Template talk:Relational art

Rationale for inclusion

My thinking is that inclusion in at least one of the significant art museum shows that claimed to survey or showcase this scene of art qualifies an artist for inclusion on the list, i.e.,

Traffic Theanyspacewhatever Touch

That is, they will inevitably be mentioned in the accompanying literature for ref., hence, list is currently incomplete, particularly as two of those three shows are in "page does not exist" state as of now (anyone interested?)

And in any case there could be other shows added, or other criteria, but this is a robust starting point--Artiquities (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One rationale that needs to be applied is that an included article should contain mention of the subject, in this case "relational aesthetics". I haven't checked them all out, but certainly some of these don't mention it, so the reader going to the article will find nothing about the subject which interests them. Either they need to be removed from the template, or sourced material concerning the relevance of these articles to relational aesthetics needs to be added to them per usual editing considerations of WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, and particulary WP:SYN, i.e. the source must directly link the article subject with relational aesthetics. Some immediately suspect articles are in the following sections:

E.g. Nicholas Serota does not mention relational aesthetics.

Ty 12:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relational Art

There are those who would argue that the tendency is Relational Art while the Bourriaud book is titled Relational Aesthetics, however, when all-is-said-and-done it is the latter term that remains prevalent in common usage to refer to this group.

--Artiquities (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]