Talk:Site-specific art
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Exploding Cinema
I am concerned that the amount of copy space devoted to the arguments of Exploding Cinema is out of proportion to the issue that it supports. the issue of wether the inhabitants of a given location are alienated by the 'bourgeoisie' when an art work is installed is worthy of mention. but it is not a particularly good example of the issue: a better one might be the representation of 'great men on plinths' and the masculine and military bias towards public statuary.
this article makes me think that it has a tinge of vanity associated with it. using a film to illustrate such a minor issue when the introductory para barely lays the ground for understanding its complex contexts, seems to me to be more obscuring than informative. DavidP 00:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Living water
Is Betsy Damon's living water work (link) a piece that could be mentioned here? Daviddec 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Orgreave!
That work is a terrible example to use - and the reference is contradictory. There must be something better such as a Matta-Clarke.Piersmasterson 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] vandalism - but is it site specific?
I just reverted this page back something like 30 versions to get rid of some repeated 'alterations'. To be honest I dont think that the page was much worse with the vandalism, at least it was quite funny. In fact it occured to me while reverting that the 'interesting changes' were almost the perfect example of site-specificity - they were completely in keeping with the medium, and were absolutely appropriate to the democratic anarchy of wikipedia.
Any way I clicked the link and, for now at least, the page is vaguely coherent (in a rather dull wikisense) - Now perhaps it is time to work this page up so that it actually says something encyclopedic about site-specific art. DavidP
[edit] Headline text
There is a bit of a mess here with the different terms - site-specific, environmental, art/sculpture, etc. This confusion of terms is a real-life problem, not a wikipedia one, but we need to consider how we deal with it - would one, merged article be better? or a disambiguation which clearly outlines wikipedia's chosen subdivisions and allows the reader to chose the appropriate article? I've done a patch-up job on the Environmental art article, but a more comprehensive restructuring might be in order.
And incidentally, why does Environmental Art redirect to Site-specific art rather than to Environmental art, and how can I change it? --Jethrobrice 09:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
