Talk:Artist trading cards/Archive 1

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

Hi.

This is my first edit, and I hope it's okay. I wasn't sure if I could/should remove the "Cleanup" template. I intend to keep watching this page and adding as I can. I wanted to get more information on the page. I also saw what looked like a direct copy / paste from another web page and I wanted to get that out of there, even if I wasn't finished with the information that I could add.

I disagree with merging with ACEOs. I am an ATC artist and had never heard of ACEOs until I came to this article. I think most artists who trade ATCs would not consider them to be the same. Sure, the format is the same, but the concept of ACEOs seems to be the antithesis of the spirit of ATCs. Call me crazy if you want.  :-)

--Jfer 20:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Even though ACEOs are the antithesis of artist trading cards, they are like opposite sides of the same coin, and thus belong together, just as there is often a "Criticisms of X" in the article on X (unless of course there are so many criticisms of X that they deserve their own article, but there is not enough in this case, so far, about ACEOs to justify giving them their own article, so I have merged).

I see ACEO's as being quite contrary to the spirit of ATCs. The idea that ATCs are only open to trade among artists is, in my opinion, a misconception. Anyone is welcome to make and trade ATCs. As a professional artist and an active ATC creator, I encourage people who do not consider themselves to be artists to participate, and I trade regularly with artists and non-artists alike. --142.177.233.203 15:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

ACEO Violation of WP commercial promotion? Or genuinely of interest.

ACEO's also allow shut in artists that cannot attend mandatory events in order to be called ATC artists, a chance to participate that the strictest purists would otherwise not allow.

ACEO is not a generally accepted art category. It does not (yet) appear in university art courses or in glossaries or encyclopedias. It is a de facto (though non-registered) trademark and marketing keyword on eBay for members of the ACEO group there and on a related member-only website. ACEO vigorously defends against non-members using the term and has filed complaints against non-members with VeRO (eBay's intellectual property arm). Should we be promoting a marketing concept?

Possibly yes as ACEO may be of interest to our readers. It is listed by eBay as a top keyword search in the self-representing artist category. What do others think? Disclosure: I actively sell ACEO art on eBay and stand to benefit financially from this. However, I believe it may be in violation of WP commercial promotion guidelines. Caltrop 16:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

-- This previous statement seems to be incorrect. I've been told that ACEO is not a trademark, but rather an abbreviation only referring to a type of art. Anyone, "member" or not, is free to create what is called an ACEO as long as it fits the size specification. VeRO is only used when a particular piece violates copyright laws, or ACEO is used to descibe pieces of art that are not ACEO sized.

-- As the webmaster of the ACEO page I can confirm that this is incorrect. Anyone, member or not, is welcome to use the abbreviation ACEO. It has also been used widely on other well known art sites, such as WetCanvas, for over a year, and other online art auction sites have categories for it. As for it being commercial - yes, a lot of things are commercial. Do you not have a listing on the Wiki for "diamonds" because they are sold? And yes, there have been off line "real brick and mortar" galleries who have held ACEO art shows. Many people also use ACEO to raise money for charities.

-- It is also incorrect that ACEO or ATC's aren't taught in schools. Here in New England several od the art colleges have taught ACEO/ATC art and I know one of the students who took that class went on and taught it in area highschools as a workshop as well.

Definitions

Actually stating one of the rules of ATCs as being "The cards must be traded - never bought or sold." is IMO total nonsense. Because the nature of a work of art doesn't change according to the method of exchange. The point is whether you swap an art work for ideas, a loaf of bread, a pint of beer or for money you are using the artwork as a form of currency and making a trade. The other aspect is regardless of the method an artist may exchange or trade an art work (or simply give it away as a gift), if the artist's work becomes collectable in the art market then obviously all the works by that artist have a monetary value and of course that would include ATCs regardless of the original method of trade or exchange.

So IMO that rule is simply heretical and as more to do with theoretical politics and out dated closed minded ivory tower academic elitism that than any form of reality prevalent in the real World. It's simply snobbishness IMO.

Personally I would argue ATCs and ACEOs are the same thing the main advantage of ATCs is being small they are relatively inexpensive, the advantage of that is they make Art accessible to more people and bring art to a wider audience.

Of course the advantage the Internet and places such as eBay give artists is the ability to market their own work outside the gallery system, and in many ways the point of ATCs is they always were "traded" outside the gallery system. This is perhaps the reason why there is confusion over the involvement of money. But the Internet and ecommerce has changed and is changing the nature of the art world and the art market and empowers artist to market their own work. The fact that ATCs have evolved away from simply being a method of trading small original art works amongst artists outside the gallery system without monetary exchange, into ATC/ACEOs being traded on the Internet and on eBay involving the exchange of money is simply a result of the way technology and the Internet has change the nature of the reality we live in.

So to state "The cards must be traded - never bought or sold." as a rule defining what an artist trading card is to fail to recognise the nature of the reality we actually now live in which has rendered such rules irrelevant. Evolution is the nature of the beast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artberry (talk • contribs).

I agree. It would be nice if hobby artists (and, for that matter, career artists) could follow their vision without regard for the economics of the situation. Unfortunately, art supplies and equipment cost a lot of money (although eliminating the galleries must help a lot). NeonMerlin 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Exact size part of the definition?

Is the exact size of the card really crucial? Was this maintained in the 16th century? This seems suspicious - to state this was always the case. Clubmarx | Talk 22:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It probably wasn't the case. The rules stated are what is currently held by the ATC community. It was probably expected that in the past, cards were roughly that size, and modern times codified a standard size. I've changed the article to reflect this. --Nekura 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Geocaching

For those of you watching this page or just browsing content. Is anyone aware of trading through Geocaching? It's a bit inderct; however, it could be an entertaining interaction with nature and the ATC community. Anyway as soon as I figure out what to create I'll be planting mine at these geocaches. | Zenhooloovoo 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have watched this page change.

I have never seen a subject invoke such a broad range of incongruous perceptions of art history. One ATC writer cited the French Impressionists as having opened the market for ATC's. Another, the High Rennaissance. And someone wrote, as well as keeps getting linked onto this subject in Wiki that wants to claim ATC's started in the 1990's. What a gas! I've got an ATC from 1985.

I'm not going to beat the point to death. Art miniatures for trade have existed in a number of incarnations. In different times, in different manners.

Rather than arguing over whether it was the Druids who started trading art cards or the Republicans, how about we start writing this page to include but not exclude the various forms ATC's have appeared as? Art history has so far made it through tens of thousands of years. We *can* all get along.

So, let's clarify what we're talking about. There were trade groups among the French. The German. The Druid. The Chinese. They all traded and existed. This group believed in star bellied sneetches only, while that group over there wants all starred and non-starred sneetches imposed on all traders of the meet. Some meet only; others mail. We can all get along. Qualify your statements. The current trend will change, but identity it as the current trend and update it as things progress.

But please, instead of rewriting history, respect it. If you don't know the answer, don't make one up to sound smart. Add what you do know, respecting that it is only so much of the picture.

Thanks.

I made a substantial edit

The first two sections seemed quite confused and cluttered, a disorganized mixture of information about the contemporary ATC hobby and an attempt to discuss art miniatures in a larger context. Some of it was also poorly written. I felt it was necessary to consolidate what was there into a manageable and more readable introduction to the subject. I also added a link to Vanci Stirnemann's website, which spurred the contemporary trading phenomenon and remains a primary references for those involved in this hobby.Seusomon 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As an artist and historian, the Stirnemann claims are so ridiculous, I can't think your edit was of any other intent than SPAM. Stirnemann is outrageously arrogant. ATC's are in a larger context. Stirnemann attempts to claim birth of something that's been going on for centuries. It's ludicrous to accept his claim. Putting his name in the very definition of the object is unacceptable and probably a TOU violation in regards to Wiki. I knew artists trading ATC's back in the early 1980's, so there is no way Stirnemann created this idea in the late 1990's Europe. Several people have come in and tried to correct this same issue on the Wiki entry. I think we should realize it is at best an extremely contested claim. Silkart 17:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)]

I guess you didn't actually read my text before reacting to it. I made no reference to ATCs having been invented by Stirnemann or anyone else. I did credit his web site with sparking the current hobby interest in them, which seems undeniable. In the late 1990s, there were only three or four web sites about ATCs, and they all referenced the Stirnemann site as their primary source. The hobby has expanded much since then, but the explanation of ATC trading on Stirnemann's site is still the one that is most often referenced and repeated. Although I understand your misgivings about regarding him as the "inventor" of the whole notion of tradeable art cards, I think it is quite an overreaction to attempt to purge all reference to his influence on the ATC hobby as it currently exists. It is important that the Stirnemann site be referenced, because it explains much of the "culture" surrounding the current ATC hobby.

I've restored my edit as a starting point for bringing this page to convergence. I certainly don't want a version war here, but I would like you to review the text carefully with an eye to whether my references to Stirnemann's site are accurate or not. That should be the issue. Acknowleging it as an influential site is different from identifying him as the inventor of ATCs (whatever that might mean). I would rather see this article put Stirnemann's site in a wider context than ignore it entirely. Seusomon 15:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Why did you readd all the links? Corpx 18:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Corpx, I got a little tangled up in doing a cut-and-paste that lost the links. I had not discovered how to revert elegantly at that point. Sorry for any confusion this caused on the history page. Seusomon 20:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion points regarding the Stirnemann issue Silkart, please accept my apologies in advance if my reversion was bad form. I think this matter will keep coming up, though, until some sensible way of addressing the Stirnemann site and its role in the modern ATC culture is included in this article.

When one encounters the phrase "Artist Trading Card" on the web, in print publications, or in live trading groups, the reference is invariably to what I have called the "contemporary ATC phenomenon (or hobby, or movement)". This has become a specialized term (with an invariable initialism, "ATC"), referring to cards of a standard size, and a loose cluster of expectations centering around the idea that they are primarily a social or expressive activity - the trading session is emphasized, they are not to be mass-produced, not to be sold, etc. This is, of course, a narrower phenomenon that the broad idea of artists making small cards to depict/promote/share their artwork. I do think it is important that the article address ATCs in the narrower sense I have described, as this use is now ubiquitous, and I expect most readers of this article will be here because they have encountered this particular usage.

I have no objection to covering other types of art cards as well, so long as it does not confuse the information about the contemporary ATC hobby.

My understanding of the "claims" on Stirnemann's site is not that he was the first artist to make small cards with his work on them, but rather that he originated interest in a certain kind of event - the trading session with cards of standard size that are not mass-produced and not for sale. In other words, it was a certain innovation in the art culture. I cannot verify his claims in this regard, but neither have I reason to question them. References to his site as "original" or "primary" abound, e.g.,

and I have yet to come across an ATC site or publication that assigns credit for originating the contemporary ATC phenomenon to a different source.

I understand that something being repeated on a number of web sites does not make it true, but at least we can say that this account has a number of confirmatory references.

I would invite you to provide references identifying the origins of the contemporary ATC phenomenon to something earlier than Stirnemann's activities. That would help us to achieve consensus. Note that I am speaking of a particular card format and trading culture here, not the broader practice of artists putting their works on small cards, which we can all agree has been going on for centuries. Seusomon 20:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can We Resolve this Please?

My references to the Stirnemann site were removed anonymously, by someone who would rather just leave opinionated comments in the edit summary than discuss the matter here. I give ample justification for the two statements in question in the discussion entry above. I have never encountered any controversy around this issue in the ATC community until I encountered it here at Wikipedia. Since the last changes were made anonymously, it is possible that there is only one person who objects to the references to Stirnemann, but does not want to defend his/her position with reasonable discussion here. This is what the discussion page is for. Please, let's use it.

References to Stirnemann are not spam, since his site is noncommercial and is a widely referenced (and apparently the very earliest) ATC site. Its inclusion in some form is important, as most explanations of ATCs (on the web and in print) follow his definitions and explanation of the trading culture, often verbatim.

If there is anything in these two statements in the article that is not factual, I will be delighted to see them corrected. But purging all reference to what is demonstrably a central reference on the subject just makes no sense. The person who is making these purges needs to enter the discussion and defend his/her point of view with something more substantial than has been given to date. Seusomon 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Can we remove the 2 sites that are forums? Corpx 07:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to understand why the forum links should be removed, I have read through the discussion and am unable to find the reasons. --97.101.101.178 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:EXT lists "discussion forums" under "Links normally to be avoided" Corpx 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is ATCards.com allowed to remain?--97.101.101.178 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Removed Corpx 14:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait, you said "discussion forums", but both ATCards.com and IllustratedATCs are "trading" sites, the same as ATC Trade and Post.--97.101.101.178 14:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This hasn't been discussed, yet the sites were removed. ATCards.com, IllustratedATCs.com, and ATC Post and Trade are not discussion forums, they are specifically trading sites. If someone seeks out information on ATC's and is interested in actually trading cards, those links are an invaluable resource as a place to actually trade cards. They are examples of the very thing the article discusses. Are you removing them because you feel they are discussion forums, which they aren't, or because you don't feel they are appropriate?--97.101.101.178 15:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They fall under "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.", since they're there to facilitate exchanges. Corpx 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, none of those sites actually "sell" anything - the pertinent categories are instead "links that promote a site" and "social networking sites" (which I would say apply with respect to all the removed links). Seusomon 20:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • IMO those sites do not fall under any of the 3 categories listed. Artist Trading Cards are art meant to be traded, the sole purpose of those sites is to facilitate the trading of ATC's. The do not sell products or services, the administrators of each site gain nothing from the sites, and yes they are social networking sites, but that goes to the heart of ATC's, they are traded which is a social interaction. "Links that promote a site", could technically be said of any link, ATCards.com has over 3500 members and does not need promoting, it has become the foremost trading site on the internet.--97.101.101.178 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Under "video rental", Netflix.com is listed. The arguments used here are more appropriate for an article such as that, yet Netflix.com is a perfect example used to illustrate the article, this is my opinion here.--Deerlove 00:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Netflix is a notable service, so its unlikely that they're bound to use WP for advertising, unlike the sites listed here. Corpx 01:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • But it's (Netflix) still a "link to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services", I think you're just unfamiliar with the details of these sites, there is nothing to be gained for the sites by having links on the article. These sites do not require payment to join, and 2 of the sites do not even have ads. If you're not selling anything or soliciting anything, why is it still considered advertising? You could pick any number of trading sites on the internet, it's not that it specifically has to be these. My point is that this is an article about artist trading cards, why not supply links where people could see one way they're traded (another way being through live trading events). Someone wants to give an example of a video rental company, they include a link to Netflix...someone wants to illustrate how and where these cards can be traded, supply links to trading sites. I think there's a misconception that these sites are gaining something by these links being provided.--Deerlove 04:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that someone took an indefensible stand, and now can't back out of it. The links of noncommercial sites being cut out, to my mind, smacks of censorship. Of someone(s) wanting to inflict their own very narrow definition on the rest of the world. Like Japan, wanting to deny the reality of Comfort Women in WWII, a rather narrow minded person(s) wants to control the information on here. Too bad! It's too late, the cat is already out of the proverbial bag. So, censor away! It's a nonproductive action. I also feel that the strict insistence on person to person trading is inherently discriminatory towards the disabled, housebound artist. And there is no justification for that. None at all. This is just one more way to inflict control over an uncontrollable subject. At one time, the Impressionist's were also hated and reviled. Now look; the works sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I do not believe that any one group has the right to determine art for the world. If that were the case, not one of us would be allowed to create. Not one. So, I'm for including ACEO's. I am not for censorship.Dragonflygirl1961 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artist_trading_cards/Archive_1&oldid=848939323"