Jump to content

Talk:Found object

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

Found art as a title

[edit]

Shouldn't it be Found Art (google reveals this is mostly the case) as opposed to Found art, or, as a title, in apostrophes or italics? Thoughts please.

Tyrenius 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should really be "found object art" because "found art" is something different entirely, and doesn't appropriately describe that these are arts made with found and reused objects. Found art on the other hand is art that is FOUND and rescued such as the art that is thrown out and subsequently rescued from the trash, art that is left behind by various outsider artists because of the nature of the situation that makes them 'outsider', and art that is purposefully left in public places to be fo found (often done by educated artists.) Sometimes "found art" is also used to refer to art found and rescued from second-hand and thrift stores.

This page could also possible be merged with assemblage(art) --Centerone 18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to find some result for the do-it-yourself ReadyMade magazine but I came to this page. Can someone start a new article for ReadyMade?

Sorry to say that "Found object" has nothing to do with the readymades of Marcel Duchamp: "Mes readymades n’ont rien à faire avec l’objet trouvé parce que ce qu’on appelle « objet trouvé » est totalement fonction du goût personnel. Le goût personnel décide que c’est un objet beau et unique." in _Marcel Duchamp_, Musée Jean Tinguely, Bâle, 2002, p. 94 (cf. KUH, Katherine (1962). « Marcel Duchamp » in : _The Artist’s Voice:Talks with Seventeen Artists_. New York and Evanston. pp. 81-93) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laoslao (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I love the toilet image, I think it's a good example of the concept and a keeper Fulvius 15:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and Dinos

[edit]

I've removed this from the article:

An exception in 2003 was the Chapman Brothers use of a set of Francisco Goya prints, The Disasters of War, which they "adapted" by collaging clown and puppy faces onto the figures. The prints were valuable already in their own right, but sold for a considerably higher sum after they had been altered. [1]

The reference does not support the claim that the works sold for more than the purchase price.--Ethicoaestheticist 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the part the reference does justify. Tyrenius 02:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found humor

[edit]

I hate to sully an article discussing Duchamp and Man Ray with Dave Barry and Jay Leno, but it seems to me there may a place here or perhaps in its own article to discuss found humor: jokes built around found language artifacts such as haiku formed from Internet spam, turns of phrase that become inadvertently hilarious, or even cultural phenomena that are unintentionally funny. This is of course where the slippery slope gets especially steep, sliding quickly past Spamusement, Engrish, the Dave Barry Christmas Gift Guide, and Jay Leno's headlines, and landing in a heap amongst Star Wars boy, Numa Numa and the like. Put another way, there's a fine line between art and ridicule.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readymade

[edit]

I'm no expert in the style of Wiki, but now that Readymade has no less than four -- count 'em, 4 -- different meanings, shouldn't that blurb be moved to a disambiguation page? Jsharpminor (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ready or not

[edit]

In wich world readymade is found art, or object trouvée? I can´t see the point. Readymade never haved a found thing as premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.153.191.150 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion

[edit]

What are the criteria for including an artist? Why are some included but not others? Thanks. Socialresearch (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further questions, because I'm still unclear. These artists Gustavo Aguerre,Tolleck Winner have only one reference and very short bios, and these artists Guillaume Bijl, Tom Friedman, Rodney McMillian, Joe Rush, Tomoko Takahashi have no references and also short bios, so how are these artists notable? What criteria are used to judge these artists notable? I'm not saying these artists are not notable, but I'm asking for standard criteria that are applied to all artists equally. Why these and not Marina DeBris, who has more to her bio and more citations. What makes the difference? Socialresearch (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This link www.culturalreuse.org was dead, if it lives again readd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.167.48 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found art v. Found Object

[edit]

An productive discussion has been taking place at Talk:Found object about the scope of Found object and Found art. I notice that Objet trouvé redirects here, to Found art, and is the widely accepted term in the art world for art made from non-art objects. Obviously, 'Found object' is a literal translation of 'Objet trouvé' while, on the other hand, I can see little evidence that 'Found art' is a commonly accepted term in fine art.

All-in-all it's not a good situation at all, with two articles competing for the same content. To me Found object seems the poorer article, being created several years later and significantly shorter in length. Possibly it should be deleted, making Found art the main/only article on the subject.

Once that happens, there may be a strong argument to rename this article, to a commonly defined and accepted term.

As I say, it's complicated and far from ideal at the moment. Anyone else's thoughts would be welcome. Sionk (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found art is the better article, but found object the better title, so they should be merged to that title. I've set out my view above that there should just be one article, rather than Found object (art) and Found object (music), with a disambiguation page, but that is a further possibility. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the 'Found object' article 'Found object (music)' and deleted the duplicate/unsourced content. I've nominated the remaining 'Found object' redirect to be deleted - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 3. This will pave the way for this 'Found art' article to be renamed 'Found object'. This seems to accord with what we've been discussing here and on the other Talk page. Sionk (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A source—ArtSpeak, by Robert Atkins

[edit]

The below I have excerpted from the book "Artspeak" by Robert Atkins:

"Found object"

"A found object is an existing object—often a mundane manufactured product—given a new identity as an artwork or part of an artwork. The artist credited with the concept of the found object is Marcel Duchamp. (George Braque and Pablo Picasso had already begun to inject bits of non-art material into their pioneering collages and assemblages of 1912—15, but they significantly altered those materials.) In 1913 Duchamp began to experiment with what he dubbed the Readymade. After adding a title to an unaltered, mass-produced object—a urinal or a shovel, for example—he would exhibit it, thereby transforming it into a readymade sculpture. His intention was to emphasize art's intellectual basis and, in the process, to shift attention away from the physical act or craft involved in its creation. Other Dada and Surrealist artists mined the nostalgic potential of found objects in works less cerebral than Duchamp's. Post—World War II artists put found objects to a variety of different purposes. They range from Edward Keinholz's chilling tableaux assembled from mannequins and discarded furniture to Haim Steinbach's more theoretical ensembles of domestic objects intended to question whether artworks made of mass-produced components can be simultaneously functional, decorative, and expressive. Joseph Beuys's dog-sled sculpture invokes his personal history, and even painters such as Jasper Johns have utilized found objects (in Johns's case, a broom, a chair, ball bearings) by affixing them to their paintings. Whether old or new, a found object infuses an artwork with meanings associated with its past use or intended function."

The above is excerpted from ArtSpeak, by Robert Atkins, Abbeville Press, ISBN: 0-7892-0365-0 [2] Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it isn't just a vehicle for Art bollocks?!86.42.220.66 (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is another good source for the term "found object". ("Objet trouvé" I think is identical in meaning.) Bus stop (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move also per discussion at Rfd. Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found art → Found object – The redirect needs deleting to allow Found art to be moved. This Found art article is clearly about Found objects/objets trouvés, as shown by the widespread use of the term 'found object' outside of the lead section, description of Readymades etc. 'Found art' is not a commonly accepted term in art. The Found object article was partly a duplicate of the Found art content, though post-dating it by several years, with additional info about found objects in music - the music info has been retained there and renamed Found object (music), leaving Found object as a (incorrect) redirect. These proposals have been discussed on the articles' Talk pages (see also Talk:Found object (music)). Sionk (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Not sure. I am opposed to the newly created Found object (music). This is not a legitimate article, but merely an extension of a term (found object/objet trouvé) which seems to have its roots firmly in the visual arts. I would suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Percussion what they would like to do with the material presently found at Found object (music). The material in that newly created article is largely not supported by sources. Our aim is to get rid of the poorly titled Found art article. We need an article on the art term Found object, also known in French as "Objet trouvé". Whether this is accomplished by "move" or "deletion" seems irrelevant to me, but maybe I am overlooking some factors.
  • Agree Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Is there anything preventing us now from moving this to Found object? Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no support for the move so far (including from you by the looks of your comment above). Admins seem to prefer putting hurdles in the way of improving the article! Unfortunately we need an admin's help to clear the way for a move. Sionk (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one objecting to the move. Bus stop (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest you change your 'Vote' from "Not sure" to "Agree". Sionk (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That has been done.[3] Thanks for your assistance. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page renamed from 'Found art' to 'Found object'

[edit]

An admin has actioned the request to move Found art to its correct title, Found object. Hurrah!

As a consequence, I've reworded the intro paragraphs to replace references to 'found art' with 'found object'.

I'm also removing the 'Historical precedents' altogether. The first sentence is about something historical, but seems complete balloney! The remainder is about recent comments and developments, of questionable use, but certainly not historical in any sense.

Any suggestions of what needs to be done next? Sionk (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Found object. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Found object. 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) 09:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about vandal User:Bus stop

[edit]

This user has got a personal problem with the term found art (to refer to found objects in general, collectively) and he/she has been on a vendetta to delete it from Wiktionary. We have had to take serious steps to stop this user from harming our project by removing the term found art, which is properly attested with real citations from published books. This user is now vandalising the "Found object" article on Wikipedia by removing the fact that found art is a term meaning found objects collectively. I find Wikipedia hard to work with but I hope somebody will put an end to this vandalism. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 14:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox—for "found art" Merriam-Webster says "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary." Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Equinox, you say I have tried to delete the "found art" entry from Wiktionary, but I have never edited it. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equinox never wrote you edited wikt:found art. OTOH, the sum total of your work there seems to be related to wikt:found object. Obsessed much? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael Bednarek—they wrote "This user has got a personal problem with the term found art (to refer to found objects in general, collectively) and he/she has been on a vendetta to delete it from Wiktionary." Bus stop (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this article started under the name Found art, so naturally there's a redirect – which makes mentioning the term here, bolded, almost compulsory. The term is widely used, even if MW doesn't have it – many others including Collins do. The disputed sentence, "Artworks consisting of found objects may be called found art." (original bold) strikes me as unremarkable and easily sourceable. The fight over its inclusion sounds lame. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Michael Bednarek, Dictionary.com also contains an entry for "found art". Which do you think is the proper or preferred term? Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the question. This article is called "Found object", and I don't propose to change it (although the connection, as claimed here, with the French term objet trouvé is questionable – the French call it fr:ready-made and fr:objet trouvé is our Lost and found). Collins and Dictionary.com have "art comprised of found objects" and that seems fitting – although "comprised of" might ruffle a giraffe's feathers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Bednarek—this is a term used in art. It has its origin in the Readymades of Marcel Duchamp, other work by Marcel Duchamp, and some of the contemporaries of Marcel Duchamp. And it certainly has more recent incarnations. There is a core significance in the world of art for terms like "readymade" and "found object" and concepts that they represent. It is not so important that you accept those concepts. You really don't have to accept those concepts. (They can be infuriating.) But it is important that the reader understand what those concepts are. Etsy has a page "found object art". Are we going to expend an inordinate amount of energy expounding on the significance of such usages? There is no special harm in noting in this article that there are several derivative terms—"found art" and "found object art". But I oppose the upending of an article—this article—that has roots in actual art scholarship, that can be attested to by for instance definitions found at websites for museums of art and in books defining art terms. That should be our primary concern. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Michael Bednarek, you point out "Collins and Dictionary.com have 'art comprised of found objects' and that seems fitting". That is actually incorrect. You cannot expand the concept to the point of meaninglessness. That is why I referred to the "core significance" of the term. The term "found art" is sloppy in every way. Is Collage containing "found objects" always "found art"? How about Assemblage (art)? And people don't call Richard Artschwager's work "found art" or "found object art"—even though he worked with Formica, arguably a non-art material. There is a careful way of speaking about art that is at odds with a sloppy way of speaking about art. If you don't care what you are saying, or worse, if you are trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes, then you may choose to use terminology for reasons other than communication. As an encyclopedia it is imperative that we use the most appropriate language. State of the art language should be used for speaking about art in an encyclopedia. Most educated commentators are not calling everything "found art" just because it might contain non-art materials. In non-scholarly contexts everything is called "found art" (slight exaggeration). Even "found object" is used beyond its core significance, and even in this article (in my opinion). But we should not throw in the towel and give up on using the terminology that the most knowledgeable sources use. Those sources would be good quality art museums and good quality books addressing art terminology. You can't find a term like "found art" in a book like "ArtSpeak: A Guide to Contemporary Ideas, Movements, and Buzzwords, 1945 to the Present", by Robert Atkins. But you can find in that book an entry for "found object". Also pinging Equinox. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words into my mouth. I never stated that I don't accept the concepts of found art or ready-mades, nor did I propose to rename this article to "found art" or to treat the terms as equivalent or interchangeable. I repeat, slowly: "The disputed sentence ... strikes me as unremarkable and easily sourceable." Please state your objections. I'm also interested in User:Modernist's opinion on this. As for you invocations of "state-of-the-art language", "educated commentators", "knowledgeable sources" etc: please read WP:NOTJOURNAL, WP:EXPERT, WP:TECHNICAL. Further, one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles, WP:V, works both ways: if WP:reliable sources support a fact, it's not up to editors to be selective about it – WP:Verifiability, not truth. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Bednarek—in this video, at 14:55, Ivan Karp uses the term "found materials". Does Wikipedia and Wiktionary need to inform the world that the term "found materials" exists? And Ivan Karp is an expert and an authority. I don't think there is any good reason for Wikipedia or Wiktionary to note the use of the term "found materials". We should be concerned with good quality sources. That basically means written sources. The Museum of Modern Art defines the underlying concept in this entry. The Tate Modern defines the underlying concept in this entry. Furthermore there are books devoted to defining underlying concepts. A good one is "ArtSpeak: A Guide to Contemporary Ideas, Movements, and Buzzwords, 1945 to the Present", by Robert Atkins. We are not trying to collect all terminology relating to the underlying concepts. But what we can take note of is which terminology is used by good quality sources. Do you think it is just a coincidence that they converge on the term "found object"? We make life easier for ourselves if we just use the terminology that good quality sources use. It is the underlying concept that matters. The Tate Modern tells us what a Readymade is. We should keep it simple. That is all I'm trying to do—keep it simple. All this agita is serving no purpose. It is not the words that matter—but rather it is the underlying concepts that matter. And if we just use the terminology that good quality sources use we can get on with matters. There is "found art", "found object art", "found materials". Who gives a shit about the terminology. We can let sources dictate the terminology to us. We are not collectors of terminology. Bus stop (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
tl;dr – found art redirects here. Per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and WP:R#ASTONISH, ther term ought to be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs, in bold. Which guideline or policy supports your argument of disallowing that? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Bednarek—you are telling me that I'm "obsessed" but until February 9, 2020, the only edit I made to Wiktionary was on October 1, 2017. Both the "found art" entry and the "found object" entry are primarily edited by User:Equinox, who initiated this thread. And I never edited the "found art" entry. Here are all my edits to Wiktionary. Am I "obsessed"? There is no special reason for obsessing over variations on a term. "Found materials" is another term in use. It gets more than a million Google hits. Should we inform the reader that the term "found materials" exists? Should Wiktionary create an entry for "found materials"? Redirects are all that should be used for any variations on the term "found object", because that is the term that all of the good quality sources converge on. These terms don't have any different meanings from "found object". The unhealthy "obsession" here is with terminology. Duchamp supposedly took a mundane, manufactured item, and christened it "art". That took place in the early 20th century. That is the concept that you should be "obsessed" with—not mere variations on a term. Also, "found art" is the dumbest-sounding term of the lot. It is worse than "found object art". And it is certainly much worse than "found materials". The term "found art" sounds like a work of art was lost and somebody "found" it. Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equinox—you are adding "found art". It can be considered a misnomer. An understandable misnomer, but a misnomer nevertheless. Ivan Karp is a person immersed in the art world. (Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel, interviewing Karp, is also not a lightweight in the art world.) In this YouTube video, at 14:55, you can hear Karp refer to "found materials". The term "found materials" can be used interchangeably with "found objects". That is because "found objects" are "materials" used in making art. The term "found object" refers to the concept of repurposing everyday objects into art materials—that is—incorporating everyday objects into what is intended to be a work of art. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter what your cool art-world friends say. If a word is used by 99% of the world to mean something then it means that thing. I can cry that people say "hacker" to refer to a person who breaks into computer systems, instead of the old-skool meaning of a creative computer programmer; or that "gay" means homosexual instead of the older "colourful, flamboyant". But the world doesn't listen to my crying. "Found art" means what I said it means, and there are thousands of sources proving it. Equinox ◑ 22:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equinox—I don't have any "cool art-world friends" because nobody in the art world is cool. "Found object" is not a common term in the world at large. It is only used in a specialized setting. If I meet somebody in the elevator and they say "Oh, what kind of art do you make?" And I respond that "I make art with found objects", they most likely would look at me quizzically. They would be wondering what "found objects" are. The average person is not even aware of the proper usage of the term. The terms you mention—"hacker" and "gay"—are more commonly used and understood—in both their "correct" and "incorrect" meanings. Furthermore the mistake (found art for found object) is an exceptionally understandable mistake. It is not significant, which is the case with "hacker" and "gay", but it is understandable. This is because the term is pertinent to the world of art. Referring to these things as "found art" seems to make sense, but we do not need to say anything about that error. It is naturally arising but there is nothing accomplished by commenting on it. The term "found object" is a translation of objet trouvé in French. Does "hacker" or "gay" come into our language by means of translation (since the beginning of the 20th century)? I wouldn't give a shit except that it's an important concept and not a concept generally understood. The term "found art" also overlaps with the literal meaning of those two words, which has absolutely nothing to do with any concept in art, but rather with the literal idea of "finding" art: I get on a public bus; I find a painting somebody left behind; it is literally "found art". You are jamming the literal, commonplace, meaning into the specialized meaning. For what purpose? To perpetuate an entirely understandable mistake? Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The vandal User:Bus stop removed it again in August. I've restored it. Equinox ◑ 18:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equinox—I'm not a "vandal" and you've provided no source for edit. Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equinox—the language you are adding is not supported by art-oriented sources such as the Tate Modern: "A found object is a natural or man-made object, or fragment of an object, that is found (or sometimes bought) by an artist and kept because of some intrinsic interest the artist sees in it,"[4] Museum of Modern Art: "An object—often utilitarian, manufactured, or naturally occurring—that was not originally designed for an artistic purpose, but has been repurposed in an artistic context,"[5] or Robert Atkins' "ArtSpeak: A Guide to Contemporary Ideas, Movements, and Buzzwords, 1945 to the Present" (see above). You need to bring a source. And by the way I have added redirects for "found material"[6] and "found materials"[7]. Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equinox WP:NPA. This has been going on for months now - time to stop. You've failed to produce proper sources & without them your campaign is doomed. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia tends to reject sources based on what powerful users think; an excuse to reject a source can always be found. However, a simple Google Books search for "found art" will find plenty of scholarly uses of the term. Ah well. Equinox ◑ 04:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... That is what we call found art—a genre of art that started umpteen years ago with a guy in New York who took a urinal and cleverly refashioned it into a fountain. Found art is created when odd, disparate, unlikely, even long-abandoned castoffs are put together with other similarly unexpected remnants to create something new and, if all goes as planned, lovely.

Or there's the earlier use of the term in the 1970 book Art from Found Materials, Discarded and Natural:

Found Art is a term coined to describe works which are composed in part or entirety of natural or salvaged objects.

Or there's the term used in the 1999 book Art and Interpretation: An Anthology of Readings in Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, which title at least sounds rather high-brow and academic, and which writing sounds similar (emphasis mine, italics original; Google's highlighting seems broken, but this is in the left-had side of page 259):

On the surface, anyway, there is no mystery about the making of the great bulk of works of artifactual art; they are crafted in various traditional ways—painted, sculpted, and the like. (Later, I will attempt to go below the surface a bit.) There is, however, a puzzle about the artifactuality of some relatively recent works of art: Duchamp's readymades, found art, and the like. Some deny that such things are art because, they claim, they are not artifacts made by artists. It can, I think, be shown that they are the artifacts of artists. (In Art and the Aesthetic I claimed, I now think mistakenly, that artifactuality is conferred on things such as Duchamp's Fountain and found art, but I will not discuss this here.)

Do these not suffice as references that demonstrate the use of the term "found art" to mean what we mean in the article?
Subjectively, I learned that the items described in our article here at Found object are called "found art" instead; I am not at all accustomed to the phrasing "found object" to refer to anything intended to be interpreted as a piece of artwork. I suspect I am not alone in this terminological understanding, and thus I feel that the article here at Found object should at least mention the term "found art" as a synonym. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it should also be in the lead, & have added it. It has redirected to here for ever. You might want to add some of those references there. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I must confess that I am awful at formatting citations. I'll have a go, at least the sources will be on the page, and hopefully someone better-versed in the format and templates can have a go. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Found_object&oldid=1252172002"