| Revision as of 15:59, 25 January 2011 editIhcoyc (talk | contribs)30,401 edits →Authenticity in art: keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:36, 25 January 2011 edit undoBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,243 edits →Authenticity in art: twatNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ** ....as I said in the nomination. Now if someone wants to convert this article into something about that, then it would be a reasonable cite, but at the moment this is ''still'' a piece of unreferenced original research. Let's not have another AfD that descends into an argument about what an article ''could'' be, if someone rewrote it. That's not the point, unless someone does actually rewrite it while the AfD is going on. ] ] 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | ** ....as I said in the nomination. Now if someone wants to convert this article into something about that, then it would be a reasonable cite, but at the moment this is ''still'' a piece of unreferenced original research. Let's not have another AfD that descends into an argument about what an article ''could'' be, if someone rewrote it. That's not the point, unless someone does actually rewrite it while the AfD is going on. ] ] 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' and expand. as an obviously notable topic that needs filling out in several directions. Whether it should eventually be divided up into separate articles for the multiple meanings can be judged later. I am amazed that some are still trying to defend what Uncle G has shown to be indefensible destructiveness. I note from the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia that NG's work covers more than just attribution, and indeed aims primarily at the more general question of the intrinsic meaning of artistic value, the most general meaning of "authenticity" Let's not have another AfD where an article being incomplete is used as an reason to delete it. Perhaps this is an occasion for a speedy close as a nomination based on personal antagonism, not a good faith nomination. ''']''' (]) 15:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' and expand. as an obviously notable topic that needs filling out in several directions. Whether it should eventually be divided up into separate articles for the multiple meanings can be judged later. I am amazed that some are still trying to defend what Uncle G has shown to be indefensible destructiveness. I note from the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia that NG's work covers more than just attribution, and indeed aims primarily at the more general question of the intrinsic meaning of artistic value, the most general meaning of "authenticity" Let's not have another AfD where an article being incomplete is used as an reason to delete it. Perhaps this is an occasion for a speedy close as a nomination based on personal antagonism, not a good faith nomination. ''']''' (]) 15:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *** Well done DGG, you've succesfully convinced me that there's no point in there being here any longer. Your persistent defence of Warden during the RfC was comical enough, but that comment just takes the biscuit. Please feel free to celebrate with all your friends who are contributing to the demise of Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia, whilst turning it into a celebration of trivia. ] ] 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge or make disam''' the topic(s) is/are notable, but I see little good coming from the article as it is; it covers several topics, but is not clearly aware of this. We have ] for music - redirects to ], which seems not to link either way to or from ] - & any salvagable content should go to these, mostly the latter I imagine. Or turn into a disam page to those and ] and (ahem) ] - now that's an article we do need. ] (]) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | *'''Merge or make disam''' the topic(s) is/are notable, but I see little good coming from the article as it is; it covers several topics, but is not clearly aware of this. We have ] for music - redirects to ], which seems not to link either way to or from ] - & any salvagable content should go to these, mostly the latter I imagine. Or turn into a disam page to those and ] and (ahem) ] - now that's an article we do need. ] (]) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per DGG. This is a fairly large subject that wants a deeper article, and what we have here is a fair start. - ] - ] 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per DGG. This is a fairly large subject that wants a deeper article, and what we have here is a fair start. - ] - ] 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:36, 25 January 2011
Authenticity in art
- Authenticity in art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PRODded as incomprehensible original research, which it currently is. The online sources don't appear to back it up and I suspect they've merely been added because they came from a Google search on art+authenticity. PROD removed by User:Colonel Warden who added a Google books cite which, as usual, is utterly irrelevant to the topic - it is talking about authenticity in terms of genuine or fake art, as opposed to originality of style or use of traditional methods. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This does read like an OR-filled essay. I suspect anyone using this title as a search string will most likely looking for a more concrete 'authenticity', or provenance rather than a subjective discussion of aesthetic authenticity, perhaps this should be redirected there. pablo 12:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- There's at least three ways to tackle this topic and provenance is just one of them. Another is that covered at Authenticity (philosophy) — the sincerity of the artist. That then runs into the issue of faithfulness which arises in performance arts such as music - the extent to which the performer authentically reproduces the artistic intent of the composer. This is therefore a complex topic and so it's not surprising that this early attempt at it should be weak. But the topic, by this title, is quite notable and so our editing policy is to make something of it. See The Oxford handbook of aesthetics for a good treatment which we might use as a model. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- That does seem to provide a useful framework. pablo 14:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- There's at least three ways to tackle this topic and provenance is just one of them. Another is that covered at Authenticity (philosophy) — the sincerity of the artist. That then runs into the issue of faithfulness which arises in performance arts such as music - the extent to which the performer authentically reproduces the artistic intent of the composer. This is therefore a complex topic and so it's not surprising that this early attempt at it should be weak. But the topic, by this title, is quite notable and so our editing policy is to make something of it. See The Oxford handbook of aesthetics for a good treatment which we might use as a model. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- It seems relevant to me. Good grief! You have unsourced content by a pseudonym on a WWW site versus a book (Languages of Art by Nelson Goodman) by a credentialled authority, and given that choice you take what the pseudonym writes to be true and outright throw away the authority on the basis that it contradicts the unsourced pseudonymous writing. What on Earth are you all thinking? The authority is what to go with. The sheer perversity of the approach by you, Black Kite, and the sheer thoughtless destructiveness of what Hrafn did in following in your footsteps, is astounding. We're here to build an encyclopaedia based exactly upon what subject experts such as professors write in books, in place of what Misplaced Pages editors with pseudonyms might write straight off the tops of their heads.
Now get your heads on straight; get a refresher course in basic content policy and the goal of a properly verifiable, expert-source-supported, encyclopaedia that we are aiming for; and take sources such as Dutton 2003 (where a credentialled professor discusses the subject in an university press book), Phillips 1997 (where a university lecturer and museum curator discusses the subject in another university press book), and indeed Goodman1976 that Colonel Warden helpfully found, in hand and mercilessly replace poor unsourced top-of-the-head-written content that doesn't necessarily get the subject exactly right with verifiable content that you can show matches what experts have written about the subject.
You can even link it as a philosophy of art-specific sub-topic of authenticity (philosophy) (which is apparently an umbrella article that deals with more than art), work Spinozzi 2010 into it somewhere, and interwiki link uk:Автентичність (мистецтво), where this article's creator Анна Шабеко (talk · contribs) wrote the original, to it as a hint to Ukrainian Wikipedians as to how to make the uk: article better.
Uncle G (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dutton, Denis (2003). "Authenticity in Art". In Levinson, Jerrold (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford Handbooks in Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199279456.
{{cite book}}: External link in|chapterurl=|ref=harv(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=ignored (|chapter-url=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|isbn10=ignored (help) - Phillips, David (1997). Exhibiting authenticity. Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719047978.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help); Unknown parameter|isbn10=ignored (help) - Spinozzi, Paola (2010). "The Origin of Art: Towards Humanistic-Scientific Theories and Methodologies". In Spinozzi, Paola; Zironi, Alessandro (eds.). Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities. Interfacing science, literature, and the humanities. Vol. 6. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 9783899717594.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help); Unknown parameter|isbn10=ignored (help) (refs added by Uncle G)- Surely if the subject is notable it would be far better to delete this and start from scratch, because otherwise you've got the choice of trying to find sources which fit this original research, or doing the right thing and writing an article from scratch from the reliable sources. There's very little if anything here worth keeping, frankly. But I'm having nothing more to do with this now. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dutton, Denis (2003). "Authenticity in Art". In Levinson, Jerrold (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford Handbooks in Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199279456.
- The relevance of the book CW added is supported by the authoritative Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which gives Nelson Goodman as a key worker in this area of Aesthetics, and his Languages of Art as a key reference . Hrafn makes almost no mistakes in editing, but the removal of this reference was one of them. DGG ( talk ) 14:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The subject matter here seems so elemental to art criticism that it must be covered elsewhere already, even if I don't understand art criticism or how others have structured those articles already. My brief foray led me to the amusing 1920s hoax of Disumbrationism (which was all about "authenticity" and b.s. art critics, in fact) so I'm clearly useless on substance here.--Milowent • 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: the book is irrelevant not because it is unscholarly, but because it deals with 'authenticity in art' in contrast to forgery, not to authenticity in terms of originality/artistic-integrity/or similar, which is the context the article is dealing with it. HrafnStalk(P) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- ....as I said in the nomination. Now if someone wants to convert this article into something about that, then it would be a reasonable cite, but at the moment this is still a piece of unreferenced original research. Let's not have another AfD that descends into an argument about what an article could be, if someone rewrote it. That's not the point, unless someone does actually rewrite it while the AfD is going on. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. as an obviously notable topic that needs filling out in several directions. Whether it should eventually be divided up into separate articles for the multiple meanings can be judged later. I am amazed that some are still trying to defend what Uncle G has shown to be indefensible destructiveness. I note from the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia that NG's work covers more than just attribution, and indeed aims primarily at the more general question of the intrinsic meaning of artistic value, the most general meaning of "authenticity" Let's not have another AfD where an article being incomplete is used as an reason to delete it. Perhaps this is an occasion for a speedy close as a nomination based on personal antagonism, not a good faith nomination. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well done DGG, you've succesfully convinced me that there's no point in there being here any longer. Your persistent defence of Warden during the RfC was comical enough, but that comment just takes the biscuit. Please feel free to celebrate with all your friends who are contributing to the demise of Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia, whilst turning it into a celebration of trivia. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge or make disam the topic(s) is/are notable, but I see little good coming from the article as it is; it covers several topics, but is not clearly aware of this. We have Authentic performance for music - redirects to Historically informed performance, which seems not to link either way to or from authenticity (philosophy) - & any salvagable content should go to these, mostly the latter I imagine. Or turn into a disam page to those and Provenance and (ahem) Attribution (art) - now that's an article we do need. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. This is a fairly large subject that wants a deeper article, and what we have here is a fair start. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)