Talk:Kinetic sculpture

Untitled
This is a slightly suspect page as it confuses two terms. 1 Kinetic Art - which was coined as an art movement in the 1960's as a branch of Pop Art 2 Art which is Kinetic - which implies 'art that moves' according to the standard definition of the word kinetic. this is about as useful as saying that 'red art' includes all art that is red. many works of art move but have no relation at all to Kinetic Art as a school or movement (excuse the unintentional pun). I would suggest that in its current state this page is not adding anything to anybodies understanding of art, but is simply reinforcing a rather pathetic misconception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidParfitt (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 May 2005.


 * Please Sign your posts on talk pages. I wonder if anyone has any sources? Hyacinth 08:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * At first I thought this comment was somewhat off the mark, but how I see that the reall problem is that Kinetic art redirects here. This article is actually on 'Kinetic sculpture' which was largely pioneered in the 1920s and 30s by Naum Gabo and Alexander Calder. Prior to that the vast majority of sculpture was static (and still is today).
 * So the problem is that we don't have a proper article on kinetic art. The redirect is not completely wrong, as the majority of kinetic art is kinetic sculpture, but as mentioned this ignores the somewhat separate Kinetic Art movement in the 50s and 60s which relates to 2D canvases by, for example, Bridget Riley. These generally don't actually move, but the convergence of lines and coloured shapes on the canvas can create the illusion of movement in the eye with effects like Moire patterns. -- Solipsist 09:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've turned kinetic art into a stubby thing which does little more than point to this article and to Op art; it's virtually a disambiguation page, but it's probably a bit better than a simple redirect anyway. --Camembert 13:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I have just added a bit of flesh to the rather weak account that was. It is true, kinetic sculpture is not really a term supported by art critics or historians, in other words not an art buzzword. however kinetic sculpture certainly is a notable phenomena, so should probably have its own page even if it isnt an 'ism' (the only snag is that it then partakes of some of the horrors of the 'sculpture' page). solipsist's point above about the movement of the 50s & 60s is relevant here, in a way, as the sculpture of Gabo also does the optical illusion thing similar to Riley, but as sculpture, usually by strings creating moire effects. and Gabo was a sculptor working in kinetic art/sculpture in the 1920s. the changes that i have made attempt to bring the idea of movement being from multiple sources, even illusion, into the general intro. - still needs tons of work though DavidP

Kineticus
Is anyone convinced of the relevance of the http://www.kineticus.com/ external link. -- Solipsist 1 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)


 * The parent, or sister, site might be a more relevant link -- http://www.kinetic-art.org/ . This article could use more historical info, too. --sparkit (talk) July 5, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Is this where i'm supposed to discuss
whether or not kinetic art and kinetic sculpture should be seperate articles? Well. . . .... yes, i think/feel/think/feel that they should. It's no big deal, nothing is lost and as a sculpture fellow i say that if someone figures out how to move 2D art, well they can put it in the kinetic art article. Carptrash 05:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Kinetic sculpture vs. kinetic art
Kinetic sculpture, in my interpretation, is a physical structure of materials/three dimensional elements that form a sculpture that allows outside forces to cause movement. This could be due to wind, sun, rain ..etc. Traditional interpretation is that the sculpturer designed the art to function on a basis of balance/counter balance. I think there are many generally understood catagories to kinetic art; robotics, electronic art, mobiles, hydraulic sculpture...etc. I think kinechromatic art was named such because the creators of it understood that it fell into it's own unique catagory and did not fit within kinetic sculpture.R3miree 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) R3miree 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge considerations
Kinechromatic art should be a stand alone article, because it is about two dimensional art. Kinetic art and Kinetic sculpture should be merged because they are both about three dimensional art. Bus stop 17:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)