Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeping It Real Art Critics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Keeping It Real Art Critics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable web series.  scope_creep Talk  16:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I did a little work on this article, but it needs more. I  gauge it as notable, based on items like this, this, this and this. A search shows more results as well.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your thoughts. Where do you think the article needs changed, ThatMontrealIP? Notability in the Netherlands is clear, I think, as the references testify. I chose to create an English article because most comments on youtube are in this language. I hope that's not a problem. (Bowsnehru (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC))
 * Delete These do not seem like real art critics, but just a couple of politically right-wing-aligned people behaving nastily towards what they perceive as the leftist art establishment. It requires no art appreciation training to say things like so-so artist is hyped because of his/her racial minority and sexual orientation, or to hound some curator to explain why the person likes a piece to the point of reducing the person to tears.
 * A piece by Lars Benthin that lauds and cheerleads this sort of behavior, and calls on readers to let's follow these KIRAC guys is not objective reporting, but should be classed as op-ed, it falls far short of analysis from an art critic, and ThatMontrealIP shouldn't be listing it as if it is WP:RS.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will do a detailed look at the references tomorrow. I did a WP:BEFORE but i'll go into more detail around that particular point.   scope_creep Talk  22:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * a couple of politically right-wing-aligned people behaving nastily is pure opinion rather than a deletion argument based on policy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There needs to be reviews.   scope_creep Talk  00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "This duo breaks through the 'kitschy and leftist artist world'.." to quote the op-ed.
 * So, presumably this duo perceive themselves the opposite of that label -- ergo "rightist".
 * As for policy, are the duo acknowledged by peers (other art critics)? That is the explicit criterion for academics and creators (WP:NART). And kudos from some opinion columnist does not qualify.--Kiyoweap (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * —what is "objective reporting" on art? You are saying the reporting of "these KIRAC guys...falls far short of analysis from an art critic". Do you think "analysis from an art critic" is "objective"? Bus stop (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reliably sourced. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, if it needs explaining, "objective reporting", on art, by a layman journalist, means the journalist withholds his own opinion, and reports on expert opinions.


 * An art critic's analysis being subjective is not at issue; if it is expert opinion it is allowable WP:RS.
 * Whereas a newspaper op-ed columnist's 2-cents on the matter is assumed not (as per WP:RSEDITORIAL).


 * It seems to me you think that even if it is an opinion column, if it accurately reports on certain facts on the subject then that is sufficient to establish notability. But I am arguing the hurdle is considerably higher than that for these people to be considered notable "art critics", which is the point you are missing. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * —even without reading the language I think I can sense that the topic is reliably sourced. A headline in De Groene Amsterdammer under the heading "Kunst & Cultuur" reading "Keep it real" sounds like it might be a reliable source contributing to the notability of the subject. I could be mistaken but after looking at a few of the episodes it seems like they are talking about the international art world. There seem to be several such sources alluding to this "web series on YouTube and Vimeo exploring the international art world". Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. This discussion should not be about the use of the word 'art criticism' in the article. It should focus on the contested notability of the topic. With extensive coverage in de Volkskrant (link), De Groene Amsterdammer (link), NRC Handelsblad (link), Artnet (link), a substantial appearance on NPO Radio 1 (link), and over 650.000 views on youtube, I think notability is sufficiently supported. A search yields still more results. — Bowsnehru (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * As for the De Groene Amsterdammer piece in the "Kunst (Art) & Cultuur" section, you seem to be relying on a blind hunch based on the headline being "Keep it real". That slogan seems to be of general use, and not particular to the K.I.R Art Critics. If you bothered to grind the text through an mt app (as I would), you'd realize the first bulk of the article has little to do with KIRAC, but an entirely different film called Stranger in Paradise created by Guido Hendrikx which was shown in IDFA (film festival).


 * I'll concede that the Roos van der Lint is at least the art beat journalist for this paper, and I think one site described her as an art critic as well. What she says about the KIRAC film "Verontwaardiging in De Appel" is that it "was alternately sharp and bland, brutal and sometimes unreasonable".
 * So KIRAC's art criticism is one of compromised credibility in the estimation of this art editor/critic.
 * However, the current edit citing this article chooses to say the film is a "topic of controversy and the subject of praise", which is a pretty WP:POV reading of the tone of the actual source. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Roos van der Lint wrote a long piece about an observed trend within the art world (“een stroom (current) van politiek incorrecte kunst”) and thought it fitting to include 800 words on KIRAC. This supports the case for the topic’s notability, which is what should be discussed here. (Superfluously, the piece is not referenced as an example of praise, but as a source for the latter of these sentences: “They suggest (KIRAC Ep.3) that democratic, modernistic tendencies in combination with neoliberal policies have created a generation of artists who use their work to cater for the ideological preferences of curators and collectors, thereby lacking sincerity and self-reflection. The first episodes discuss various examples of this dynamic and fit within the domain of art criticism.”) — Bowsnehru (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , even though you now concede the article was about a "trend within the art world", you didn't explain this before, and it deceived into thinking it was an article entirely about KIRAC.


 * Since the piece is about a "trend" perhaps the article should be about the whole trend, with KIRAC mentioned in a line or two within.
 * I would draw comparison to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. I don't think a youtuber involved in the toppling of a statue necessarily merits an article of his own even if he made the news.


 * The portion you quote from the Wiki article sounds like a press release, just mouth-piecing what KIRAC thinks they are achieving. To be WP:NPOV, it needs to reflect van der Lint's rather negative assessment e.g., how the work degenerates to worse quality with each episode. --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I said the piece covers KIRAC extensively, not exclusively, and I think those 800 words point in the direction of WP:N. Don't you agree that the piece is an example of significant coverage? Speaking more precisely, I think the piece is trying to address growing opposition towards (perceived) ideological pretension within the art world. At the moment this trend is probably not sufficiently defined for a Wikipedia article. (Also, I think Van der Lint is more ambiguous in her judgment of KIRAC than you make it seem: sound criticism ("met kennis van zaken") is undermined by populist rhetoric ("populistische retoriek"), but finally welcomed as a fresh perspective on utilitarian practices ("een frisse kijk op het nuttigheidsdenken").) But let's not forget that this is just one source and that there are others too. — Bowsnehru (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am perhaps being over-picky saying that "extensive" sounds like more than "significant", but most English-speakers would agree that is the tenor, and nuances become important when other parties base opinion on such short descriptions alone.
 * Obviously I don't agree it is "significant coverage" to the extent of a book-length history in the WP:GNG, and I'm judging it to be not significant enough.
 * I would remark that you should be adding what a writer like van der Lint states in a neutral way to the KIRAC page rather than here.
 * I can't comment on all the sources, because some are WP:PAYWALL.
 * But the 2 in English were both about an incident (invitation to KIRAC at an art academy, cancelled as art debate), and not significant coverage of their work. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it is moved from some doubt present to an becoming an established article. I would close it as nomination withdrawn, but I guess we can wait until its closed by an admin.   scope_creep Talk  08:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * —I don't think I was "deceived". When I look at "KIRAC Ep.10 'The bad breath of Mondriaan Specialist Hans Janssen' (Van Gogh, Mondriaan)" and other episodes it is obvious to me that they are talking about art. They are touching upon subjects that I consider important such as the relation between abstract painting and representational painting. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , the fact is, you acted on a hunch on the D.G.A. article that bore the title "Keeping it Real" and assumed it was a full-length profile on KIRAC, when it was actually about the "Keeping it Real" trend/movement, with KIRAC only given only a secondary coverage, and a rather dismissive one at that.


 * The point you need to concede is that this source is no longer the same level of "significant coverage" (cf. WP:GNG) you had previously believed, based on false premise. And  listing it as "extensive coverage" was rather inflated and misleading.


 * I should hope you realize your "methinks" on how noteworthy you think KIRAC is, based on you watching their youtubes, holds no sway in the argument.--Kiyoweap (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * —even if I "acted on a hunch" in reference to that source, I think there are other sources attesting to the substantiality of this group. Artnet refers to their "controversial analysis of the art world". I guess I'm just not that critical of groups of people trying to make sense of the art world. If reliable sources recognize them I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. If on the other hand I felt they were a group of charlatans trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes, I would not lend my support to retaining an article on them on Wikipedia. In part I am judging legitimacy on watching videos—if the banter returns time and again to what I consider real art world concerns—then I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, your private opinion is of no consequence.
 * You are also wasting our time with your inability to correctly extract information from a source, even when written in English.
 * The "controversial analysis of the art world" is not attributed to KIRAC but to Bert Kreuk, the art collector who was their prospective art debate opponent at the art academy. --Kiyoweap (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment For something that is notable or potentially notable, the web series is not watched by a large number of folk. The highest rated episode has only 94k plays, which in any instance I would consider very low. It is a art series and not a lot of folk will watch it, but it very low and in the series as a whole it is tailed off.    scope_creep Talk  11:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It is easy to underestimate how high these figures are for a (European) art channel. For example, you are referring to an episode about a famous art dealer Stefan Simchowitz and no video featuring him has as many views on youtube. You could draw comparisons to other notable persons or events within the art world to show that viewer numbers are relative (Jon Rafman, Art Basel, if you want I can give more examples), and the conclusion would be that KIRAC has a relatively high number of viewers.


 * Notability also becomes clear when you look at the institutions that have invited KIRAC as art critics or to present their films, such as SABK Karlsruhe (link), Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, Gerrit Rietveld Academy, HFBK Hamburg, MACBA, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Van Abbemuseum, KABK. Note that the SABK announcement places KIRAC “among the best-known art critics in the Netherlands”.


 * Here you can find most press coverage KIRAC has received. Among others, I think the piece of university professor Thijs Lijster and the mentioned piece in the Volkskrant are clear examples of significant coverage. — Bowsnehru (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why they have to be watched by a lot of people. If they are recognized by commentators then we have an indication of notability. Supposing they go over everybody's heads? Most people are not not going to watch YouTube videos about art unless it is dumbed down or misleading. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as the Keep rationales are disputed (or in one case, WP:ITSNOTABLE)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The thing is, Bowsnehru fails to provide proper context. What is happening is that Netherlands has its own version of Republicans in the United States who want to cut off public funding (from De Appel, etc.) because it doesn't suit their political ideology: the culture minister Halbe Zijlstra was mentioned as such a politician.


 * You can attract a lot of video-watchers in the United States who don't give jack squat about art if your message is that public funding being wasted on art centers that promote homosexual values or individuals, and that is the piece of schtick that KIRAC has resorted to.
 * Accordingly, the outspoken student Gerrit Rietveld Academy said KIRAC was unwelcome on his campus because they "don't deserve the attention".
 * If some people in the art world feel compelled to engage in some sort of dialogue (instead of stonewalling) when there is a looming politicized and demagoguerized threat of defunding like this. So any article should describe that situation and KIRAC as a player in that context, to a large extent, rather pretend these attention-grabbers earned respect purely on the merits of their critiques. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for your time. I think there are now 4 users in favour of keeping the article and 1 user in favour of deletion, albeit with some hesitation from . Arguments for keeping the article are mainly disputed by one user only,, whose first contribution already revealed some personal bias against the topic. The user’s subjectivity showed again in his or her reluctance to accept this piece as an example of significant coverage, although it clearly is. In the latest contribution,  seems to impose a political condition on the notion of notability and draws an uninformed, intuitive conclusion. I am not sure further debate will yield clearer consensus, but maybe  can clarify his or her position, or  could state that notability is sufficiently supported and suggest at the same time that the article be expanded for the sake of neutrality. — Bowsnehru (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there has been sufficient sources presented during the Afd to satisfy WP:SIGCOV.   scope_creep Talk  17:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's just preposterous for Bowsnehru to suggest political context is something irrelevant that I am unfairly imposing.


 * The very subheading of the Roos van der Lint piece he cites states "Politiek incorrecte kunst is (ubiquitous)" so it should be clear you can't completely divorce this article from the context of political climate.


 * Bowsnehru only partially quotes from van der Lint: "a fresh perspective on utilitarian practices ("een frisse kijk op het nuttigheidsdenken")" but what could this mean? I, using my cognitive intuition conclude this is about the mindset that publicly funded art should serves some useful purpose beyond pure esthetics.
 * And voilà, continue reading van der Lint and she says this is about "de worsteling van de kunstenaar om met al dan niet maatschappelijk geëngageerde kunst (the artist's struggle to justify the communal money received with art)".


 * So it is crystal clear this is a discussion in the context of political opinion as I said previously. Stop whining about it. --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From the start I have indeed tried to divorce this discussion on the notability of KIRAC from the context of political debate (which clearly is a lot more contentious in the States than it is in Europe). This is the logical thing to do. So politics aside, forgetting even about the literal text of the article, do you judge KIRAC sufficiently notable to meet WP:N? Before you have done so I am not tempted to have a 'cognitively intuitive' debate to determine KIRAC’s position on the political spectrum. — Bowsnehru (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am basically an inclusionist and usually inclined to vote keep, but not if the product of the effort is blatantly WP:PROMO.


 * I don't see how you can justify what you are doing as a "logical thing". Taking statements out of context is textbook WP:POV.
 * Also I'm not admitting to debating out of pure intuition. I clearly indicated that my hunch on the context of "utilitarianism" was borne out by what the author van der Lint said subsequently, so I only tabled the matter for debate after verifying it was citable to the source. So stop being snide.


 * On whether they are WP:N for their demagogic stunt, I already laid out the analogy an individuals who toppled a Jefferson Davies statue might get repeated coverage in the press with that public-attention grabbing stunt, but may not deserve an independent article on their own. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is not blatantly promotional. You can make suggestions to expand the article for the sake of neutrality, but not before you have conceded that the topic is notable. On this point, however, you are not expressing yourself clearly.


 * I am not sure what you mean by “demagogic stunt”. Either you refer to the decision of the Rietveld to withdraw KIRAC’s invitation to the academy, or you are reducing the totality of KIRAC content to demagoguery. In the first case you would be avoiding my question on notability, because you limit your response only to sources covering the upheaval. In the second case you would be making a statement which is disputed by the sources you avoid in the first case.


 * As it happens, I just came across this book by searching for “Keeping it real art critics” in google books. I don't read Italian well, but demagoguery "poco adatto al click-bait" is surely unworthy of its name. In addition to all sources mentioned I think it is yet another sign of the topic’s notability. — Bowsnehru (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * —you write "I, using my cognitive intuition conclude this is about the mindset that publicly funded art should serves some useful purpose beyond pure esthetics." I would hazard a guess that publicly funded art is never expected to serve some useful purpose beyond pure esthetics. We don't weed out and discard parts of sources that may support notability just because we may disagree with a particular implication within that reliable source. Nobody even knows what art is, much less what purposes it should serve. Is there a satisfactory definition of art? There are only definitions we support and definitions we reject. You say "So it is crystal clear this is a discussion in the context of political opinion". So what? We take support for notability wherever we can find it. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Bowsnehru, your ridiculousness is reaching new heights with your suggestion that I, who don't think the article is a keeper should be the one to contribute the labor to fix it so it justifies notability. This is clearly your work, or others who wish to keep it.


 * If van der Lint: “sound criticism ("met kennis van zaken") is undermined by populist rhetoric ("populistische retoriek")” that should be the gist that should go into the article, not “They suggest (KIRAC Ep.3) that democratic, modernistic tendencies in combination with neoliberal policies have created a generation of artists who use their work to cater for the ideological preferences of curators and collectors” which the page is citing to van der Lint.


 * And when van der Lint says "populist rhetoric", isn't that practically synonymous with "demagoguery" ="Rhetoric that appeals to the prejudices of the people"? Why are you baffled by my choice of word here? --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Having said that they are "trying to make sense of the art world", if I can quote myself, and after having looked at a couple more KIRAC videos, I would have to say that they are only "trying to make sense of the art world". There is scarcely more than a perfunctory effort to make sense of art itself. In this sense these are superficial videos. But I suppose they can be thought-provoking. And if they are reliably-sourced to a sufficient extent to meet notability requirements, then I suppose they make a worthy addition to our panoply of articles on art-related subjects. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You call me ridiculous and said I was whining before, so I don’t think I owe you a reply, but I have made the suggested change to the article (which is not mine and open to everyone to edit). The change doesn’t “justify notability” and when you use these words, it just tells me that you have a wrong understanding of the word “notability”. The notability of a topic does not depend on the wording of the corresponding Wikipedia article. As it stands, you continue to fail to give a non-evasive answer to my question of November 20th, 20h22, i.e. an answer that takes into account all sources mentioned above. — Bowsnehru (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The bylaw you lay down upon me that "You can make suggestions to expand the article for the sake of neutrality, but not before you have conceded that the topic is notable" is patently ridiculous. There's no buts about it.


 * Regarding Notability (people), I am sticking to the opinion of that KIRAC doesn't meet WP:GNG "significant" coverage. So you need to persuade me that KIRAC fulfills the additional criteria for notability under WP:CREATIVE.


 * If you are claiming the articles you've listed are shows KIRAC to satisfy WP:CREATIVE, then demonstrate it to us by adding such content into the KIRAC article, rather than write it here, is what I am suggesting.


 * This "evasive" charge you are now laying against me, also very disingenuous. I already indicated I'm not going out of my way to access the WP:PAYWALL Dutch papers, or the Italian book not previewable to me.
 * Obviously I don't think it is worth might time to read up every article you bring up on figures I don't consider to meet notability. So it makes sense that either you show it to me specifically or I don't believe you.--Kiyoweap (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It just seems absurd to me to discuss the text of the article before we have agreed that an article on the topic should actually exist. And I think that this discussion page is the right place to have that discussion on existence (i.e.: on notability), whether you find that ridiculous or not. You don't have to read all the sources I bring up in this context, a quick look normally suffices to see if the topic is covered significantly or not.


 * The Italian book contains over a page on a particular KIRAC episode and is written by Elisa Cuter, who holds an academic position at the Konrad Wolf Film University. This is unlikely to happen to a non-notable web series. As for the sources behind a paywall, you seem to have missed my comment of November 16th. (I expanded the article again using one of these sources). — Bowsnehru (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The point is, Bowsnehru, if you merely name a source that I can't access, and you assure me there is content in it that proves KIRAC's notability, I am not inclined to believe you, due to your misrepresentations and miscontextualizations of the sources which I already explained.


 * Now, you characterize this Italian author as an "academic", but she is still just a graduate student/Ph.D. candidate. So this is not really clearly authority enough whatever she might say.


 * It is not ridiculous for me to insist that you explicitly write out what it is that your sources say. Your methodology of saying van der Lint is an art critic and she says some stuff amounting to so many words, or the film school student devoting 1 page in a book she was able to publish, that doe not work for me.


 * If you don't want to delineate that evidence through editing the article, that's fine. You can do it here, and use tref or whatever.
 * But stop using it as some excuse for not supplying that evidence, and expect me to accept your assurance that it proves notability. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.