Talk:Forced Entertainment

Durational performance

This article makes repeated mentions of "durational performance". What does this mean? (There doesn't seem to be an article about it.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.marinaabramovicinstitute.org/mission/long-durational-work describes it as "A long durational work is any work (of music, opera, film, theater, performance art, science, and others) the performance of which exceeds six hours. The performer’s use of time is a crucial element of this genre. By slowing down, lengthening, or repeating actions normally unexamined, a long durational work encourages both its performers and audience to step outside of traditional conceptions of time and examine what this experience means to them.". I've altered the article to instead say 'long durational performance, do you think that explains it enough? -Lopifalko (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a lot better, yes. (I think that the concept cries out for an article of its own, though I'm far too lazy sorry busy to attempt it.) As an aside, I'd say that "long durational work" sounds slightly odd; I'd say "long-duration work". Well actually no, I'd say "long work". Though "long work" might suggest a work that's either longer than average or in need of trimming: totally inadequate here. So perhaps "durational work" would be best after all, IFF explained somewhere, somehow. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Long references

The text in some of the references is curiously long, to the point where I wonder about copyright. (Is it stuffed into the references with the intention of later editing and movement to the article proper?) Indeed, one of the references goes on and on until it seemingly runs out of puff in mid-sentence: And, she says, in more recent projects such as the epic game of questions and answers, Quizoola,; here at least, something needs to be done sooner rather than later. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've included every bit of text that is in the original that supports what is written in the article, that the ref is providing backing for. I thought that was the way to do it, am I wrong? Let me know, I'd be pleased to learn, thanks. I thought that the quote was supposed to provide evidence in case the source was lost from the web. In your example of Quizoola, I've quoted enough to show that the performance 'Quizoola' was mentioned to have existed by a reliable source, to support its inclusion in the list of performances. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've seen such bulky quotation within references on occasion, but I've rarely seen the point of it, and the practice isn't recommended anywhere I notice within Wikipedia:Citing sources. When worried that an important source might disappear, I've used WebCite. (I'm happy to notice that this is no longer begging for money in order to survive.) ¶ Within And, she says, in more recent projects such as the epic game of questions and answers, Quizoola, we seem to have what promises to be a subordinate clause but instead proceeds {adjunct}, {subject}, {end}; this looks very wrong to me. If this were in the body, I might paraphrase it as She gives "the epic game of questions and answers, Quizoola" as an example. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all the quotes from refs, apart from those taken from printed books and those that support awards. -Lopifalko (talk)