Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-autonomous art

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Post-autonomous art]]=

:{{la|Post-autonomous art}} ([{{fullurl:Post-autonomous art|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-autonomous art}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article is pretty much unsourced original research. A [http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Post-autonomous+art%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a google] search only reveals wikipedia mirrors and some uses of the term "post-autonomous art" in a context outside of this so-called movement. There appears to be some limited use of the term as a descriptive term but with no connection to an actual art movement per se. This may be a copyright violation, although it's difficult to find the original site amongst the mirrors. In any case, this article has been worked on since the original editor created the article, so it may not qualify for speedy as copyvio. The few mentions of artists on this page seem to again be original research, i.e. the artists or third-party sources writing about those artists do not use this term. freshacconci talktalk 11:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22post-autonomous+art%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search Google Scholar] yields 10 hits, which seem to indicate some consensus that the label is useful. Relatively readable article even if the underlying concept is all moonshine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • :Comment As I said, the term is in use, but not in this specific context. As such, the article would basically need to be blanked and started from scratch. If deleted, I'd have no prejudice against re-creation using information gleaned from google scholar search. But as it stands, if this is a keep, who's going to rewrite this from nothing? freshacconci talktalk 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the OR and added some sources. I'm still not convinced it's a keep though.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • :Comment That's much better. I'm wondering, however, if a merge to Superflex is more appropriate (if that group does in fact use this term or has been described as such by reliable sources). That article needs sources too, but notability doesn't seem to be an issue as they have a significant exhibition record (Venice Biennial, etc.). Is the Jeff Wall reference specifically about this particular concept? Not trying to be intractable here, just trying to be clear. The problem with coining terms that are being used in other contexts is exactly this. Wall may be referring to a general tendency in a post-autonomous practice that is in fact autonomous. Having said that, I downloaded the PDF of the Wall text provided but haven't read it yet. But I will; I like Dan Graham and Wall's writing is usually quite interesting. freshacconci talktalk 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • ::I always do things backwards. I just read the Superflex article and it makes no reference to post-autonomous art. Is Michael Lingner using the term in relation to that group or has some other writer using the term as Lingner used it in reference to Superflex? freshacconci talktalk 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • :::Once again, I've asked a question and then actually looked at the source provided, and yes, the term in relation to Lingner is used in a discussion of Superflex. All dots connect. freshacconci talktalk 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I think Jeff Wall is talking about something else altogether, although to be honest it's not clear what he's talking about. Passing uses of the term are made in variety of different contexts and each one is probably a separate coinage. What's left is that Michael Lingner (a non-notable artist in WP terms) wrote a couple of essays that were read by Mary Ann Francis and Sally O'Reilly. Here are the relevant texts in full: Francis on Lingner and Superflex [http://www.criticalpracticechelsea.org/modules/wiwimod/index.php?page=Dirty+Work:+Art+Beyond+Autonomy&back=Mary+Anne+Francis] and the Lingner article she references [http://ask23.hfbk-hamburg.de/draft/archiv/ml_publikationen/kt93-1.html]. O'Reilly seems to be quoting another Lingner essay, which she she doesn't name. There's something here, but it's not ready for WP yet. --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Article says it's mostly used by some artist without an article, therefore the presumption is that it's not notable. Googling around shows no reliable sources for the term. DreamGuy (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.