Talk:Lawrence Weiner

Minimalist

He is a minimalist first and formost. So do not delete that. The conceptual art mention can stay or go, but minimalism most definitely should stay, or change to say he's a minimalist artist. Because that is both tru and far more descriptive than merely conceptual, which frankly all modern artists are to some extent.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources to state so definitively that he is "first and formost" a minimalist? The way it is worded right now, it implies that conceptualism is a subset of minimalism, which it is not. And my edit summary did not say that the two were synonymous, but rather the opposite. Conceptualism, in art historical terms, tends to follow minimalism (although this is debatable, as we can trace conceptualism back to Duchamp in practice if not name) but is not part of minimalism. To state that "all modern artists are to some extent" conceptualists is a bit too general, as the article is referring to the art movement specifcally, which Weiner is an important member. Most sources that I'm aware of place him firmly in the conceptualist category. The reason I deleted your edit was simply because of the wording. I don't really see him as a minimalist in the same way you would call Donald Judd a minimalist. freshacconci talktalk 18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't I do. Text artists starting from teh 60s I have been taught to consider minimalist. Minimalism I know to be a sub-set of concepualism, which is how my wording places it. In writing placing a sub statement inside commas makes it subordinate not superior. Thus I say he is a conceptual artist who is specifically minimalist within that overarching category. You want souces of me? Then I want souces of you. If you want to make an argument of it then until either of us come up with souces he should be cut right back to simply artist.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, why the hostility? I was just asking a question. Why is it that people take these things so personally? The way the text is worded, "[Weiner] is a central figure of conceptual art, in a field known as minimalism" it's ambiguous at best and seems to read that "conceptual art" is "in a field known as minimalism", not Weiner himself. Why not say that he is a conceptualist and minimalist, as minimalism is likewise not a subset of conceptualism. As for sources, the reason I asked for this was that the onus is on you to provide this as you are making a change to the existing text. We don't need sources for every change, but that is a key descriptive sentence. How about we try to get some consensus from other editors here? I'm not able to do too much searching for sources at the moment, but I would be happy to track some down later. freshacconci talktalk 18:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And I might add that he's in the category for conceptual artists, and as I haven't done too much editing to this article, I'm obviously not the only editor to consider him primarily a conceptualist. freshacconci talktalk 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You read hostility where there is at most annoyance (which I stress to you is a mild feeling) at having one's contribution deleted. My feeling is if ANY item requires souces than they ALL do. Surely it's all or nothing? How can it be otherwise? Fcat is I know him as minimalist just as I know Philip Glass, for another art form, as minimalist. They are also both contemporary, yet another label for artists of all kinds.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original sentence is unclear. This is the first time I've heard someone say that minimalism is a subset of conceptural art, and that appears to be an oversimplification to me. I understand that Wikipedia policy says that material only needs citations immediately if the material is questioned, which is the case here. And it's the responsibility of the original editor to provide citations.--Ducio1234 (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I've ever known Lawrence Weiner is and always was a conceptual artist as this link indicates: [1]. He never was a Minimalist, and conceptual art is not a subsection - it is a section unto itself with a long history...Modernist (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the NYT agrees with me at least.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and stop saying I aid conceptual art was a sub set of minimalism. That's not what I wrote.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you refering to this paragraph?

Mr. Weiner is rightly seen as a founding figure of Postminimalism’s Conceptual arm, which includes artists like Douglas Huebler, Robert Barry, Joseph Kosuth and Sol LeWitt. But he might better be described as a language-based sculptor. He folds together the skills of a Russian Constructivist graphic designer, a Socratic philosopher, a Dada-Fluxus joker, a Concrete poet and a Madison Avenue ad executive with an astute sense of both semiotics and public display. And his penchant for starkly plain typefaces and for stacking phrases up walls like Judd boxes, combined with his emphasis on language’s visual and spatial qualities, also gives him a few Minimalist bona fides.

That doesn't exactly say that Weiner is first and foremost a minimalist. I think it's fine to write that Weiner is a conceptual and minimalist artist, or even a "language-based sculptor?--Ducio1234 (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another ref placing him as a minimalist: MINIMALISM. I never said I wasn't fine with him being called conceptual, I think he should ALSO be referred to as minimal That's all.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note: the whole notion of conceptualism being a subset of minimalism was my reading of what Amedeo Felix wrote, not necessarily what Amedeo Felix meant. It all comes down to an interpretation of one editor's choice of words by another editor (me). So let's put that to rest. This is all probably a bit of a tempest-in-a-teacup situation. Okay: we all agree he's a conceptualist. We all (seemingly) agree that he's a postminimalist of which one reference states conceptualism is an "arm". So the only real question is: minimalist or not, in addition to conceptualist. freshacconci talktalk 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(Side note: if you want to see some absolutely nasty arguments around agonizingly silly minutiae, just mosey over to any article dealing with The Beatles and in particular, whether it's The Beatles or the Beatles. Makes the art-related articles look sane by comparison). freshacconci talktalk 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Weiner. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218075048/http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_bio_162A.html to http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_bio_162A.html

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) 19:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)