Talk:Blue Dress Park

"Dimensions"

What exactly do the "dimensions" named in the infobox ("300 cm × 370 cm (120 in × 144 in)") refer to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the size of the concrete expanse the artist has appropriated to create the artwork. Jgmikulay (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Blue Dress Park is an Art project

I am the artist that created Blue Dress Park. I am new to the wikipedia community, I wanted to join in the conversation regarding Blue Dress Park started by Future Perfect but, because the page is protected, I could not make comments on this user's page. I hope that Futrue Perfect and Jheald will join in this conversation.

For good or bad, art has become, or more likely it always was, a specialized discipline. Ignorance of historical precedents will lead to confusion, not unlike trying to understand 21st century science without understanding 19th century science, or contemporary philosophy without knowledge of it's precedents. Art's reliance on material objects ended in the 1960's, this evolution in thinking and intention was begun much earlier than that by Marcel Duchamp among others. Regarding my art practice, and Blue Dress Park, I suggest the wiki articles on Allan Kaprow, Happenings, and Relational Aesthetics for an understanding of context and lineage. The creation of Blue Dress Park is referred to as an art happening in Mary Louis Schumacher's article, Milwaukee as Canvas, June 15, 2001, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article was not cited in earlier version of the Blue Dress park entry, but Schumacher's more recent reporting on Blue Dress Park was cited. Mary Louise Schumacher is the Arts and Architecture writer for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, she wrote about Blue Dress Park because it is an art project. Because her job is writing about art, her writing presumes this as understood, so it is a bit of a red herring to demand a sentence that proclaims something is art as Future Perfect seems to demand. Future Perfect and Jheald's commentary about art is the same as the conservative voices that berated Impressionism because they couldn't make out a clear subject matter.

The form and intention of art has evolved over time – just as the compiling and distribution of encyclopedic information has evolved over time. I appreciate skepticism, but I'm unclear as to why admitted novices thought it reasonable to ignore an expert source. I feel that the tone of talk regarding this article, along with its editing, portrays the wiki community as out of touch. It would seem unfortunate that the wiki community is stuck in the 1920's when they have such an expansive role to play in the culture of information. Drück 11 (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)