Talk:Superfiction

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

This article was provided with references by an Unreferenced articles project volunteer on 21 April 2023. If you edit this page, please build on the good work by citing your sources.

Restructured, organised and added many links. However, couldn't find useful references to the following artists in the original stub and have thus temporarily removed them. If anyone knows what work specifically is considered to be a superfiction, please add the reference and move them back in, simply stating the name is not really enough.

Artists that were named in the stub without reference to actual work (and I couldn't find anything pertinent on the Web):

Billy Apple (New Zealand)
DAMP (Australia) ... reference [1] is completely nondescript
Stephen Hurrell (Scotland)

Steipe 15:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following two references:

Sasha Baron Cohen created his character Borat as an actual person, doing television interviews and making all appearances in character
Spinal Tap was a joke band that were featured in a documentary, toured, put out albums, and also did all media interviews in character

I think they are irrelevant to the artistic/philosophical subject of the article. Borat was never intended to be anything other than comedy; as such it is more in league with other spoofs and mockumentaries than with superfictions. "Spinal Tap" may be a similar phenomenon, although this is more borderline. Comments welcome.

Steipe (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New approach to the article?

Since I've left this alone for a while, the page has a reasonable number of hits, but it doesn't correspond to WP:MOS very well. That could be easily fixed...

However I think it is also not very encyclopedic since its emphasis on Hill's work makes it rather anecdotal. That would serve oK for Peter Hill, but then the page should really be merged. If the concept merits its own page, rather than just a list, the impact (or independent development of similar ideas) and the current context and importance might need to be better established. As it stands, there is a section relating only to Hill, and a list of links to artists with somewhat uncertain relevance. I think there are two complementary approaches to improve: (1) By first principles - i.e. look for work that has been done on the idea of "redirection" in art, Benjamin and Gadamer come to mind, Kingwell has recently written in that direction (among others, I'm sure). (2) By example - but this would mean going back to the cited examples, actually explaining the work that is to be considered in this context and explaining why it is considered to fit into this category. In the "real" world that would be easy enough to do; in the "WikiWorld", it might conflict with WP:OR and one would need to hunt down "reliable third-party sources". Steipe (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a few ideas for this page - I think it could merged with the fictive art page, which would expand it somewhat. Jamesmans (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)jamesmans[reply]