Talk:Succès de scandale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Media (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This article strays occasionally from having an encyclopeadic tone.

Agree... AnonMoos 13:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Strays occasionally? It's entirely written from a strange (possibly sarcastic?) perspective that many major artists were con men and cynical attention whores who made horrible art to get their names in the paper. It's a cute essay but deeply biased against the idea that shocking art can be legitimate art. -AG 2 Mar 07
According to Walter Benjamin the "shock effect" is what constitutes art (or cultural commodities) and that is a widely accepted point of view. The article is about a term used exclusively by materialists and it gives a pretty precise definition of the concept. "What makes GG Allin less artsy than a Franz Wedekind or an Ibsen?", They would ask pointing out that noone would give a damn about Büchner and De Sade and Voltaire and Kubrick if they didn't have a little dadaist punk rocker in them. (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The biggest problem here is not as much with the tone of the article, but with the distortions of history. What is written here about Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, for example, is completely contradictory with its own Wikipedia article -- namely, the fact that it was the ballet, not the music, that caused the riot, and that Stravinsky became "the most famous composer of the 20th century" overnight. This article needs pretty much a complete rewrite.SirMustapha (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for deletion. It has one risible source to a Grove entry for a piece that barely meets the definition of a Succès de scandale. Much of the writing in the article is incoherent, and absolutely none of it is sourced. The article's main purpose seems to be as a collection of information, which means it should go.Trumpetrep (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)