Jump to content

Talk:Land art

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anglo-Saxon bias?

[edit]

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)[reply]

"Schum is considered the founder of the term Land Art." http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGerry_Schum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.203.148 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

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))[reply]

Why isn't the nazca lines mentioned? Surely those count as land art? Perhaps they should be considered the first attempts at large scale land art? Anonymous

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)[reply]

should it be better an article on "contemporary" land art ? 176.186.145.164 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Czech land artist

[edit]

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)[reply]

crop circles

[edit]

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


"Earth art is an art movement which emerged in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s"

[edit]

Really? What about the vast array of ancient geoglyphs like the Nasca Lines for example. The article seems a bit narrow minded in scope to be honest. 92.25.119.17 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

92.25.119.17—do you have any sources which might confirm for us that the Nazca Lines or other Geoglyphs are considered to be part of the art movement called Earth art? We can't just add material if that material cannot be verified. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
OhioOakTree—the Nazca Lines are not Land art. "Land art is an artistic protest against the 'perceived artificiality, plastic aesthetics and ruthless commercialization' of art in America in the late 1960s." You are creating a hodgepodge of contradictory ideas in the Land art article. It is not out of the question that you could mention similar cultural uses of the land predating the 20th century, but this should be done at a much more subsidiary level of the article, perhaps creating a paragraph lower down in the article, noting earlier instances of working the land to create images. But you are upending the late 20th century cultural phenomena by placing in the forefront such images that are not, strictly speaking, part of the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is one point of view, but it is not supported by the majority of reliable sources. It is very limited in scope and arbitrarily excludes important historical and relevant examples of this art form. There is no basis to choose one arbitrary reference (ignoring others) and using this as the foundation of the definition. The 20th century phenomena that happened in one country is actually a subsidiary of this class of art.—OhioOakTree (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OhioOakTree—you are speaking about a "majority of reliable sources". Please cut and paste an excerpt from a reliable source that you feel supports your contention that Nazca Lines are an example of Land art. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculous not to include land art created by early South American civilizations. This has been brought up more than once on this talk page but the article still has serious problems so I added a globalize header to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.44.148 (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Earth Art, also known as Land Art, or Earthworks, emerged in the late 1960s as one of the many trends expanding the boundaries of art in terms of materials and sites." This is from Art in the Modern Era (2002) by Amy Dempsey.[1] As to when and where the term "Earth Art" is applicable, "ArtSpeak: A Guide to Contemporary Ideas, Movements, and Buzzwords, 1945 to the Present" (1997)[2], by Robert Atkins, locates such art "primarily in northern Europe and the United States" in the "mid-1960s through 1970s." Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the intended scope of the article, then it should say so in the lead paragraph. Currently the lead paragraph describes land art with a broad definition. It is a dis-service to readers to let them believe that land art was invented in America. If relevant information is deleted from the article, please only do so with a concurrent revision to the narrow definition of land art in the lead paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CF02:C940:58F6:A9E9:C623:317F (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that we belabor the definition of the sort of art under discussion. This is uncalled for. Sources do not see fit to explain something so obvious—if the art is a movement from the 1960s then a phenomenon from two millennium ago (Nazca Lines) are not a part of the same cultural activity. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the Nazca lines (and other ancient earthworks) are not 20th century Land Art or 20th century Earthwork; I would suggest a separate brief but (linked) section on the pre-history of these types of uses of nature on the planet by various cultures for various reasons...Modernist (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that removing misinformation takes priority over constructing the article. The article as it now stands implies that the Nazca Lines belong to an art movement that took place in the 20th century. It is the topmost image in the article, and it is not even an example of Land art. Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed it and it should not be restored without consensus. It's simple: this article is about land art, a 20th century movement. That's all we can talk about in this article. freshacconci (✉) 01:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. The impetus here by a couple of editors is to lump together all art that might benefit from aerial viewing. I don't know the sociological background that produced the Nazca Lines but we do know a little bit of what brought Earth art into existence. There was a zeitgeist in the art world to make art that escaped market forces. The Earthworks defied the marketing of art that was increasingly prevalent in the art world. There no doubt were other reasons as well that artists resorted to these types of works. But we do not know that such forces were at work in bringing the Nazca Lines into existence. Therefore pushing this point of inclusion of everything that seems to benefit from aerial viewing constitutes misinformation. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The definition of Land art is what is described in the article with supporting references. It is not based on opinions and conjecture on the Talk page. I added a brief section on the early history of Land art as discussed here, and also supported the lead paragraph with references. Please note that Wikipedia editors are free to expand any section, as long as it is done so with proper references. Similarly, properly referenced material should not be deleted in a wholesale manner, but can be edited for clarity, style, grammar, and so forth.—OhioOakTree (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know where you're getting your info from, but "properly referenced material should not be deleted in a wholesale manner" is not correct. Merely being referenced is not sufficient. freshacconci (✉) 02:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it as original research. This article is about the 20th century art movement. Anything written about a pre-20th c. "early history" is WP:OR. There is no consensus to include this so do not restore. freshacconci (✉) 02:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat: do not restore this text. There is no consensus for it and it's original research. Please see WP:BRD. freshacconci (✉) 02:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not original research. The material matched exactly what is described in the lead, and it also has its own references independently written by scholars not related to artists who created the art. Please read the references, and we can finish working on it in a day or two. In the meantime I restored the "Globalize" template at the heading of the article, which should not be removed until there is consensus here.—OhioOakTree (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making the link between unconnected 20th century land art (the topic of this article) and prehistoric sites is original research. It does not belong and you do not have consensus. As I've said, merely being referenced is not sufficient. That's a backdoor to any number of fringe theories. We go by sources and sources for this article are for 20th century art. If someone wants to make a small section near the end, per Modernist's suggestion, about there being some suggestions about connections, then fine. But per WP:UNDUE it has to be brief and well-sourced and be only about that. We cannot make the leap to say it's the same thing: that's original research. Please read the links I've provided. freshacconci (✉) 02:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some more reading: WP:POINT. Adding the globalize template as retaliation and suddenly mentioning "consensus" is in violation of this. freshacconci (✉) 02:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the end is fine with me. Please note that there is nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that says anything needs to be brief, as long as it is notable, and properly referenced.—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OhioOakTree—our article Art movement says "An art movement is a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time, (usually a few months, years or decades) or, at least, with the heyday of the movement defined within a number of years." The art movement under discussion, "Land art", takes place within a "restricted period of time". Original research is tantamount to misinformation. We most certainly do not believe that a "specific common philosophy or goal" unites the twentieth century activity and the activity of two millennium ago that you are trying to shoehorn into this article. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article never describes this as a movement.—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Earth art, also referred to as Land art or Earthworks, is largely an American movement that uses the natural landscape to create site-specific structures, art forms, and sculptures. The movement was an outgrowth of Conceptualism and Minimalism: the beginnings of the environmental movement and the rampant commoditization of American art in the late 1960s influenced ideas and works that were, to varying degrees, divorced from the art market."[3] Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Land art was part of the wider conceptual art movement in the 1960s and 1970s. The most famous land art work is Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty of 1970, an earthwork built out into the Great Salt Lake in the USA."[4] Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first text you mention I don't see in the current edition of the article. The second is in the section "Recent History", which represents one aspect of Land art. Works of recent history can go in this section. Historical works can go in "Early history" or wherever appropriate.—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are still referring (in your edit summary) to "early historic examples". "Early" would mean the 1960s, perhaps the 1950s. "Early" would not refer to a period of time two thousand years ago. Bus stop (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding new material to explain land art during other periods will help the article. We can work on it later, and it is certainly fine if you help with the editing. But in general you should not delete large sections of text which have proper references.—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OhioOakTree—what does "land art during other periods" mean when we know that Land art was an art movement of the 1960s and 1970s? It did not take place in "other periods". You can't add misinformation to the article. You can't add original research. Bus stop (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the article show that not all art observers and scholars use that narrow definition. It is completely fine (actually preferred) for an article to expound on the range of views held by the public and the art community (as is evident by the comments here, and the references in the article).—OhioOakTree (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OhioOakTree—if you will notice I cut and pasted excerpts from my sources here on this Talk page for all to examine. Please do the same. Bus stop (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's already three in the article, and it's easy to find more:
http://www.land-arts.com/Land_art.html
http://mymodernmet.com/andy-goldsworthy-land-art/
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/land+art
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/photos/land-earth-art-gallery/#/crop-circles-england_59562_600x450.jpg
http://www.denarend.com/definitions/index.htm
https://www.crixeo.com/miha-brinovec-land-art/
http://greenmuseum.org/generic_content.php?ct_id=306 (paragraph on land art, says term land art is "common outside of the USA".
—OhioOakTree (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, many of those links do not appear to be high-quality reliable sources. Secondly, many of them actually support the view that "land art" refers to the art movement starting the second half of the 20th century and not your contrary contention that it includes large-scale landscape artworks with very different motivations from previous centuries or millennia. Thirdly, I don't see any of them explicitly saying that the Nazca Lines (or other ancient geoglyphs) are a type of "land art". (Perhaps a "see also" ilnk to geoglyph is in order?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.118 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a consensus to make this article only about an art movement of the 1960s and 1970s, while excluding other types of land art, it is OK with me. If there is agreement to do this, then we would need to explicitly make that the first statement of the article, so that readers understand what is the scope of this article. Subsequent revisions would also be necessary, to exclude work that is not within this scope, or to place it in subordinate sections. I'll wait for other comments to see what others prefer, and I can help adjust the article either way. Thanks.—OhioOakTree (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OhioOakTree—the first sentence of the article says that it is an "art movement of the 1960s and 1970s". That is sourced to the Tate museum using this source. Also note that the Tate source also says "Land art was part of the wider conceptual art movement in the 1960s and 1970s." Was the work produced by the Nazca culture part of a conceptual art movement? Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about Earthworks, Earth art, and Environmental art? That is in the first sentence. Does all this only come from Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CF02:C940:1814:D5D:1639:A3D4 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have made this edit. Why would you be adding that "This type of art is sometimes made by artists that aren't Americans, and is sometime made in time periods other than the 60s and 70s." Here is a source saying "Earth art, also referred to as Land art or Earthworks, is largely an American movement that uses the natural landscape to create site-specific structures, art forms, and sculptures. The movement was an outgrowth of Conceptualism and Minimalism: the beginnings of the environmental movement and the rampant commoditization of American art in the late 1960s influenced ideas and works that were, to varying degrees, divorced from the art market. In addition to the monumentality and simplicity of Minimalist objects, the artists were drawn to the humble everyday materials of Arte Povera and the participatory 'social sculptures' of Joseph Beuys that stressed performance and creativity in any environment." There are actually a multitude of sources both online and offline supporting these basic points. Furthermore this article includes artists and images of the work of artists from a multitude of countries. Why, in this edit, are you adding a banner saying this article doesn't "represent a worldwide view"? If you or another editor wishes to argue that "periods other than the 60s and 70s" are included in this movement then you need support in sources for that view. Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about Earthworks, Earth art, and Environmental art? That is in the first sentence. Does all this only come from Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CF02:C940:1814:D5D:1639:A3D4 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say that the artwork that is the subject of this article comes only from America. What it says is that it is "largely an American movement". This source says that "Earth art, also referred to as Land art or Earthworks, is largely an American movement". There are in fact artists hailing from many other countries in our article and our article references artworks situated in other countries and images are included of some of these. What is the reason you are adding the banner claiming that the article does not represent a worldview? Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Many Earth artists so far have been British and American, and the influence can be seen of a strong landscape tradition (in the case of British art) and of the romance with the West (in American art). In the USA, where Earth Art first emerged, leading figures have included..."

"Earth Art became established as a movement with the 'Earth Works' exhibition at the Dwan Gallery in New York in 1968. Organized by Smithson, it included photographic documentation of projects, such as..."

The above two quotes were written in 2002 by Amy Dempsey in "Art in the Modern Era: A Guide to Styles, Schools & Movements".

Online I find:

"It was 1968, and the U.S. was in the midst of a revolution. Civil-rights marches, the women’s liberation movement and anti-war protests were raging. Environmental activism was on the rise. The first man would soon walk on the moon. And the Virginia Dwan Gallery in New York City mounted a radical new exhibition called 'Earthworks,' featuring artists such as Robert Smithson, Walter de Maria and Michael Heizer. Taking vast, remote landscapes and the ephemeral conditions of nature as their sculptural canvas, these and other artists staged their own protest by rejecting traditional sculptural forms and practices, rigid modernist theory and the commercial confines of the museum-and-gallery system to create frequently massive land art works that heightened awareness of our relationship with the earth and challenged accepted definitions of art."

"Made of natural materials including rock, soil, sand and water—sometimes combined with industrial materials such as concrete, metal and asphalt—many of the early earth works from the late 1960s to early ’70s sprang up in the open deserts of the American West. These bold new experiments played with light and space, perception and the passage of time. They charted an arresting intersection between the temporal and divine, often recalling ancient monumental land works such as Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Native American mounds and the Nazca Lines in Peru. Yet they also drew from minimal and conceptual art, such as Italian Arte Povera, which exalted crude, humble materials, and the social sculpture of the German avant-garde artist Joseph Beuys. Subject to the shifting whims of nature, some of these works were short-lived, preserved only in photographs, drawings, video and film, ironically subverting the original intention of their creators to remove art from the galleries and museums."

The above two paragraphs show us that the USA was important in the genesis of the movement called Land art. It also shows the place of the "Nazca Lines in Peru" in our discussion. It includes "Nazca Lines in Peru" along with "ancient monumental land works such as Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Native American mounds". Importantly it says that Land art merely recalls these ancient works. This source is not including these ancient works among works properly belonging to the Land art movement. A properly sourced sentence can say in our article that Land art sometimes recalls ancient monumental land works such as Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Native American mounds and the Nazca Lines in Peru. If we include this we should be choosing our words carefully so as not to mislead the reader. Art grows out of a milieu. The importance of this can't be overemphasized. The reason an art movement has coherence is the commonality of milieu. We should not be using this article to mislead the reader into thinking all art that is best viewed from the air should be categorized as Land art. That is fundamentally incorrect. Our article art movement says "An art movement is a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time, (usually a few months, years or decades) or, at least, with the heyday of the movement defined within a number of years. Art movements were especially important in modern art, when each consecutive movement was considered as a new avant-garde." Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please add or allow editors to add information about how some land art was in existence before Americans made land art. It is absurd to keep deleteing some sentences even when it is in a short paragraph and it causes readers to think land art was started by an American movement but it was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CF02:C940:D918:B095:E896:692E (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own this article. I'm just trying to keep incorrect information out of this article. You suggest that we "add information about how some land art was in existence before Americans made land art". But that would be incorrect information, therefore that should not be added to the article. We are not here to provide the reader with misinformation. Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not misinformation. Here is a book about it, and you can also read about it on-line. Someone can use these as references or later I will work on it to improve this article.
book: Art of the Andes: From Chavín to Inca (World of Art), by Rebecca R. Stone.
website: http://www.onagocag.com/nazca.html
website: http://www.discover-peru.org/the-nazca-lines/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CF02:C940:D918:B095:E896:692E (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you are not in a position to tell me or other editors what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CF02:C940:D918:B095:E896:692E (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with all the IPs he's using, it may add up to about 20 edits. freshacconci (✉) 16:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Lead section changes

[edit]

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)[reply]

Essentially past tense?

[edit]

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)[reply]

I've made this edit which might address your concerns. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless commercialization

[edit]

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)[reply]

Gisela Colon not a Land artist and should not be listed

[edit]

Editor Empress-of-angels has twice now added the artist Gisela Colon to this article, however Colon is not a Land artist and does not belong in the List of contemporary land artists in this article. A few of Colon's sculptures were sited in outdoor spaces and reflect the landscape; the work is associated with the California light-and-space movement, but not Land art. Her work is not recognized in any of the books or scholarly works on Land art. It should be removed. Netherzone (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! :) Kindly advise how to address Colon's inclusion in Land Art Biennial at Desert X 2020: https://glasstire.com/events/2021/03/24/gisela-colon/ https://galeriemagazine.com/desert-x-2020-saudi-arabia/ 

https://www.gavlakgallery.com/artists/gisela-colon

Biography

American (b.1966, raised 1967 San Juan, Puerto Rico) Lives and works in Los Angeles, California

Gisela Colón has exhibited internationally throughout the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. Most recently, Colón presented a monumental site-specific installation in the Land Art Biennial, Desert X AlUla 2020 in Saudi Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress-of-angels (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for your message, Empress-of-angels, however you are incorrect about this matter. That work of Ms. Colon is an outdoor sculpture - a sculpture placed in the outdoors. It is a nice minimalist metal sculpture but it is not Land Art. To try to shoehorn it into the Land Art genre is inaccurate and is not in compliance with DUE and UNDUE weight - See WP:DUE, which is a vital part of the encyclopedia's policy on Neutral Point of View - see WP:NPOV.
None of the books or scholarly texts on Land Art include her work. To define her work as such is a minority opinion bordering on WP:OR. The commercial gallery listing, press release are not independent reliable sources. The article that briefly mentions her calls her an "American artist" not an "American land artist"; it calls her work a "plastic sculpture" not a work of Land Art. Her work is not of this genre altho she was included in a show (a problematic one) that happened to also include actual works of Land Art. I'm sorry if this is a disappointment. Her work fits into minimalism and California light-and-space sensibilities, but not Land Art or Earthworks. Best regards, Netherzone (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. We shall leave it to scholars and academics! Thank you again for the clarification! Empress-of-angels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress-of-angels (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Land_art&oldid=1194464840"