Jump to content

Talk:Frutiger Aero

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hey man im josh talk 13:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Moved to mainspace by Di (they-them) (talk), Queen of Hearts (talk), TechnoSquirrel69 (talk), and Sohom Datta (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

Di (they-them) (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Nice work. Personally, I like ALT1 the best, but ALT0 technically works as well. Epicgenius (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teh piccy iz anachronistic mebbe <___<;;;

[edit]
An art piece incorporating motifs typical of Frutiger Aero including bright colors, water, bubbles, reflective surfaces, and tropical fish

*holds up spork* okiezzzzzzzz so liek heres mah whole thing abt teh piccy >_> muhahahahahaha

People really did post like that in 2005. I was there. Anyway: this illustration in the article (I'm embedding it in this talk page section) bothers me.

First of all: it's not contemporary. The Commons image came from Flickr, where it was posted in June 2023, as part of a set of several images -- all uploaded by the same artist at around the same time.

Second of all: the beige CRT is an anachronistic nostalgia item. Nobody in 2005 was putting CRTs in their concept art, nobody thought they were aesthetic, and certainly nobody thought they were futuristic. In the mid-2000s, everybody knew what flat panels looked like, and it was obvious they were the future; large rectangular electronics with beige ABS enclosures (of which we had plenty) were generally outdated relics of the 90s and 80s.[1]

The fact of this image being made in 2023 means that it's just not right in a lot of subtle ways. For example, the style, composition and elements are clearly heavily influenced by vaporwave and seapunk, which occurred some years after the heyday of Frutiger Aero. Most notably, the random asymmetrical composition is from a much later period, as are things like the clamped whites in the semi-transparent water texture (these are a sort of analog emulation/glitchcore thing -- not what people were doing to make Web 2.0 stuff in 2005). The film grain is especially egregious -- this was not part of the sleek look.

I think that, while accurately determining if something really "fits" an aesthetic is of course impossible, at a bare minimum we should try to only use images that are really from the time period. jp×g🗯️ 15:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal of the image. There are plenty of visuals in Commons that can be used to represent the aesthetic such as the KDE visuals already used instead of an anachronistic image. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ For the pedantic, it may be worth noting that the white and light gray acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resins used in consumer electronics enclosures of this period naturally yellow over time with UV exposure. It's true that some came from the factory beige or yellow, but the overwhelming beigeness of nostalgic depictions is mostly based on how they look now, as opposed to how they looked then.
I agree. Plenty of actual examples can be found instead of an art piece anyway. Thriley (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Inaccurate and Needs an Editorial Overhaul

[edit]

This article is loaded with inaccurate, anachronistic misinformation. To put it simply, there is no evidence of a coherent aesthetic movement or style called "Frutiger Aero" existing in the time period described. If there were, certainly the designers and artists who worked during the period would have known about it.

"Frutiger Aero" is a contemporary microgenre. It is a nostalgic, contemporary aesthetic, re-imagining or re-interpreting certain aspects of 2000's era media and design which have an appeal to a current subculture. It is very clearly modeled after other micro-genres, namely Vaporwave, which purport to be a nostalgic retrospective on certain aspects of 80's and 90's media but which no one would ever confuse with genuine period media. Vaporwave is a skewed, distorted, and re-imagined Vaporwave analogue to what of 80's and 90's media has contemporary graphic and auditory appeal. "Frutiger Aero" is, likewise, not in an any way an accurate descriptor of authentic 2000's approaches to art, design, or media production. 174.94.28.8 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your changes as unsourced. Much of the language you've introduced seems to reflect your own opinion or conclusions drawn from the style, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia per the no original research policy. Please make sure your changes are verifiable and cite reliable sources if you'd like to make further improvements. Let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you don't understand the no original research policy.
This entire page cites no reliable evidence that a style known as Frutiger Aero existed in the 2000's. The onus is on you to prove that there was indeed a movement in design, aesthetics, or art which existed during the time period in question. Real movements in design have source documents, practitioners, defining works, institutions, geographic centers, audiences, and communities of creators. Bauhaus was a real movement. I'm a historian married to a Registered Graphic Designer. I can tell you that there was no conception of what this article is talking about as a particular style, aesthetic, or cultural movement. The onus is on you to prove that it existed, and with noteworthy sources - not just some social media posts from out of youth culture. To be historical, you must cite sources from the period which prove that it was a prevailing aesthetic sensibility of the time and not just the lot lot of us playing with Photoshop filters.
At the very least, you should be accurate to what your sources reflect - that an extremely online community of young people has lumped together a grab-bag of motifs that appeal to them from out of a historical period and christened them with a search-engine friendly label. 174.94.28.8 (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Frutiger Aero" is a term applied retroactively, which is explained in the article and backed up by the cited sources. That doesn't mean that it does not exist. Please stop trying to change the article to add claims that aren't backed up by sources. Every single claim you make needs to be cited. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are in dispute on grounds of reliability, notability, and original research. Somebody naming something on the internet is neither encyclopedic, nor historical. To apply a contemporary concept to the past is by definition anachronistic, and from an art historical perspective, misleading. To call the Incoherents of 1882 Surrealists would be anachronistic. To call 80's and 90's design "Vaporwave" would be anachronistic. Certainly, to call what we had in the early 90's "Frutiger Aero" is anachronistic. Frutiger Aero does not exist until after 2017 which is established in the available low-quality sources. That a contemporary fashion blog with no sources of its own says it existed does not make it exist prior to being conceived. The only worthwhile source, the Guardian, describes Frutiger Aero as a contemporary trend inspired by the past. The original editorial direction of the article is a misleading misrepresentation of that source. I have been trying to better represent the documented historicity of the term only to have all my work thoughtlessly reverted with no editorial review of discussion.
But fine, let's go through the text line by line if you want. We will correct it together, word by word, if that is what you'd like. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to "go through the text line by line". The sources are already in agreement. If you want to make significant changes to the article, the burden lies on you to provide more sourcing. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been stated, the sources are in dispute and the article misrepresents them. Please address those concerns and stop edit warring. As for other sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P7H87sdV7k
That's about the quality of the current sources anyway. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos from random people aren't reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle
Going through the text line by line is what you do instead of engaged in an edit war on wikipedia. Please show that you are a good faith contributor. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle is that if controversial changes are made, they should be discussed before being added back. A controversial change was made, I reverted it, and instead of being discussed to form a consensus it was added back several times. I'm not the one that continued to add material after it was reverted. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not discussing anything, you are shutting down discussion. This is my second editorial attempt different and improved over the first, and borrowing directly from the source which you would have realized if you read it. Instead, you reverted it for no stated reason, which shows bad faith. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When one of your main argument is that it's impossible for a style to be discussed using a name that didn't exist at the time (I look forward to you using this same logic at articles like Gothic, Romanesque, etc.), even though that's how the sources do, then your going to have a problem. Thus far, as bellow, the argument seems to be trying to second guess the sources because you disagree with what they have to say, which isn't the way round this goes. We follow the sources, not editor's WP:OR.
If seriously want to dispute [sources] such as the WP:GUARDIAN and Dazed on grounds of reliability, notability, and original research, I suggest you bring it to WP:RSN. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seocwen, and no a self published YouTube video is explicitly not a reliable source, see WP:SPS and WP:RSPYT. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has Wikipedia gone insane? I have noted the problems with sources: reliability, not noteworthy, and original research. They are mostly blog posts, not journals of record, except for Guardian, which has very different editorial tone and direction. I disagree with the sources because they are bad. My opinion is founded on the weight of the evidence. You are acting in bad faith by ungenerously misinterpreting my motives. I do plan to dispute the sources formally, since no one here is capable of addressing those issues.
As to your much bolder claim likening Frutiger Aero to the likes of "Gothic" and "Romanesque," I invite you to put each of those terms into Google Scholar to compare. The idea that there was a Gothic Period is well-documented in Art History, the only mention of Frutiger Aero in Google Scholar is an informal link to the Aesthetics Wiki. Moreover, such terms are frequently in dispute: ie., The Dark Ages or even worse, positing an Oriental style (See Edward Said for a discussion).
As to Youtube "There is no blanket ban on linking to user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links). Since the YouTuber in question is a registered Canadian journalist, it should count as reliable and noteworthy. Certainly, as compared to the standards set by the other sources. The fact that you would go ahead and delete the only source that disagrees with your point of view, and without discussion shows extreme dishonesty. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "registered journalist" doesn't make somebody a reliable source. This YouTuber makes his own videos by himself, he doesn't have the editorial oversight that most media organizations have. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And anyone can make a website, stick institute in the title and invent neologisms. It does not mean that the definition of the neologism is reflected by history, but apparently that's good enough for you? Princess Boy Laura (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anyone can invent a neologism online, but not all neologisms pick up and become notable terms and get covered by reliable sources. There's a reason we have a page for Frutiger Aero, which has reliable coverage and notability, and not flooblesop, which I just invented. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term primitive art was a also a neologism cited by countless "reliable" sources. That did not make it accurate to reality, which is why there's no page for it - only a redirect to tribal art. By analogy, Frutiger Aero should redirect to Windows Aero. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we don't call that article primitive art is because reliable sources have aren't using that terminology anymore (and in this sort of thing we prefer recent sources over older ones). If you have a cache of recent more sources giving a different name for this articles topic, perhaps you want to share those. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exception to the rules about self published sources is subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field i.e. academics who have been previously published in the field . Our dear former-admin J.J. was a political pundit and newspaper columnist, so in no way a subject-matter expert published in the field. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, this is the main source listed on the article:
"Unveiling the Mystery: Exploring the Fascinating World of Frutiger Aero". www.reeditionmagazine.com. Archived from the original on July 19, 2024. Retrieved July 19, 2024.
It states clearly, "Frutiger Aero is a term coined by Sofi Lee of the Consumer Aesthetics Research Institute in 2017 to describe the corporate tech aesthetic popular from approximately 2005 through 2013."
This is what the Consumer Aesthetics Research Institute (https://cari.institute/) states:
"CARI, or Consumer Aesthetics Research Institute, is an online community dedicated to developing a visual lexicon of consumer ephemera from the 1970s until now. We hope that you will participate with us in researching and developing this new medium of cataloging design history."
A couple problems jump out:
- The "Consumer Aesthetics Research Institute" does not appear to be reliable. Wikipedia requires that articles be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are typically peer-reviewed academic journals, reputable news organizations, or books published by established publishing houses.
- CARI is an online community-driven platform, and as such, it lacks the rigorous editorial oversight, fact-checking processes, and accountability that are characteristic of reliable sources.
- Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of original research, which includes any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material. Sources that present new interpretations or original research without prior publication by a reliable source are not suitable for Wikipedia.
- CARI's nature as an online community suggests its content is based on informal research or is the collective work of its community members
- Wikipedia articles must be based on sources that are considered noteworthy and significant in their field. Sources should be widely recognized and cited by other reliable sources to demonstrate their influence and authority.
- CARI is relatively niche and lacks wide recognition or citation by other established sources.
- Wikipedia content must be verifiable, meaning that readers should be able to check that the information comes from a reliable source. Due to CARI's community-driven nature, the verifiability of its content might be questionable, as it could reflect the opinions or original research of its members rather than established facts.
The other two sources listed in history are:
Holliday, Laura (February 3, 2023). "What is frutiger aero, the aesthetic taking over from Y2K?". Dazed. Archived from the original on July 19, 2024. Retrieved July 19, 2024.
https://pop.inquirer.net/345716/lets-all-welcome-back-the-frutiger-aero-aesthetic-to-give-us-a-whiplash-of-good-nostalgia-in-these-trying-times
These are blog posts, again, on the subject of aesthetics. The same concerns of reliability, noteworthiness, and original research apply. Here. Moreover, the articles main source of information is Sofi Lee, who, we've established, is extremely problematic as a historical source.
Honestly, I think this entire article is a candidate for deletion. 174.94.28.8 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel like the article should be a candidate for deletion, feel free to nominate it so that the community can discuss it. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Delete

[edit]

Hi. I'm the editor who has nominated the article for deletion. In fairness, it does source a Guardian article, which is worth something, but the rest of the sources do seem to be problematic in terms of reliability, notability, and original research. Most of the other sources are blog posts and the like, not reputable journals or scholarship. Moreover, these articles appear to be collectively proposing a novel aesthetic conceptualization which may not be encyclopedic. At the very least, the disputed original editorial direction which follows from these articles is not "historical." It is anachronistically attributes the "Frutiger Aero" conceptualization to it's target era rather than than to it's coinage in 2017 and subsequent contemporary online adoption. The Guardian article, at least, is more accurate in reporting on the phenomenon as a backward-looking contemporary fad distinct from its own inspiration. As to whether online trends and memes are encyclopedic, I have my doubts. I'll do a search on the scholarly journals tomorrow--the actual research of an art historian would be worth a lot in a context like this.

--Princess Boy Laura (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use Proposal For Deletion. That is only for uncontroverted deletions. For an article like this, use a normal nomination so that people can discuss it. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking of candidates for speedy deletion. Those are uncontroverted deletions. This is a Proposal For Deletion, which serves as a welcome for your fellow editors to discuss the matter on the talk page. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misprinted the code. Fixed. Princess Boy Laura (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frutiger_Aero&oldid=1243396780"