Talk:Institutional Critique

message: Case against Neologism and deletion of this article:
In the art world, Institutional Critique is a clearly defined art movement.  Although it was never of significant public interest, it was most definately a significant form of art in 90's an 00's.  Therefore, I wouldn't go so far as labeling Institutional Critique as a neologism, but perhaps a trade term.
Citing the term's lack of importance, I point out that just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not important.  Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedic resource for every topic under the sun, and, in the art world, Institutional Critique would assuredly qualify.
Futhermore, although the article itself is, at the moment, somewhat lacking, now that the page is established, it's ripe to be edited and added to it.  The article's been up for less than a week, and I've been the only editor.  Give it some time, and I'm sure it will expand into something worthwhile.
Therefore, I'm taking down the deletion banner, in order to save the page from what I myself to be an unneccessary deletion.
In the future, if the importance or usage of the term comes into question, please discuss it here on the discussion page, rather than queing the page for deletion.
Drewcifer3000 09:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

message: The lead paragraph is needlessly technical. How about "Institutional Critique is an art term that describes the systematic inquiry into the the workings of art institutions, for instance galleries and museums, and is most associated with the work of artists such as Marcel Broodthaers and Hans Haacke." --Ethicoaestheticist 22:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Although there is some good stuff in the paragraph that your sentence doesn't cover.  So I'll put in something like "in more technical terms.."  Let me know if you think it works. Drewcifer3000 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. That does make the intro more readable.--Ethicoaestheticist 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical language

message: I've tagged a section of this article as a possible copyvio, given the authors initial edit summary was "Started page + copy/pasted from net.art". Drewcifer, perhaps you 1. cite your sources, 2. rewrite the copy/pasted material. --Joopercoopers 09:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's copy/pasted from the net.art page.  http://www.net.art does not exist.  Besides, the article has changed quite a bit since then. Drewcifer 15:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please accept my apologies - I hope you can see the source of my confusion.  --Joopercoopers 09:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem at all. Drewcifer 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: The criticisms, section of this page seems very weak and unsupported.
The second criticism for example misses a point that should possibly be clarified elsewhere in the text.
"Another criticism is that it can be a misnomer, since it could be argued[who?] that institutional critique artists often work within the context of the very same institutions. Most institutional critique art, for instance, is displayed in museums and galleries, despite its critical stance towards them."
Artists who are working with institutional critique necessarily work within institutions. Central to the history of institutional critique in that it acknowledges (from post-structualist thinking and elsewhere) that there is no 'virginial' space or outside positions from which one can critique. The embeddedness of our situation within the flow of institutions is vital to the philosophy of this area of work.    
I think that this might want to be expressed elsewhere in the text to clarify... or possibly some introductory paragraphs to some specific pieces and (coupled with some theory) how it could be considered to be critical despite or rather because it is displayed with in the institutions which the work is critiquing.
86.148.252.71 (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms