Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumino Kinetic Art


 * 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. Nom withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lumino Kinetic Art

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Propose a merge to "new media art" - the term is no longer in use to describe what Popper originally intended in the 60s, it is now historically-specific. What is found in this article is *NOT* what Popper describes, and is COI with author Mark Allyn who it seems is trying to sell his art under this moniker: http://www.allyn.com/kinetic/kinetic.html Deadchildstar (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Deadchildstar (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge sounds good. An AfD isn't needed to propose that outcome though, for future reference. You can propose a merge and solicit input at Content noticeboard or the appropriate project page or elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As the nom has explained on the article's talk page, there are likely COI, BIAS and ADVERT. But why not improve the article, deleting the offensive statements and "describe what Popper originally intended in the 60s" and the actual fate of his intentions?  The term seems notable enough for a short stand-alone article, with a See Also ref to New media art or whatever. The mismatch between the article text and references is solely because an uninformed and topic-ignorant editor (me) added the refs to refute an OR claim, as a dePROD rationale. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As an article on its own - I have a feeling it's not notable/article worthy. It's not a big thing, and the term is not used in current new media discourse. It seems, from the small amount of research I've done on the topic, it was a very specific and short-lived concept/phrase. An article would be quite short, and weak with few or sketchy sources. The same or similar things exist, but they're called different things now. I'm sure someone could improve the article - a Frank Popper expert for instance - but that's not going to be me, and in the meantime, it seems to make sense that it could roll into history of new media. I didn't know about Merge options, as ChildofMidnight recommended, or I just would have suggested that.Deadchildstar (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just read over the article and looked around a bit. 1) I think there's hardly anything salvageable from this current article. But also 2) - my mistake, it should merge with Kinetic Art (not new media) - there is even a heading in that article for "lumino kinetic artists" (with no supporting context on what that is - and only one artist listed!). The Kinetic Art article isn't too bad, other than it needs more inline citations, and there's WAY more information to be found on Kinetic Art as a whole than on this specific sub-genre, given its long history. What do you think? Deadchildstar (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Notability does not expire, if it was notable even for a short while, it is still notable today. The acid test for "article worthiness" is whether the subject has received multiple independent coverage in reliable sources.  This is all that matters.  Another outcome could be a merge and redirect into a Frank Popper article.  I dont have the knowledge nor the interest to delevelop this.  If nobody feels comfortable about making those improvement, the article could be pruned and tagged with  which I read is your prime concern.  But I dont like the idea that a few ill-informed editors delete content, see WP:PRESERVE.  Anyway, as a layperson, I would like to see a RS that this Lumino Art really is a subset of New media art before the merge takes place. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I searched JStor, and found a far more recent (1993) article by Frank Popper: "The Place of High-Technology Art in the Contemporary Art Scene." by Frank Popper. Leonardo, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1993), pp. 65-69. Published by: The MIT Press.
 * In it, he revisits his research from 30 years prior (the 60s) and discusses predecessors to new media art - he refers to it as "High Technology Art" because of the obvious and long-standing problems with the tern "new" media (this is a whole ongoing debate within new media art discourse - is there a better term?). Without uploading the whole PDF, I'll quote the following and you can tell me if it answers your doubts: "That these artists using new techniques participated more than 20 years ago in the first European Light-Art exhibitions establishes some proof of the continuity and coherence of high-technology art and provides an important link with present-day research. If kinetic and luminokinetic art in general can be regarded as a significant starting-point in the context of high-technology art, the specific area of neon art is particularly illuminating as to the continuity of aesthetic preoccupations linked with technological advancement." (Popper).
 * Also keep in mind that a Jstor search (journals only) brings up 8 references to "Lumino Kinetic" - and more than half are by Frank Popper himself, it's his term. The other articles reference Popper in context of the term. A search for "Kinetic Art" brings up 31 results, and a search for "new media" brings up 235. I'd also agree with a re-direct to Frank Popper, as well as one to Kinetic Art.Deadchildstar (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I'm researching this - one of the external sources listed on the LKA article points to this site: which is published through the Pompidou Centre in Paris. It clearly places "Lumino Kinetic Art" as a subset of Kinetic Art: "There are different forms of kinetic art, including machines and mobiles, as well as lumino-kinetic works involving light and movement." There is no individual entry for Lumino Kinetic Art in their glossary. Deadchildstar (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

- Oxford Art Online offers the following sentence fragment as part of a larger list, to the topic, under the larger heading of Kinetic Art: "Frank Joseph Malina (1912–81), Schöffer and György Kepes in that of lumino-kinetic experiment." - I searched through each of the aforementioned Popper articles at Jstor - and there is only a mention in passing of the term - If you go to Google Books, and search within Popper's book "Origins and Development of Kinetic Art," you'll see 3 instances of the word "lumino," two of which refer to Schoffer. - It is an art historical term in the context of kinetic art, Popper states as much in the article I referred to earlier - there is no lumino kinetic art after the early 70s; it stands as a pre-cursor to other contemporary cybernetic, robotic, new media-based arts, and is limited to a very small number of (male) European avant-garde artists (part of the New Tendencies movement). It is also aligned with Op art in the late 60s because the moving lights were spectacular and psychedelic. - I still contend that an article on Lumino Kinetic Art is going to be two sentences, and it's better served in context of Kinetic Art, which is not such a terrible article. We can just move these references over there, and more importantly, remove the *advertising* off this current page. Why we're showing the article creator's hack jewelry and not some real examples is beyond me. That is all. Deadchildstar (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems I'm talking to myself on this one. I've now researched the crap out of this. No matter what happens to the article, I can tell you that the content of the article as it stands currently has got to go, it's wrong. The term itself is disputed as to it's origins - there was an early cybernetics artist, Nicolas Schöffer, who used the term in the 50s, and then artist/engineer Frank Malina who came up with the Lumidyne system of lighting, and artist Nino Calos working after him who seemed to work with the term "Limino-kinetic paintings." However -


 * You are not talking to yourself. I'm on the fence, reading, as I simply don't have the knowledge you have.  You have, however, just provided the heck of a good input to a completely revised article on the historical use of Lumino kinetic art.  I agree that the current content has to go, but with the revised input of yours, the article itself doesnt have to.  I will try to produce a draft change tomorrow, hoping that you will provide the specifics on the refs. Thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Close as keep Although I stated above that I couldnt care less about this topic, I have nevertheless completely rewritten the article based on the excellent research by Deadchildstar.  Please check, as I'm a novice here. The content is to be kept, and whether it should possibly be merged into kinetic art is a discussion unsuitable for AfD.  Article improvement has no room in AfD either, but I'm very pleased that an AfD nominator has worked so contructively in providing content. Thx. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I nominated it because it was sitting around in PROD going nowhere.... that, and the article was total bs crap. But nice job rewriting it! Though I still think it' an extraordinarily minor "movement" that doesn't need it's own article, this article is no longer deletion-worthy. I'll tweak it a bit too.... Ugh, do I withdraw the nomination? I don't know how to do that. Deadchildstar (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2009 (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.