Talk:Art Bollocks

Suggestion
I suggest the article title be changed so that the second term also begins with an upper case letter. I suggest that the article change focus slightly from the term itself to the name of the original article. Thus this article would be about this article. This article could speak about some of the examples given of "art bollocks" in the original article by that name. Perhaps mention could be made of articles that closely relate to the subject such as this and this. I think that if the Wiki article was about the 1999 article in Art Review, by Brian Ashbee, it would be more solidly sourced than if the Wiki article was about the term itself. I think the article from 1999 passes notability requirements for the purposes of us writing a Wiki article on it, based on its being referred to in subsequent articles external to Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the amount of discussion is overwhelming, I'm going to Move the page title to "Art Bollocks". The topic of the article, in my understanding, will be the article by that name, rather than the term used in that and other articles. This article will thus be about this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some working documents

 * Art Bollocks Revisited, by David Thompson in the blog TypePad in 2006 or 2007


 * How to speak ‘Art Bollocks’, by Rob Peal in the blog WordPress in 2010


 * How did ‘Art bollocks’ become the default way of writing about visual culture? Could Mao have the answer?, by David Thompson in the blog EyeMagazine in 2006


 * Lost in a labyrinth of theory—Art today likes to think of itself as very, very clever. I understand the insecurity, but it does little for the work; by Jonathan Jones, in The Guardian, in March 2005


 * Art Bollocks (or Stupid Kunst) - by Charlotte Young --Lasairdhubh (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)