Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art bollocks

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art bollocks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable neologism, supported only by usage in blog posts and opinion columns Yworo (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it appeared in an article in Art Review (i.e., on paper) back in 1999, and has done so since then. It has even appeared on the Charles Saatchi gallery website; see this. How is anyone on wikipedia to understand what AB means if it is not defined? Why should wikipedians have the benefit of List of Pokémon characters but not AB? If my article were retitled Artspeak, would that be more acceptable? AB goes beyond art criticism into the uses of language. It is a term in British English, not American, and I linked it accordingly. I have no axes to grind in regard to art or philosophy, and the article is based on WP:GOODFAITH. Please re-read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and please add any contrary views if you think it was too "pointedly written".Red Hurley (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there secondary sources that discuss the term? Because from what I can tell you are finding instances of its use and then writing about how it is used. That's original research. Yworo (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and some mainstream printed-on-paper sources are listed in David Thompson's 2007 article which is available on the internet here, which I plan to quote from separately. I appreciate that papers like The Guardian would not be well known to Americans.Red Hurley (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can we change this to Artspeak when it is a place in Canada? Any better suggestions?..Modernist (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or rename per discussion...Modernist (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Pointedly written, fails RS, describing it as a neologism is probably too kind. Artspeak fair enough, but the function sect reeks of an axe to grind. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be keep on a rename' to Artspeak and some rewriting. About Artspeak I have a lot to say myself. Red Hurely seems up to this so, pending. Ceoil (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep I was all set to line up with my buddies, but found this [1], as well as use of the term by journalists [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Apparently a popular term; original research and violations of neutral pov can be cut from the article. JNW (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is thataway. This doesn't merit more than a dicdef, it's art+bollocks. Yworo (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My colleagues across the pond maintain it's not a commonly used term [7]. As for Wiktionary, I likely could have found it, with the aid of my seeing eye dog and gps, but the link was thoughtful, so long as it wasn't intended snidely. JNW (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was, but no matter. The Bill Drummond link strikes me as I'm kind of a fan of the man and the way he writes, but its a concidence, two words that happen to meet in a sentence. The combination has no currency. Do we need an article on fan of or of the. English people throw around the word bollocks like its christmas. Tisk. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a colourful people. freshacconci talktalk 01:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish, not English. Big difference. We never swear. Ceoil (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. You all talk funny over there. That's all that counts. freshacconci talktalk 14:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, not another Irish-Canadian conflict; can't we all just get along? JNW (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the major players for the Munich Agreement were Ireland and Canada. freshacconci talktalk 13:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada started it. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Canada will finish it, beotch. freshacconci talktalk 13:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle folk, come to your senses; you've both contributed so much to our culture. JNW (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why describe my creation as "fuckology" onWikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts? I'd say that counts you out as an objector, considering WP:CIV.Red Hurley (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A term being used a few times doesn't justify an article about it.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename? I am happy to redo the article as Artspeak (language), as there is an Artspeak already. And include AB as a synonym. I assure you all that there was no evil intent in creating the article, just an attempt to unwrap a mysterious language. I have a lot more sources to add.Red Hurley (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd re-name the existing article, and move this page to artspeak. I know well enough now that there was no bad intentions in creating the page; my first impression was that it was ridiculing mordern art in general, now I can see that it riducles the pseud language often used to describe it. Anyway, I've struck that stuff and am a Keep, rewrite slightly and rename. Ceoil (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have no idea why this article was nominated. As recognised jargon among elements of the art world, the topic is notable. I see no reason for deleting an article like this when its presence provides people like me - those who are largely ignorant of artspeak - with the ready opportunity to learn about this sub-genre of the world of art. BlueRobe (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this article is spurious. If there were relevant or compelling references and sources then this debate would not be taking place, hence de facto, there not enough supporting evidence for notability, etc.--Artiquities (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Artiquities, I'm not sure you know what "de facto" means. BlueRobe (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Robert Atkins. "Artspeak: a guide to contemporary ideas, movements, and buzzwords, 1945 to the present". Abbeville Press Publishers, 1997. [9] Roy Harris. "artspeak: the language of the arts in the western tradition". Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd, 2003. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think a rename and substantial rewrite is a good solution. Artspeak as a concept is well-established but in a much wider scope than simply mocking art. freshacconci talktalk 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have "Artspeak," by Robert Atkins, and its companion book, "Artspoke," also by Robert Atkins. But "art bollocks" is entirely different. Art bollocks is negative. Robert Atkins is writing about something that is neither negative nor positive. He is just telling us about some of the dialogues that serve as a background to various types of art. "Art bollocks" is specifically pointing out the bullshit. And the bullshit is definitely real. It creeps into everything, almost, to some degree. And it has an overwhelming presence in some art settings. But then again that is not unusual—boloney can be found in many walks of life. I love reading catalogues for men's clothing—just to read the utter bullshit. They tell me that this is the shirt to wear on cool misty mornings by the campfire while making a cup of coffee. Yes, right. Well, "art bollocks" is just the same but aimed at the sophisticates who populate art galleries and art museums. Tell them something they don't understand—they'll love it. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we would need a rewrite. My reading of art bollocks is that it is a reaction to artspeak. Artspeak is a specialized language and like all specialized languages can easily be abused in order to obfuscate (such as legalese). I'm not convince that "art bullocks" is in wide-enough use to warrant a stand-alone article. But we don't have an article about artspeak in general and as a mocking of artspeak, art bollocks would easily fit there. Under legal writing we have a section on "legalese" which is a good parallel to what we are discussing here. freshacconci talktalk 14:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art bollicks describes the abuse of artspeak, and I'm reminded of The Fall lyric "praising the crap with words they could hardly pronounce"[10]. I would really like an article on artspeak; if Red Hurley is up for it, so am I. Art Bollick would be a subsection, a very substantial subsection because I've seen plenty of it myself and its a real turn off. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection makes sense - thumbs up...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. JNW (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that makes Art bollocks possible is the open-endedness of art itself. It's funny that you all accepted my comparison to men's clothing sales, because it is not comparable at all. We have a whole article devoted to "What Is Art?" Do we have an article "What is Clothing?" ~~(And why, pray tell, is "Art" capitalized in that title?)~~ This is a work of art. How is that possible? Because of the open-endedness of the definition of art. How can you possibly have an article on "artspeak"? Is that sourced? Even if it is—that ("artspeak") is the ordinary use of language—only applied to art. "Art bollocks," on the other hand (forgive the imagery), is a unique entity. Its existence is strongly tied to the open-mindedness with which the most sophisticated thinkers approach contemporary art: all of the art public maintains a characteristically open mind about the next creation by the next young person who calls himself or herself an "artist." Don't water down the subject of the article by placing it in a context where ~~we pretend that~~ it is of subsidiary importance. If anything, the term "artspeak" should be integrated into the "art bollocks" article. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you can turn the fact we ignored to "you all accepted my comparison to men's clothing sale" and then used your own bad example as a stick. Nobody is doubting the existance of the trend, just the article title. Nothing is done and dusted here, its all still under discussion. Ceoil (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Not meaning to be confrontational. Just challenging. This is an interesting juncture. I like this stuff. I think a key question would be whether we think "artspeak" is a term deserving an article, and I think an important consideration in that would be whether we feel "artspeak" means anything special—is "artspeak" just language used to talk about art—or is "artspeak" special in some way, and uniquely applicable to talking about art? What we find about "art bollocks," I think, is that it is a unique byproduct of the need to use language on the slippery slope that is art criticism, or art theory, or connoisseurship. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that artspeak is a broader and more frequently used term referring to the often esoteric language employed in art's academic and commercial circles, and would be the umbrella under which art bollocks would fit. Now all that's needed are references to justify the artspeak entry, which could be differentiated from the current article by titling it 'Artspeak (terminology)' or some such. JNW (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Bus stop, I know well enough you are a good sort, and yeah its an interesting conversation. I think artspeak should be the main article; the exitsing page should be hatted. There is no doubt artspeak deserves a substantial article, as does what is described as 'art bollocks', its jst I dont think thats the right term. Its very late 1990s Brit art specific for a start, while I think the lesser minimualists were the most guilty of using ponification to justify pieces that were purely conceptual and had little astethic value. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not two separate articles? Esoteric is different from meaningless. That is the distinction that "art bollocks" gets at. "Art bollocks" is about pulling the wool over someone's eyes, while "artspeak" is merely the useful application of language to explain art. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Not meaning to split hairs, but 'bollocks' can still fit under artspeak as the pejorative reference to AS at its most painful. JNW (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what is "artspeak"? Is it anything meaningful? Do reliable sources talk about "artspeak" in a way that sets it aside from other uses of language? Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem from me on two articles, but again I really dont think bollock has currency, and I think its a term specific to Saatchi, and London media of the late 90s/early 00s. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have shown above that the term has an origin, and a definition—two key characteristics in establishing that a subject has an existence outside of Wikipedia, in my opinion. I don't know if it would be a lengthy article, but I think its existence is justified by sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not in the current version of the article. Perhalps if Red Hurly was less indignant and self righteous they might. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two [11], [12] establish that it is a term. And I disagree that it is just "art" + "bollocks." It is that, but it is a reference for a certain type of hot air that is particular to visual art. One of its characteristics is its propensity for expanding the definition of visual art inexorably—to the point that everything is (potentially) art (understood to be visual art), and nothing is ruled out as being part of visual art. The phenomenon needs a label, and this one has stuck, at least to a degree. That is sufficient justification for an article. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand. I conceed. And am keep. Good work Bus stop, your argument is solid. Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil—I think this is the original article, from 1999, by Brian Ashbee, titled "Art Bollocks." Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your thoughts so far. Artspeak is also a derogatory term because it links to "Newspeak", the government language of George Orwell's 1984, but it is probably better known in the USA. I first heard "Art Bollocks" mentioned by a salesman at Sothebys in Bond Street, London, back in 2000, and considered that it was an ironic / sarcastic term, but one that non-academic lovers of art would immediately understand. However, few people in the art business will criticise a writer of AB in public because they are adding to the mystique of art for new buyers, who may soon be buying in places like Sothebys. Some critics of AB say it is too postmodernist and even Marxist in origin, but I would argue that contemporary art is a world away from Soviet art, and so there is lots of wiggle room for differing views. But what is Yworo's view?Red Hurley (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for "artspeak?" Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are many terms for pretentious terminology in art criticism. This does not stand out as an especially dominant one. Paul B (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That would be a reasonable objection to the existence of this article, if it were to hold up under scrutiny. Can I ask you to identify another such term? Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of other such terms. Pre-modified 'bollocks':postmodern-bollocks, gender-equality-bollocks, health-and-safety-bollocks. Post-modified 'art': art-shite, art-wank, art-crap. Art jargon is perhaps the article that needs to be written. The same shitey, wanky, bollocks, but a bit more tastefully expressed.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you have a source on any of the terms you've presented? "Art-bollocks" is written about in sources. It is virtually defined. At least a suggestion is provided as to its intended meaning. Examples can be given because examples are actually provided by sources. "Gender-equality-bollocks" is a term relating to the visual arts? "Health-and-safety-bollocks" is a term relating to the visual arts? Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like Art jargon better than all the other suggestions...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What source supports the term "art jargon?" Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A google books search throws up more for 'art jargon' than 'art bollocks'.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources provided in this discussion. It is possible that Art jargon would have more potential as a good article (the article right now is not very good, ahem), in which case I wouldn't mind bollocks being merged into jargon. But since we don't have the jargon, I think we need to keep the bollocks. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.