Talk:General Idea

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Fungjennifer1, Parbhar95. Peer reviewers: Mei001, A.prdm93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

LGBT?

Nowhere in the article does it state anything about gay issues... Could someone with more knowledge about the group address this? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Generalidea.jpg

Image:Generalidea.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Idea. 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/20050316231452/http://www.aabronson.com/art/gi.org/ to http://www.aabronson.com/art/gi.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413185404/http://www.eai.org/index.htm to http://www.eai.org/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

More on artists themselves and the public's response to artwork?

Hello, I think the page is missing more information on the artists themselves. I found an interview with Jason Decter, Partz, and Bronson, and it gives a lot of information on what their vision was for their pieces, and how they wanted ambiguity in meaning. I also think it would helpful to talk about the public's response to the art. The same interview mentions that General Idea's critics mention that there is no meaning in their A-I-D-S piece. What do you all think? Thanks!

Hello again! I have contributed a few sentences to the page. Firstly, I discussed that when the group was first recognized, confusion existed as to who they were which led to a series of self portrayal images. Then I mentioned that it was important to General Idea that their work was seen by many different types of people and therefore they had their work featured on newsstands as well as in museums to get maximum exposure and get reactions from many different types of people. I also added that the group intended for their AIDS logo to get out of control. Please let me know if you think the source is reliable and my additions are worthy!

References

Hello

I am looking for some reputable sources regarding these artists take on the AIDs epidemic but I am have trouble with finding good reputable sources. I found the sources through CSU East Bay's library database but do not know if these are good sources. Any tips or advice? Thank you!

Felton-Dansky, M. (2011). Artistic Epidemiology. PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art, 33(2), 115-119.

Barkun, D. (2012). The Artist as a Work-in-Progress: General Idea and the Construction of Collective Identity. Forum for Modern Language Studies,48(4), 453-467.

Angel, Sara. (2011). How General Idea predicted the future: Three artists eerily foreshadowed modern phenomena like reality TV and Facebook.(Art)(Jorge Zontal, Felix Partz, and A.A. Bronson). Maclean's, 124(29 30), 82. Fungjennifer1 (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jennifer! Great job on your edits of General Idea's article page. I think the additions you made to the article not only are really well thought out but are needed, given the ambiguity that their work tends to have. The only note I have to offer you is concerning the placement of the first edit you made, where you talk about General Idea's intentional ambiguity which they then reconciled with the self portraits. I'm curious to see why you chose to place your addition there? After reading the first section of the article a few times I was wondering if it might not flow better to place you addition at the end of the 3rd paragraph instead? That paragraph subject revolves around describing the work General Idea did more so than the 2nd paragraph where you made you addition. Especially since in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph their discussing audience reactions to General Idea's work it might be a great leeway into how General Idea had to tailor their work a bit because they were so ambiguous initially and it was creating a conflict between artist and audience. Super minor, I know, but figured I'd mention it! A.prdm93 (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey @A.prdm93! I actually made that edit. The more I look at it, the more I agree with you. I think I wanted to initially mention they're ambiguity so readers would have that in mind as they read the rest of the article. I will move it! Thanks for your help! Parbhar95 (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Idea. 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/20110121123029/http://eai.org/artistBio.htm?id=9895 to http://www.eai.org/artistBio.htm?id=9895

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)