Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitsch controversy in Sarasota, Florida


 * 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kitsch controversy in Sarasota, Florida

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An essay (and not a bad one at all) that originally (and negatively) synthesizes material about the styrofoam creation of some artist. (Or of some kitschist, but I remain neutral on this issue.) The lead and list of further reading are particularly grand and impressive, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for such polemics.

This styrofoam creation seems to have long exerted a horrifying fascination over the author of this article, who has been most insistent here that its details and dreadfulness should be written up within an article on a much older photograph by somebody unrelated. (I temporarily forgot about that a short time ago when I impatiently deleted two entire paragraphs about it from that article.) The artist claims that it's based on another, much less celebrated photograph taken of the same scene, and trivia hounds as well perhaps as lawyers are most concerned about this distinction (keyword here: legs).

There's already a fair amount on this thing (or the set thereof) in the article on the artist. If this isn't sufficient, then I suppose an article could be written on this set of sculptures. However such an article shouldn't be an OS of various expressions of disgruntlement and charges of kitsch. If there's to be a controversy, let it be concocted and confected elsewhere, and then written up on Wikipedia. (Oh, if anyone's interested: Of course I'd agree that kitsch is endemic within the art that sells for very major moolah. Robert Hughes is among the critics who have kindly provided plenty of examples for our black amusement over the years. And yes, this looks like kitsch to me. But I'm just a nobody; my opinions don't matter.)

Now, for a work of art (or of kitsch, or merely of PR flatus) that's generated a controversy that needs description rather than stoking at Wikipedia, consider "For the Love of God". The article deals with the artifact, and then goes into the brouhaha and the "controversy"; and nothing about the write-up suggests that the authors are worked up about the matter one way or another. This is the way an art (or not) controversy should be written up -- IFF there is any sizable controversy to write up in the first place. -- Hoary (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS There's more about the genesis of this article in Talk:Kitsch. -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep After a quick read I see in-line citations from The Washington Post, People Magazine, the San Diego Union-Tribune and other smaller sources, which significantly lessens any arguments of pure original research (as well as notability). Not being original research then, this is an issue of bias and neutrality, and wikipedia's standard AfD policy is that issues of bias be addressed by improving or altering the article, not deleting it.  I'm completely unfamiliar with any arguments or theories about either kitsch or this artist or work, but as a matter for AfD this article seems to clearly pass wikipedia's guidelines.  Improve the article, suggest it be merged to the artists article, etc, and work toward consensus.  If consensus cannot be reached on these things, then it's an error to think one would find such here in AfD. -Markeer 13:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The WashPo articles are not ones we can read without paying for the pleasure, but I note that even the WP article summarizes one as about an exhibit in "a reputable museum in Washington, D.C." and the other as about goings-on in N.J. The People article is about something in N.J. and was published 21 years before these allegedly kitschy erections appeared. None of these three is about Sarasota, Fl. The San Diego Union Tribune article, by that paper's art critic, is relevant (though again hardly about Sarasota). As for the Sarasota Herald Tribune material, we're offered an angry letter from somebody describing himself as a veteran and editor, a video (on which I cannot comment, as all I see is "Click here to download plugin"), and a long and interesting article about legal issues that hardly raises the question of kitschiness and certainly does not present any clear charge that the thing is kitsch or relate any kitsch controversy. So yes, sources that can't be immediately dismissed are neatly cited, but vanishingly little of this is solid information on (or noteworthy allegations about) any kitsch controversy in Sarasota. Rather, it's just miscellaneous dirt about the hapless artist. -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Unconditional surrender (sculpture). There's enough third party coverage   to justify an article about the work. The so-called kitsch controversy doesn't seem to exist - although there appears to be some dispute over copyright.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not implacably opposed to that proposal, but when I consider the history of en:WP coverage of Seward Johnson's works (including the article on him in its current state), I worry that a newly renamed article would merely present an opportunity for the continuation of one editor's personal campaign to persuade readers that these works are of minimal worth: derivative, kitschy, made by others, titillating (upskirt!), dependent for exposure on Johnson's own personal wealth, etc. Any small real-world controversy or dispute has been maximized in en:WP (though I don't think Johnson has yet been charged with any involvement in the Touchdown Jesus). -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but is WP:N...?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Explanation of possibly cryptic comment: Hoary's arguments for delete have validity, but if an article has multiple sources it meets WP:N.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To redirect -- "There's bias in this article and I'm worried that there might be bias in the future" is emphatically NOT an argument for AfD. Take that to the talk page and seek consensus. -Markeer 02:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rightly or wrongly, it or something like it has recently been a persuasive argument for AfD: see AfD/Six Families of Berlin. (And no I am not saying that the articles are cut from the same cloth or that there's any racism here.) "Attack page" (a policy page) starts: An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Now, to say that this page was created primarily to disparage its subject would be to ascribe a particular motivation to its creator, and I'm reluctant to do that. And a good wikilawyer would add that the page doesn't disparage its ostensible subject: a controversy. But move it to "Unconditional surrender (sculpture)", as Ethicoaestheticist suggests above, and it could indeed be reasonably considered to be an attack on its subject. And this edit does raise the possibility that the creator of this article has it in for Johnson. I quote: There is no current issue about kitsch that is more focused on the nature of kitsch, its appeal to the numb audiences being satisfied by the kitsch, the motivations of the creators of the kitsch, and opposition resounding from the professional and critical art arenas -- than this case. [...] [P]ermanent acceptance at unrelated venues has failed [Johnson] until this elderly "donor" [...] has been used by Johnson and many sycophants to assure that the twenty-five-feet-tall example of quintessential kitsch be placed at the most public place in a city that is noted for its cultural values and appreciation of fine art. [...] Essentially [Johnson] is giving it away so that he can deny that his work is kitsch as it has been labeled since the 1980s. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, but make it un-essay-fied It shouldn't read like an essay. IJA (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IJA, what reliable evidence do you think there is for there having been any "kitsch controversy" in Sarasota, Florida? As I have stated above, I find remarkably little evidence, and Ethicoaestheticist bluntly writes above: "The so-called kitsch controversy doesn't seem to exist". (Or what is this "it" that you think is worthy of preservation once unessayfied?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2010 (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.