Talk:Land art

message: The article clear claims land art is "largely associated with Great Britain and the United States" and us supposedly backed up by three references. I've checked the referenced articles and I can't seem to find anything in them to validate this claim. At best they point to American roots but not British. In fact it speaks of origins in other European nations but Britain: France. I do not see why this article specifically refers to Britain in addition to the USA other than that they're both English speaking nations? Smells like biased information filtering. In fact the only name the general public can come up with when thinking of land Serbia Christo. The claim that land art is largely associated with France (and maybe the USA) makes much more sense - the UK certainly does not deserve not any mentioning here more than France.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.105.213 (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-Saxon bias?

message: this picture is cool but i think his style is a little out of touch
----
Yes, and he/she seems to think that Land Art is dead and buried (hehe!) when there are several land artists still at work today!
In short, it needs some major updating and re-editing. I'm not sure if I'm the person to do it though.
(Somnia alondra 12:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Nasca Lines (with references) as an example that pre-dates what was originally in the article.—OhioOakTree (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I am trying to find the name of a Czech land artist whose work is similar in some ways to Andy Goldsworthy's. Any ideas? 89.240.7.188 10:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech land artist 

message: Shouldn't be crop circles be mentioned as popular form of land art? -- JakobVoss (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  crop circles 

message: There is consensus that the template should be not included; it's pointy and there have been no valid arguments for inclusion. Since it's one editor who tried to add it, it is up to him to convince the rest of us, which he hasn't so far. So consensus stands at no template. We of course are dealing with one editor: all the IP addresses are from Ohio and the mysteriously vanished OhioOakTree's username implies he's in Ohio. Clearly OhioOakTree is IP hopping to get around potential blocks and 3RR rules. However, his lack understanding of Wikipedia guidelines indicates a competency issue and clearly there is serious WP:POV pushing as well as WP:UNDUE. At least three editors agree with the scope of the article and that adding the template is disruptive. If this editor persists we'll have to take it further with a sockpuppet investigation and a trip to ANI. I appreciate Bus stop's work at working in some of the expanded info. I'd also suggest looking at Krauss's "Sculpture in the Expanded Field" as it addresses this very problem: earth/land art (sometimes) superficially resembles unconnected earlier works and some historians attempted to create a lineage linking earth art to Nazca, large-scale sculpture with Stonehenge, etc. She also brilliantly takes apart those claims as arbitrary and utterly meaningless. There are few if any legitimate sources since the early 70s attempting to make those links. So per Modernist and per Bus stop's work in the article, making a brief statement that because of superficial similarities, at one point a few historians attempted to make some sort of link but this is refuted by Krauss as absurd and completely unfounded. Anything more and we're in WP:UNDUE territory. Clearly OhioOakTree wants this to be an article that it is not and was never supposed to be and he seems to not understand why he can't just shove info into an existing article based on his ill-informed opinion. 
We can and should file a report at the next instance of disruptive editing and get some other editors to weigh in as OhioOakTree will probably never understand the problems with his edits. freshacconci (✉) 21:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The template "globalize" pertains to the topic above. The editing is not disruptive. This article has been assessed as "C" class on the quality scale, so edits can be performed to improve this article.2602:304:CF02:C940:D918:B095:E896:692E (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are calling "globalize" would be better characterized as foisting misinformation on the reader. This is an article about a contemporary art movement. We do mention Nazca Lines and other geoglyphs in this article. We tell the reader that examples from the contemporary art movement have been compared the archeological entities. But we should not "globalize" to the extent that a false comparison is created. This is because sources that are on the topic of the contemporary art movement draw very few connections between the two products of human culture. What sources concentrate on are factors that constitute a milieu from which an art movement emerges. Those factors pertain to the state of contemporary art itself, and other factors. We are not here to dumb down the subject matter that we are trying to tackle nor are we here to provide inept comparisons. On-topic sources tell us that the land art of the 1960s emerges out of related art movements, specifically conceptualism and minimalism. On-topic sources tell us that part of the impetus for land art was a rejection of art galleries. You cannot conflate unrelated things. Your attempts to do so fall under the problem called original research. You may feel that the topic of this article is any artwork that is best viewed aerially but that is an incorrect assumption. We allow reliable sources to tell us which artworks and artists properly belong within the contemporary art movement, as that is the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the movement has clear precursors in some ancient art in the landscape, acknowledged by art historians, it would not be unreasonable to extend the currently tiny last line beyond its present scope. An illustration would not be amiss, within the section - but perhaps the Uffington White Horse rather than the contentious Nazca Lines? Using Dettwyler as a justification for doing so Dettwyler, Katherine. Cultural Anthropology & Human Experience: The Feast of Life Ghughesarch (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Clear precursors" is not quite accurate as it would suggest a theoretical or aesthetic connection, or suggests prehistoric works were created for the same reasons as the 20th century land/earth art works. But otherwise, a brief (per WP:UNDE mention of the similarities is acceptable, as we have all agreed. The problem with the edits is not the Nazca lines but the attempt to turn this article into a different article based on an editor's opinion. As I've suggested elsewhere, art historical discussions of similarities are fine, as long as it's wells-sourced. We just can't overstate it, or put an emphasis on it as a part of the main topic. freshacconci (✉) 02:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then - at the moment, the link is excessively understated. Plenty of sources exist for a better, albeit short, section on "precursors", somewhere down the page, illustrative of the influences on modern land artists, without doing more than just mention (as is fact) that some historians, anthropologists, etc, have called ancient examples "land art". If OhioOakTree and some IP contributors - and some of those who disagree with them - weren't being quite so aggressive in their editing, it could be done in half an hour. Ghughesarch (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I added a pic to illustrate text that is already in the article. References substantiate inclusion and the caption.76.240.44.148 (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough

message: User:TIMC&GStudio Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for what is appropriate in a lead section. Theroadislong (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section changes 

message: There is a problem with the tone of this article, and it's summed up by the very first line "Land art, variously known as Earth art, environmental art, and Earthworks, is an art movement of the 1960s and 1970s".
Throughout the article the reader gets the impression that it's a movement that has ceased, or fallen very much out of favour. Various practitioners are certainly still at work (and some of its most notable figures only came to note after the 1970s). Perhaps "an art movement which rose to prominence in the 1960s and 1970s" would be more accurate? Ghughesarch (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made this edit which might address your concerns. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a start, but I have to say I do tend to feel this is a rather American-centric article and (without wanting to endorse some of the recent disruptive edits), sentences like this: " In most respects, "land art" has become part of mainstream public art and in many cases the term "land art" is misused to label any kind of art in nature even though conceptually not related to the avant-garde works by the pioneers of land art.", with its use of "misused", imply a very limited definition of what constitutes Land Art for the purposes of the article. It wasn't, as far as I can tell, a movement that had a written manifesto and so is perhaps not susceptible to such a rigorous definition - certainly current general works on art history tend to embrace the idea that it is "art which is of the landscape, rather than in the landscape", and that is a wider definition than the one that seems to be being used here. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "American-centric" is actually fine if the topic is American-centric! Most of the land/earth artists in the 60s and 70s were American. Nothing wrong with that and we can't force balance where there is none. Other nationalities are mentioned. The globalized template is incorrect in this instance, mainly because it's a) distruptive; and b) pointless since it's pointing out an editor's concern that we are all aware of. freshacconci (✉) 02:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is America-centric, but the topic is not. Read some of the links in the section "Earth art is an art movement..." (above).2602:304:CF02:C940:D918:B095:E896:692E (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is 1960s-centric, as it should be. The America-centric charge is a bogus charge because it matters little whether the land art of the 1960s was in Australia, the United States, or Europe, or anywhere else. It is all called land art because of the milieu out of which it arrises—conceptualism, minimalism, a return to the earth and rural living, a disgust with the commoditization of art. Any good text on this art movement is concerned with the milieu of the 1960s in the world and in the art world. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

text: In this edit you removed an image citing that it "is not land art [because it] was made to be displayed in an art gallery".  I just wanted to point out Earth Room which is installed in an art gallery and is an example of land art. The article is about the art movement of the 1960s and onwards, this work being installed in 1977. Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And this goes to show that he doesn't know anything about the topic (and I've come across this same rock balancing enthusiast elsewhere -- this whole drama is just a POV-pushing exercise with the only goal being the inclusion of rock balancing as part of this article). freshacconci (✉) 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article for Earth Room doesn't call it Land art, and it is debatable whether it is. Also, please be careful about WP:PERSONAL. Articles are written using references to support statements. Not by editors adding unsourced opinion.2602:304:CF02:C940:D918:B095:E896:692E (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This source writes "The New York Earth Room is an interior land-art installation by artist Walter de Maria." At this source I read "In the late 1960s Morris championed the turn from rigid geometry to the dispersed antiformalism of Postminimal art through his increasingly unstructured installations of soft and unbound materials. Dia will also acquire Untitled (Dirt) (1968), a critical example of Morris’s work during this phase. Untitled (Dirt) consists of a mass of earth, peat, oil, and debris poured directly onto the gallery floor. It was originally shown in the inaugural survey of Land art, Earth Works, at the Dwan Gallery in New York in October 1968, and it was produced at the same moment that Walter De Maria realized his first Earth Room at Heiner Friedrich’s gallery in Munich. With the acquisition of Untitled (Dirt), Dia will now maintain two iconic works of Land art made specifically for an interior space." At this source I read "Land art, also known as earth art, is art in which the landscape or natural elements often form the basis for the artwork. Artists may create artworks directly in the landscape, utilizing their natural surroundings and integrating the landscape itself into their work. Conversely, artists may also incorporate natural elements into works exhibited in gallery spaces. Land Art emerged in the southwestern United States during the late 1960s, and culminated in the mid-1970s. Since the 1970s, much Land Art has been absorbed into the broader realm of Environmental Art, as many artists began working in more urban and public spaces. Today, Land Art remains an integral part of Environmental Art, with artists practicing in many places around the world including Japan, South Africa, the Middle East, and Australia." I also read at that same source "Walter de Maria established his reputation as a prominent American Land Artist in the late 1960s with his debut of The New York Earth Room, a now legendary installation." Bus stop (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Is there a similar reference to show that Jacek Tylicki's piece is land art? If we choose to be selective about the examples we use in the article, that probably needs a reference since it is unclear if it matches the scope defined in the lead.2602:304:CF02:C940:D918:B095:E896:692E (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: At this source I have found the following: "'Would installations make the same impact if they were on small scale?' It is an interesting query posed by Prof. B. N. Goswamy to the practitioners of Land Art. Such questions reflect the promise of growth as well as scope for experiment by the artists in this field. Not that  artists have not tried to make Land Art small enough to be displayed in a museum, in fact Jacek Tylicki in 1973 had created works by leaving a museum paperboard or sheets of  paper on the bank of a river, in a forest and exposed to the wind for days, forcing nature to create art. Some of them merely 473 x 354 mm large and are now part of a museum collection. So it appears that it is not the monumental size that sets this art apart from other types of art but the essence of it that places it apart." Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

text: As a general question as to whether something can possibly be land art if displayed in a gallery, the Tate museum says "Land art, which is also known as earth art, was usually documented in artworks using photographs and maps which the artist could exhibit in a gallery. Land artists also made land art in the gallery by bringing in material from the landscape and using it to create installations." Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essentially past tense? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Land art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://christojeanneclaude.net/errors.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304083034/http://www.artinnature.org/formeE.html to http://www.artinnature.org/formeE.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130210194608/http://www.artfield.de/landartfield.html to http://www.artfield.de/landartfield.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Found a source for this sentence: In the 1960s and 1970s land art protested "ruthless commercialization" of art in America. 
In Land Art, by Tonia Raquejo, 1998, Nerea isbn: 978-84-89569-21-8 page 13. She says "Land Art should not be understood as an isolated  trend, but as another proposal that was generated as a reaction from vanguards against pop art, which was interpreted as mercantilist for accepting capitalism and extol consumer society" (original text is in spanish). 
Maybe the original sentence should be softened: In the 1960s and 1970s land art was part of a movement against commercialization of art in America.
Kasimxo (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruthless commercialization 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion