important, and please contain your slightly priapic relationship with Jerry Saltz's crtiticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.71.15 (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Syrthiss: could you please tell me how to go about making serious, constructive changes to this article? Do I really need to list the problems one by one, or can I provide a new, more accurate text? While I am willing, if I absolutely have to, to go through each of the problems with you, there are so many that we are likely to be here for a very long time indeed. It seems odd to me that you would view a text as in some way 'superior' or appropriate - or indeed more coherently encyclopedic - simply because it was posted on here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchot (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have faith in any editor to make changes to the article without my supervision. Make sure that the material you are putting in is properly sourced, be bold and have at it. If you don't know how to use the inline references to reference items, you can either stop by my talk page and I can give you some examples or you can just place whatever reference text in parenthesis after the text it is supporting and someone can fix the markup later. Hope this helps. Syrthiss (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Be bold. You obviously know about the subject. I'm happy to help as well.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Art & Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060420080300/http://blurting-in.zkm.de:80/ to http://blurting-in.zkm.de
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601092918/http://frieze.com:80/issue/review/art_language1 to http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/art_language1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922233350/http://www.frieze.com:80/issue/review/art_language to http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/art_language/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Formatting

I have some concerns about the choices in listing off notable members of the group. The text currently reads:

"Starting at the beginning of the 1970s, individuals such as Ian Burn, Michael Corris, Preston Heller, Graham Howard, Joseph Kosuth, Andrew Menard, Terry Smith and from Coventry Philip Pilkington and David Rushton joined the group."

Based on the syntax, I am not certain if Philip Pilkington and David Rushton are both from Coventry, or Phillip is the only one. Also, a link to what Coventry is would be appreciated. TheTrashMan (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A&l listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A&l. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing to merge the current article with the one on the magazine, Art-Language. Both articles have a lot of overlap in contents, even using the same image. The difference between the two (& vs -) is a bit too subtle for me, and also for the average reader, I assume. Merging the two will provide for a more complete and coherent article than the current two. --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• [EDIT:Weakening] Oppose, as one is a notable group (with a large article) and one is the notable journal. Altough related, these are two different topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Both articles are currently in a deplorable state. If some of the fluff is cut away, I don't see why the magazine, the movement's mouthpiece, could not be a section in the article on the movement. --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Randykitty (didn't I sit behind you in homeroom?). I'm not an expert on these topic, but upon skimming the pages the magazine seems quite notable, as does the group. If the lede of the magazine page is to be believed then its influence is historically important and seemingly worthy of its own article. Yes, on a quick read I can see that both articles need work, and will help putter around in them now and then in the short-run, if just to get a mental map of the subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Upon reading more of it I'm seeing what you mean. Maybe other editors will come by and take a look at the pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• A great example here are the Coen brothers. Each one of them is notable, but we don't have separate articles about them because of the huge overlap. Same here. Both the movement and the magazine appear to be notable, but that doesn't mean that we must have two separate articles. --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• The Coen brothers is indeed a great example against the merging as each one of their films have a separate article. Art & Language is the name of the artists (Coen brothers) and Art-Language is the name of a work of them (The Big Lebowsky for example).--Philippe49730 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• It is indeed an excellent example, but for merging. Have a look at the actual articles. The article on the Coen brothers mentions their movies, but doesn't give much detail on those. The individual movies have detailed articles about those particular movies. They don't discuss the Coen brothers and the overlap between the biographical article and the movie article is minimal. Now have a look at these two articles. Both are relatively short (not something you can say about the Coen brothers bio and the articles on their movies) and their is a huge overlap in content. That the magazine and the movement somewhat split ways is not a problem, the article on the brothers also discusses their solo work. The question here is not whether the magazine or the group are notable or not. It's whether it is useful to have two separate articles on subjects that are intricately intertwined and hugely overlap (and that overlap cannot be reduced either). --Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

*The Coen Brothers is an excellent example for NOT merging. Art & Language was a collaborative group of individuals - that is parallel to the Coen Brothers. Art-Language is a thing - a print publication. And that publication was only associated with Art & Language the colab group for 7 of its 20 year run. The other 13 years it was edited and run by people outside of the A&L group. So to compare this situation to the Coen Brothers is like saying "merge the Quay Brothers into the Film Magazine article" (if there were one). It simply does not make sense. The majority of the years A-L was published, it was NOT a project of A&L. What may be confusing to the OP is that the names are similar. Both articles can be cleaned up but that is not a reason to merge. See comment below. Netherzone (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• It is indeed an excellent example for Not merging. We already went through this as a discussion and you are very welcome to expand both of them. The fact is that Art & Language is an artist group and Art-Language is a body of work produced by Art & Language. The journal span over 20 years of production in 19 numbers and to compare with the Coen brothers wikipedia should have one article dedicated to each number of the journal as every single one is a significant release of a significant artist work. I am interested to know where you did read on wikipedia that the length of an article was a quality criteria? --Philippe49730 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Merge Oppose - The articles should remain as two distinct articles. After 1972 the group Art & Language was no longer so directly involved with the publication Art-Language. It was primarily a stand-alone publication from 1972 to 1985 when publication ceased. That is 13 years of its 20-year run. Netherzone (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have changed my position on this and think the two articles can successfully be merged. I misunderstood something I read about the magazine editorial staff changes, and retract my previous comments on this. Netherzone (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The articles should remain as two distinct articles. One is a notable artists group and one is notable work of this group. The journal Art-Language is included in major museums collection such as Centre Georges Pompidou and Château de Montsoreau-Museum of Contemporary Art.--Philippe49730 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The encyclopedia needs both of these articles. They need to be expanded, not shortened. --Suavemarimagno (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The journal is a monumental work of art for the conceptual art, therefore the article should be kept. Anyway, what the two articles describe are two distinct things (artist group & journal), just with the similar names.--Phlegetha (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Art-LanguageV3No1-1974.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)