Talk:Modular art

Original research

I can't find any evidence that 'ModulArt' refers to any art form or movement that has received any recognition as such and this article seems to be largely original research. Some of the content may be usefully integrated elsewhere on Wikipedia but as it stands this article should be deleted. It also appears that the subject presents a possible conflict of interest for the main contributor. Nofoto (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1: ModulArt was first mentioned in an encyclopedia as a movement of art (Kunstrichtung) in 1975: http://books.google.at/books?id=7ibWAAAAMAAJ&q=ModulArt&dq=ModulArt&hl=de&ei=GIK1TIe8CoTMswbVyIy4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBw This was digitized on 29 May 2009 by the University of Michiga, is publicly available on-line and easy to verify.

2: ModulArt is also being referred to in the Handbook for Visual Media: http://books.google.at/books?id=Kf_oAAAAMAAJ&q=ModulArt&dq=ModulArt&hl=de&ei=GIK1TIe8CoTMswbVyIy4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCA

3: ModulArt also exists in musical composition in a comparable artistic intention; the lemma should be completed with a reference to this direction: www.artemodulare.net; for details see: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=485164162&blogId=498317737

4: public recognition to the art form of ModulArt is given by several museum exhibitions, publications and docu films on the matter during the past 10 years with one documentary on ModulArt being shot for public TV presently in Germany.

5:> for May 2011 a public exhibition and academic symposium is planned in Rovereto (Italy) by the State Institute for the Arts | Rovereto |, the Carrollton Cultural Art Centre and the University of West Georgia | Atlanta | USA as an EU|US cultural exchange on the topic of ModulArt in the arts;

6: the WIKI lemma ModulArt has been compiled over time by several contributors and I cannot see where and how there should be a conflict of interest.

Please, do consider the above - thks--DrGML (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)--DrGML (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond point by point:

1. This reference is useful but really only shows that the term came up at one moment in one language - as a name for an art form or art movement it simply hasn't stuck and isn't generally recognised (if it was it would be found on the websites of art museums like MOMA or the Tate and on the internet in numerous places).

2. This is a 'red herring' - the 'ModulArt' referred to here is just the brand name for an early form of 'Clip art'; ready-made illustrations that designers could paste into their designs. In fact most of the hits for ModulArt on Google seem to be for products of some sort.

3. While there may be musical uses of modularity has this actually become known as 'ModulArt' (if not then it is probably adequately dealt with as part of serialism)?

4. If there have been exhibitions dedicated to 'ModulArt' showing a use of the term applied historically to the work of different artists it would be useful to have links for them. Any publications and films used as references should be about an art form or movement rather than an individual artist.

5. Planned events cannot be used to establish the notability of a subject. The notability should already be clear from commonly available neutral sources.

6. You can understand that any contributors who declare a vested interest through their close connection to the subjects they choose to cover risk raising suspicion that their contributions do not come from an entirely neutral point of view and other editors may find the perspective and emphasis in the articles somewhat skewed.

To be constructive about this, and taking into account that, as you say, this article has been compiled by a few editors who have brought different points of view to it, I think an argument could be made for renaming the article to something more general like 'Modular art' (or 'Modular art and design'). This is something that is generally recognised as an aspect of modern art in the work of Sol LeWitt and others and is covered well in the article (although overlapping areas such as modular constructivism are dealt with in their own articles). Within this framework a mention of Leda Luss Luyken's 'conceptual innovation' ModulArt (the term used in reference to her figurative modular work) would still make sense and would lose some of the excessive importance it seems to be given here. Nofoto (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thks - Ill be back tomorrow our time (GMT) with some constructive ideas from my side - GML--DrGML (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nofoto,

thks for your thoughts on the subjet. I think re-naming the lemma Modular Art is indeed a good and useful idea. Modular art and design seems less accurate, as I would suggest to add to Modular Art a short section on modular musical composition. Further, I am happy

> to re-edit the parts on artist Leda Luss Luyken with a view to avoiding any allusions to excessive importance and

> perhaps give the entire lemma a more historical|developmental structure and gist so as to show how modular techniques have developed since the 1920s in the visual arts along the lines: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ModulArt

What do you think? Best rgds - --GML --DrGML (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When and how could we proceed to solve an adequate treatment of the lemma ModulArt? Best rgds, --DrGML (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will move the page today and make a start at some editing. The changes you suggest sound good. Nofoto (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thks Nofoto, I will contribute and help with further edeting along the lines suggested; pl give me 10 days to two weeks to do so as I am very busy + traveling these days. Let's try to make a relevant and worth-while lemma of Modular Art! --DrGML (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nofoto, I have now worked on the lemma with a view to improving its notability. What do you think - are we getting there? I'll still be refining here and there within the coming days. Best --DrGML (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thks - I think the quality of the lemma is now much improved over the older versions--DrGML (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Composers" section

It isn't clear to me whether this section consists of promo copywriter Artspeak or something reliable, although it strikes me as having been copied from its source. Regardless, it's poor-quality prose and unencyclopedic. While such a section is called for, this iteration is not.-- Quisqualis (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]