Talk:Kinetic art

message: you should really think about talkingmore about marcel duchamp and how world war 2 had a big influence on his art work. just go into more detail about everything its to simple.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.224.192 (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think it's great that you all are willing to put in some effort at upgrading this article.  However, I'm a bit concerned about the "fine art" and related comments I've read above.  No where in the Fine art article did I see any reference to something as modern as kinetic art.  This leads me to believe that kinetic art is far from "fine art."  And I've gotten a sense of a certain degree of snobbishness (for lack of a better word) regarding "art" and what it is or isn't.  While sorting out how I feel about that, it occurred to me that so long as we stick with high quality academic sources rather than our own speculation, then we pretty much can't go wrong with our edits.  So I'm writing this to encourage more use of JSTOR and similar sources and less use of speculation and opinion.  In short, I think it would be great if we built this (and related) articles from the ground up – with high quality sources supporting each fact and assertion.  Rklawton 01:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JSTOR is something that you've got to pay to use - but don't worry about sources, I've got books for my stuff.  When my radio partner (KLDK - where I am now)  was memtioning my favorite beer/wine, it was, "Anything free."  It's the same with sources.  Carptrash 02:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, perhaps, what we do is reduce the article to a series of sentences and then either find a source to support it or . . ...  it goes? Carptrash 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as there's a few of us willing to put in the work, then I see no problem to reducing the article to whatever's sourced.  We can build it back up from there (why does an image of Marine boot camp spring to mind now?  I was never a Marine).  Let's work to keep opinion out of this article (see below) and stick with what we can support.  The art world has a huge diversity of opinion on this (and any) topic, so the article will end up covering a lot of ground.  JSTOR access if free and easy at most local libraries, so that shouldn't slow us down too much.  Yes, it won't be as simple as searching CNN for articles on Paris Hilton, but at least we'll learn something useful.  Rklawton 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I'm happy leaving the USMC outta here too (being a former PCV myself) - but my local library is NOT a public library, so they lack some of the services that are taken for granted elsewhere. However I'm going to email the Moholy-Nagy Institute (or something) and ask for some info on his take on kinetic art.  I am finding some of the early manifestos on line and it's not always helping all that much.  Questions such as , "Is a rock band in 1967 playing in front of a light show "kinetic art?" are starting to keep me awake at night.  Carptrash 02:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworking the article

message: After making a few changes, I lopped off this section as being (opinion) a good place to begin. 
: In fact, [never a good way to begin anything] it contains within in it two opposite impulses. Kinetic sculpture is understood (by whom?) to involve a preoccupation with the technology that characterized the twentieth century. Thus some kinetic sculpture can convey hopefulness, while other examples convey darkness and gloom.  
So some examples of these two types of sculpture would be in order here.  I myself don't see it this way, but am always open to a new and different POV, particularly when backed by something in the way of a footnote. Carptrash 22:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piece by piece 

message: here  is page 1 of a two page discussion of 2D kinetic art.  Do we wish to include this sort of work in our article? Carptrash 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you go here  you'll find the Gabo/Pevsner reference to 'kinetic" -  and I feel (opinion) that it has nothing to do with the way that we are using the word kinetic , that is, the actual moving of the sculpture.  I am not comfortable having this be the begining, or an early feature in the history of kinetic sculpture.   What do you think? Carptrash 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meanwhile, 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Just because a model of a dinosaur moves doesn't make it kinetic sculpture. Ditto for science displays involving rolling balls.
I assume "science displays involving rolling balls" means Rolling Ball Sculpture and that's why the article contains neither a link nor a reference to this type of (object created by people who seem to consider it to be) kinetic art.  If this is true, I'm curious about what part of the definition these works fail to meet.  If I'm wrong, I move to include such a reference and link.Originalname37 (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a quick look, I realize that I'm waiting in vain a response from Bus stop.  I'm also noticing a lot of cool stuff in this old version of the article and would like to know how many people object strongly to bringing some of it back.Originalname37 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling Ball Sculpture, etc. 

message: A recent Article for Deletion (AfD) debate resulted in consensus to merge the two articles above.  It might be of interest to editors of this page (I am no subject matter expert on this). regards,  Power.corrupts (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal of [[Psychocinetic Art]] into [[Interactive art]] 

message: I'll delete the link to the website to the KAO - Kinetic Art Organization, because it's down since a year. The KAO was made by Ralf(onso) Gschwend, who is also linked on this article. Please have a carefully look on this artist, quite a lot is simply untrue.
Kineticus (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  KAO 

message: of this artice out and moved it here. 
:Kinetic sculpture was an international phenomenon, though its roots were primarily European. The term "kinetic sculpture" does not indicate any specific style. The term kinetic sculpture refers to a class of art made primarily from the late 1950s through 1960s.
:Kinetic sculpture has been around since ancient Egypt.  The golden age of autonama is generally thought to be 1848-1914 when Europe overflowed with kinetic sculptures.
All of the claims made here need to be sourced if they are going to remain and have me still be happy.  So if you are vested in these statements . ... let's work something out. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  No sources?  I'm with you.  Reliable sources make me happy.  Rklawton (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just chopped a chunk 

message: The article has been butchered and totally re-written in a non neutral tone with inadequate referencing.Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has been butchered 

message: I am concerned that the photographs that User:Sallyaul2013 has added say they are her own work, when clearly they are not?Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - the images should go. I switched the Rodchenko and it can stay as well as the gallery of 3 that came from the earlier version of the article. Ironically all the paintings should be in the public domain, but the newer work and the Pollock should go. The article is farfetched so far, very strange...Modernist (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted photos 

message: I have serious concerns about the vast amount of original research in the "Origins and early development section", that has been added to this article by User:Sallyaul2013 and the section seems to overpower the rest of the article.
According to the Guggenheim Museum "Kinetic art or kineticism, is an international movement that refers to art of both real and apparent motion created between 1920 and 1970. Although it was not recognized as a movement until the 1955 exhibition Le mouvement (Movement) at Galerie Denise René in Paris." http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/474-collections_movement/4518-kinetic-art The article as it stands now does not reflect this definition?.Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Make the changes that you feel are required...Modernist (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Jackson Pollock may well have been described as a kinetic artist but he did not create kinetic art. This article is way off the mark in a lot of ways. Kinetic art should be in Wikipedia but it should be about the subject. The section about Pollock should be removed because it is not about the subject of Kinetic Art. Kanuk (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson Pollock 

message: I am sorry to say that I find this article to be completely off. It concentrates almost entirely on the forerunners of kinetic art and almost not at all on kinetic art in itself. Impressionism has been confused with kinetic art. There is no mention of the exhibition Le Mouvement (1955) in Gallery Denise René in Paris, which is considered by scholars to be the actual inauguration of kinetic art. This article is in urgent need of a complete revision by someone specialized on the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.152.83 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also there is no link to lenticular printing. --Spunionztastic (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review entire article 

message: I think we need a good one of these in the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video image 

message: The entire section under the heading "Alexander Calder" falls afoul of WP's rules and should be substantially rewritten or deleted. It is rife with weasel words and handwaving, as I have emphasized in bold: 
"Alexander Calder is an artist who many believe to have defined firmly and exactly the style of mobiles in kinetic art. Over years of studying his works, many critics allege that Calder was influenced by a wide variety of sources. Some claim that Chinese windbells were objects that closely resembled the shape and height of his earliest mobiles. Other art historians argue that the 1920s mobiles of Man Ray, including Shade (1920) had a direct influence on the growth of Calder's art.
When Calder first heard of these claims, he immediately admonished his critics. 'I have never been and never will be a product of anything more than myself. My art is my own, why bother stating something about my art that isn’t true?' One of Calder's first mobiles, Mobile (1938) was the work that 'proved' to many art historians that Man Ray had an obvious influence on Calder's style. Both Shade and Mobile have a single string attached to a wall or a structure that keeps it in the air. The two works have a crinkled feature that vibrates when air passes through it. [NB: how would "a single string attached to a wall" keep an object in the air, rather than simply keeping it against the wall? What is a "crinkled feature", how does it "vibrate"?]
Regardless of the obvious similarities, Calder's style of mobiles created two types that are now referred to as the standard in kinetic art. There are object-mobiles and suspended mobiles. Object mobiles on supports come in a wide range of shapes and sizes and can move in any way. Suspended mobiles were first made with colored glass and small wooden objects that hung on long threads. Object mobiles were a part of Calder's emerging style of mobiles that were originally stationary sculptures.
It can be argued, based on their similar shape and stance, that Calder's earliest object mobiles have very little to do with kinetic art or moving art. By the 1960s, most art critics believed that Calder had perfected the style of object mobiles in such creations as the Cat Mobile (1966). In this piece, Calder allows the cat's head and its tail to be subject to random motion, but its body is stationary. Calder did not start the trend in suspended mobiles, but he was the artist that became recognized for his apparent originality in mobile construction.
One of his earliest suspended mobiles, McCausland Mobile (1933), is different from many other contemporary mobiles simply because of the shapes of the two objects. Most mobile artists such as Rodchenko and Tatlin would never have thought to use such shapes because they didn't seem malleable or even remotely aerodynamic."
Weasel words such as "some", "many" and "other" have no place in an encyclopedia, and must be replaced with actual examples, or be removed. Making claims like something being "obvious", or that someone "would never have thought" of something are also unencyclopedic. Use of the passive voice, such as "it can be argued" is likewise inappropriate here. The editor who added this text added their own original research here, in opining about influences upon Calder's work; such claims must be supported by citations from reliable sources, or be removed. Bricology (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Alexander Calder section needs rewrite or deletion 

message: Under the heading "Selected works" there is an animated .gif with the caption "Sarnikoff 'Goldflakes' Mobile cardboard animated by an asynchronous motor, also recycle art to bring spirit in this contribution France". A Google search of "Sarnikoff" + "sculptor OR sculpture" returned just 168 hits, most of which are either irrelevant or devolve upon this page. Apparently "Sarnikoff" does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Consequently the image and caption should be removed. Bricology (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sarnikoff"?  Internet says "who?"