Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-anti-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 merge to Stuckism. Sandstein 20:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-anti-art[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Term lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources- a glossary mention and personal webpages do not satisfy WP:NAD policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a really a neologism as it's a fairly obvious compound of anti- and art. It seems easy to find more coverage in books such as The Boundaries of Modern Art. WP:NAD is not a reason to delete as that policy indicates that such titles ought to lead somewhere appropriate rather than being deleted. And it explicitly says that we should not delete pages just for being short stubs. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating deleting the article because it is a stub. I am advocating deletion because uncommon neologisms that are not backed by significant coverage in reliable sources goes against policy. Your reading of NAD is uncommon and not thorough. It explicitly states "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." What you just cited is exactly that- a book that mentions the term all of once. Even WP:WORDS says "Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms... do not lend undue weight to a point of view." Uncommon neologisms are and should certainly be deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is used. There are 5 references in the article. Please search for the term "anti-anti-art" in each of the 5 references that are found in the article. Altogether the 5 references allow the reader to know the significance of the term in the context of the activities of a group of artists called the "Stuckists". Its significance, not unlike some other terms, is very much rooted in a point in time. The Stuckists wrote a manifesto using the term "Anti-anti-art" as a title. There is another type of art that is called Conceptualism. It has enjoyed a lot of recognition. I think it could be said that the stance maintained by the "Stuckists" was in opposition to an artistic sensibility embodied in Conceptualism. "Heavily biased against Conceptualism and calling themselves "anti-anti-art," the Stuckists have written a number of manifestos attacking…" The article is only a stub but it represents a position in opposition to a type of sensibility that enjoys a lot of popularity in contemporary art (or at least it did the last time I looked). That opposition has probably been expressed using other language. But "anti-anti-art" expresses that sentiment succinctly. And it has been used to some extent as seen in the article's 5 references. One of the references is a web page called "Stuckism: Art Against Art Against Art". A quote from that page: "In the manifesto Anti-anti-art, the case is made that conceptual art is justified by the work of Marcel Duchamp, which is 'anti-art by intent and effect.' The contrast the Stuckists see is that 'Duchamp's work was a protest against the stale, unthinking artistic establishment of his day,' while 'The great (but wholly unintentional) irony of Post Modernism is that it is a direct equivalent of the conformist, unoriginal establishment that Duchamp attacked in the first place.'" I think this is simply a term used in the visual arts, expressing dislike for a prevalent and popular aesthetic sensibility. It may not ever achieve widespread use but its validity is attested to by the 5 reliable sources found at the bottom of the article. Aesthetics are not a simple thing in recent decades. An article on a term such as this at least provides a term for potential use in articulating positions in a hypothetical dialogue on the place of Conceptualism in the visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Stuckists' manifesto is not independent of the subject, since they are the ones coining the term. So the manifesto (posted on a personal webpage) as well as the Stuckists.com source can be rejected. Further, the other sources listed do not provide significant coverage for the term, only mentioning it or providing one or two sentences of explanation. One Guardian.com glossary listing and a mention on Artnet.com do not satisfy WP:GNG. "Potential use" is not what Wikipedia is about. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian.com doesn't really have a "glossary listing". There is a tongue-in-cheek section of that article titled "A handy YBA glossary". This isn't really a glossary. The glossary contains only 4 entries. The topic is esoteric and the Guardian is using a style of writing to introduce the uninitiated into the realm of the fine distinctions that devotees of contemporary art can be up in arms about. I think the term anti-anti-art is important. And I don't think an article on it violates any of our policies. We are not a bureaucracy. We are not bound by policy. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but we should use whatever means necessary to elucidate a topic. The Stuckists may not be independent of the topic but they are a lot of people. The idea embodied in the term anti-anti-art is an important idea. Stuckism was an international notion, signed onto by about 200 artists. Defining terms in the visual arts is not a simple matter and generally dictionary definitions do not suffice. Robert Atkins wrote a book called "ArtSpeak". See an article about that book here. In the course of defining a term (in the visual arts) one sometimes elucidates ideas that matter to devotees of contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stuckism. It is their term and a discussion of it is also a discussion of them.Kitfoxxe (talk)
Merge to Stuckism. Only finding passing mentions in reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stuckism. Per above. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason my helpful addition of sources to the article was removed, so here they are again:

Just checked out NAD. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc." Anti-anti-art" is presumably a concept, and, if it isn't, then you had better delete the article on "anti-art" as one of your NADs as well.

Perhaps some rudimentary research would help. Google is a good place to start and has 134,000 results. They can't all be crufty (?) fans, surely:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&q=%22anti-anti-art%22+AND+stuckists&oq=%22anti-anti-art%22+AND+stuckists&gs_l=hp.3...2580.15927.0.16670.52.37.2.0.0.1.628.5287.0j8j7j4j1j1.21.0.msedr...0...1c.1.59.hp..43.9.2108.Gd9dDcGjuPY

Here's some that might help (or are they crufts in disguise?):

Small world? How art does the biz at the Turner Prize . . . Derry Journal [Derry (UK)] 10 Dec 2013. ...Charles Thompson of the "anti-anti art movement", the Stuckists, went a bit far

The Turner Prize: a bloated, contrived, luvvie-riddled waste of taxpayer's money Telegraph.co.uk [London] 04 Dec 2012. ...co-founder of the Stuckists, (the "anti-anti-art" international movement

The market in modern art is rotten to its core Telegraph.co.uk [London] 01 Oct 2012. ...their self-definitions is being anti-anti-art. It was Thomson who painted a

DON'T WORRY IT'S ONLY ART ; And according to the judges of the 2001 Turner Prize it's among the best in Britain. Rosie Millard charts the rise of the award and profiles this year's four shortlisted contenders: [FOREIGN Edition] Millard, Rosie. The Independent [London (UK)] 28 Oct 2001: 7. ...and Five Live. During the day, the Stuckists, an "anti- anti art movement", turn

The Stuckists: The First Remodernist Art Group - Page 49 books.google.co.uk/books?id=CpBPAAAAMAAJ Katherine Evans - 2000 - ‎Snippet view 9 Oct - 14 Nov 2000, ButtClub, Hamburg THE STUCKIST GROUP Philip Absolon, Billy Childish (Co-founder), Frances Castle, Sheila Clark MA, Eamon Everall Cert. ... Handy Hints 11.4.00, Anti-anti-art 1 1.4.00, Writing Manifesto 5.5.00 (pub.

The Boundaries of Modern Art - Page 69 books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1909421014 Richard Pooler - 2013 - ‎Preview So they named their movement Stuckism after her comment. They have issued several manifestos, the first being 'The Stuckists', and another being 'Remodernism'. Both criticised Postmodernism and aimed ... Another manifesto was 'anti-anti-art' which is self-explanatory, being 'for art!' It said, “Artists who don't paint aren't ...

Modern Art Invasion: Picasso, Duchamp, and the 1913 Armory ... books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=149300073X Elizabeth Lunday - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions ... U.K.,January 19, 2013). Billy Childish and Charles Thomson,“Anti-Anti-Art: The Spirit ofWhat Needs to Be Done,” The Hangman Bureau of Enquiry, ... Charles Thomson, “The Future of Art, Part 8: Charles Thomson, Founder Stuckist,”FAD, ...

Oh, and by the way, artnet was one of the major art news sites in the US while it was running — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassingbyandforthehellofit (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Justpassingbyandforthehellofit (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Wikipedical (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What they seem to be saying is the anti-anti-art movement is the same as the Stuckists, good reason to merge the two articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stuckism. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:01, 7 January 2015 (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.