Jump to content

Talk:Relational art

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

[Untitled]

[edit]

I would claim that Relational aestethetics and thus relational art is a 1990s thingy and not 2000.--Norskkunstpåwiki (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

I've restored the title to the original. This is an art term and is the common name for the term. We do use the English term as a rule if the English term is the preferred one, which it is in this case. freshacconci talktalk 15:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the original title of the article is Relational Art. This article is about the art movement not the book. The art movement is based on the book but the article title should reflect the article subject not the source of the title. Can other editors please discuss moves before attempting them? Only non-controversial moves should take place without discussion. This is hardly non-controversial as we'd have to go through a number of articles and change art --> aesthetics if we changed the article title, as "relational art" is the common name. freshacconci talktalk 15:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Freshacconci, the Bourriaud original title does not mention the word "Art", hence article title should properly be "Relational Asthetics," and not "Relational Art." As you have it at the moment, i.e., "Relation Art" probably needs an extra "al" at the end--it suggests aunts and uncles, no? Artiquities (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2011 (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 to Relational art.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relation Art → Relational Art — "Relation Art" has no specific currency, "Relational Art" is the best bet here, no? Or, even better, "Relational Aesthetics." --Artiquities (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just noticed that. That is my fault. That really should be Relational, not Relation. In the end, Relational Art is preferred to Aesthetics as the article is about the art movement not the book. freshacconci talktalk 16:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been moved around so much I think we'll need an admin to sort it out so we get all the histories merged properly. freshacconci talktalk 16:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for one of the moves, as I was trying to move the page back to Relational Aesthetics but it didn't work. I believe the best name is Relational Aesthetics since the book carries the name. What do you guys think? GuzonjinSin (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about it and I think Freshacconci is right, it should be art and not aeshtetics to avoid confusion between the movement and the book. And indeed, it should be art with a lowercase a. GuzonjinSin (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Relational 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) 23:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Relational 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) 13:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relational_art&oldid=1202144257"