|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Ireland||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
"Defastenism" is not a serious art movement in any meaningful sense. All the people named in the article are art students in the same art college, most in the same class. They have not produced any work of note, and seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time in rather pointlessly theatrical self-promotion.
Didn't the "situationists" "self-promote" themselves? aren't they a "serious" group?
Do you know these people?
SERIOUSNESS OF DEFASTENISM The above apparent condemnation of Defastenism seems to qualify them superbly in today's art climate. They are taken seriously by the American chapter of the Stuckists, with particular reference to Jesse Richards. They are linked on his site and he included them in the current show in New York in CBGB (the CBGB) Gallery. They also exhibit in Ireland. The theatrics are nothing new in art movements (cf Britart more recently) and doesn't mean there isn't an underlying seriousness. It is stated in the article already that they formed as undergraduates. Whether their work is of note or not is doubtless a matter of debate. An art movement can be a bad art movement: it is still an art movement. It can also spend unhealthy amounts of time doing pointless things if it wants. There isn't a test of common sense and morality to pass. I have added their theatricality to the article. - Tyrenius
- Hard to detect the "underlying seriousness" in this group, especially in light of this rather embarrassing Sunday Independent article. Still, we could be here all year trying to define what constitutes a serious art movement, or whether seriousness is indeed a criterion by which to judge worthiness for inclusion. In my view it's hard to see what distinguishes this particular art/lifestyle project from any of the million other marginal endeavours being worked on by art school graduates all over the world. --Ryano 11:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- A lack of "underlying seriousness" in the defastenists isn't an appropriate criterion on which to delete this page. "Underlying seriousness" isn't really a characteristic you could ascribe to every famous or influential art-movement. Indeed, the jury's really still out on the "underlying seriousness" of most contemporary art. Debate would be quite moot on this topic.
- The article doesn't read like self-promotion. There are no lies or half-truths. Whether or not the movement is known because of word-of-mouth, critical acclaim or so-called self-promotion, it is quite successful. The exhibitions have drawn a vast amount of people.
- There are two deletion notices on this page at the time of my writing this. So far as I know, there shouldn't be two of them. The reason cited for deletion has the ring of opinion about it, eg. "not a serious art movement in any meaningful sense", or "have not produced any work of note". This against the verifiable facts quoted in the article, and the wealth of people to whom defastenists are of some interest.
- I think there is insufficient reason to warrant deleting this article. Two deletion notices says "overzealous" to me. Sounds a bit like the deleter has a vested interest. I'm going to remove the deletion notices. Fionnmatthew 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Good bit of research. I have added link to the article. Embarrassing or not (and I enjoyed the article) it only adds more weight to their existence and the need represent them from a NPOV. 1) they put themselves forward as a movement 2) they put this into practice with shows and events 3) they have some recognition from other artists 4)they are in the public domain with press coverage. What other marginal endeavours have an equivalent profile? If they do, then there should be an article about them. It's not an evaluation of their worth - just information about their existence. If critical material appears, then of course that should be included. -- Tyrenius 13:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the above post regarding the relevance of defastenism broadly and its need to be included on wikipedia (then again if a Sunday newspaper article, and mild recognition from your peers is a somewhat loose reason to have an article written about you on wikipedia, for example why not an article on the more noteworthy Monster Truck Studios?). However the article does strike me as being self-promotional and I think do think it’s of somewhat marginal interest. It strikes me that the pieces written (Dubliner and Sunday Independent) are mostly puff pieces and light reading of little real critical worth and as such this article should be flagged for being biased at least. barbrabush69 19:11 feb 14 2007
220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I think this is a bit silly. The "movement" didn't amount to much more than a few undergraduates having a bit of fun, and they have all moved on now. Because one of them was the son of a famous folk singer, and because Ireland is a small country, they managed to get mentioned in a few newspaper articles. They never even got a mention in Circa, the Irish art magazine, and as far as I know no one has ever written seriously about them anywhere at all.
It's all good fun, but I think an in-joke like this is hardly noteworthy. As another contributor has pointed out, there are many more deserving things going on in the Irish art world. I would think this wikipedia entry should be seriously edited, assimilated into another entry (like NCAD's for example), or simply deleted. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- As you point out, they got media coverage, and coverage in secondary sources is what determines whether something is worthy of an article according to wikipedia policies and guidelines. Other considerations are not relevant. A Circa article on the Defastenists is in the External links section. Ty 22:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Edits have been made to this page, as in this one, that change referenced material and insert original research. Please desist and see WP:V and WP:NOR. Content needs to be referenced. Tyrenius (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)