Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bum Art

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bum Art[edit]

Long and carefully written, but vanity/hoax/spam. Google for "bum art" returns 300, but take a good close look, almost nothing actually matches this, and what does, at least on my first page of results, was a blog. See also author profile. — Bill 20:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • ""Aaron Carlson" art" returns only 210 Google hits, none of which on the first page are related. Delete, hoax. - RedWordSmith 21:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Probably not a hoax, but too obscure to be verifiable. Somewhat agree with Improv below. - RedWordSmith 17:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN. Amusing. May even be encyclopedic someday, see Ern Malley, but the bar is getting higher every year. Andrewa 21:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm the writer of this article, so let me defend it. I did start Bum Art and one could call this a vanity page, but the ideas of the movement have actually spread beyond my own work. The page is unfinished because I am waiting on pictures from MCAD (Minneapolis College of Art and Design) where there are several members of this school producing paintings. We have had several showings in Minneapolis (at the Fallout and at Hard Times Cafe) and many people have been a part of our "gatherings". I understand the feeling that this is a vanity article, and I would be completely willing to remove many of the personal details and take my own name, and take Aaron Carlson's name off the page, essentially deleting most of the history. I will however protest the entire article's removal. This is a legitimate art movement that is in it's infancy, yes, but has reached many people. There isn't any internet presence because most of the Bum Art movements are best described as "happenings" (although I destest the word). We meet and paint together, coming out with 10-12 paintings with about 20 people involved in the spontaneous act of painting. There was a page dedicated to it, but it was removed because no one in the movement is really interested in keeping up a website.(bloody long link). Here I gave a presentation to the local High School about Bum Art and they asked us to make a page. All I ask is that the history, which I agree does seem vain, be the only part deleted.

P.S. Were there some legitimate pictures involved with this picture, and more of an emphasis on the historical influences and the progression of this art form, would this be more acceptable?

By the way, that is a vote to keep. --TheGrza 22:02, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

    • I've removed all mention of myself. The only reason that I'm the one to write the article is that I'm the one who knows the most about it. The publication of "The Bum Manifesto" has layed out all the ideology, but as the author (of the philosophy not the manifesto; this seemed unclear), I'm the foremost authority. --TheGrza 22:41, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: You are I see a student, and that's not a criticism, you have made many good contributions. But your being the foremost authority on this doesn't exactly make it sound like an encyclopedic subject. I'm even wondering, are you perhaps the only authority? Incidentally, thanks for changing your vote from oppose to keep, that makes it a lot clearer. Please consider using strikethrough (like this) when changing part of a thread so following comments don't lose their coherence. No change of vote. Andrewa 23:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not the only source on Bum Art, and I'm currently trying to get a copy of "The Bum Manifesto", a piece written by an Artist in Minneapolis which, as I said, details much of the philosophy. There are other people who know this philosophy and practice it whenever they decide to be "creative" (a complicated term in Bum Art). I just happen to be the foremost authority because I introduced this idea to these other people and the very premise of this philosophy is in its stoicism, in its rigidity, remaining unchanged regardless of contribution by others so as to stay pure (unlike my beloved Wikipedia).--TheGrza 23:12, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC) (still voting to keep.)
    • I have now added the great Mose Tolliver to the page, Mose being a well known southern artist (who should have his own page!!!) who utilized many of the same techniques and inspired the movement more than anyone. I think with the rewording, the reorganizing, a picture of an actual Bum Art piece and the removal of all supposed "vanity" connections, and the fact that many people ARE interested in this form of expression (regardless of internet hits), this article should not be removed. --TheGrza 00:23, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral: Is this perhaps better known by some other name? Assuming it's real (and not just one or two people) it might qualify as interesting enough that its obscurity should not be held against it. -- Jmabel 00:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • It specifically isn't known by any other name. It is derived from many sources which resemble it, and you've heard of those, Dada, Taoist painting techniques, surrealism, Buddhist sculpture, Ghandian economic theory, all of these look a lot like parts of Bum Art, but it is an offshoot of all of them. And I again assure that it is real and it started a technique that is continuing to gain momentum. --TheGrza 00:44, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Obviously not a lot of web citations. TheGrza, can you give us print citations? The problem, as I see it, looks mostly like one of verifiability. Mose Tolliver does, indeed, merit an article, but does he associate himself with this term "Bum Art"? Has some significant critic used it in talking about his work? Even one citation to that effect would, in my mind be sufficient to keep. (BTW, I find 22,000 Google citations for "Tramp art", which lacks an article). -- Jmabel 05:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • No Vote. But congratulations to all the participants in this discussion. It is a real pleasure to see Vfd and Wikipedia working exactly the way it shouldwork. A sensible and mature discussion about a tricky subject. ping 06:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I actually have a print copy of "The Bum Manifesto" a newspaper article written about Bum Art. I'm in the process of retrieving it (the author has a copy) so I'll try and get it this weekend at least.--TheGrza 06:53, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not yet notable enough to keep. Bum luck. --Improv 14:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this a case where if we vote to delete it would be appropriate for TheGrza to move this to his user area with the possibility of working on it further and demonstrating notability at a later date? -- Jmabel 17:39, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • I really want to keep this article in some way until I get my hands on some actual evidence of the existence of Bum Art, so if the votes to delete continue, could we possibly move it to my User Page? --TheGrza 00:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: That's an excellent idea. If by some accident it gets deleted without you keeping a copy, any sysop can still provide you with one, that's part of our job here and I'd be happy to. I'm not sure we have any procedure for then moving it back to the article namespace, but I'm sure we can manage it. At worst votes for undeletion. Andrewa 16:59, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a good article. But it's clearly not yet a notable art movement.--Tomheaton 19:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is notable, despite being obscure. There is a difference between the two. --L33tminion 19:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A far more legit form of expression than the previously examined airplane graffiti, which was approved on much more tenuous grounds. Denni☯ 01:46, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
  • Delete for non-notability. There is such a thing as "Tramp Art", but this ain't it. func(talk) 18:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we have the opportunity to accept an art movement before its contributers are dead and buried. Can we actually be upset that the author is the philosopher, rather than someone who cannot truly express his intentions? Since he has deleted his name from the text, this is clearly more than a vanity project. I feel it is authentic, fascinating, and a valuable contribution.

  • keep this. Anna nym 20:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Anna nym's only contributions are to this page, account started after vote began. func(talk) 01:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I am new to wikipedia, and this was my first contribution. I can only apologize for becoming a member after the vote began. I assure you, however, that my vote was sincere and I have made several contributions since.Anna nym 05:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have returned with some form of evidence (however small) of Bum Art. Here is a newspaper article about the seminar I gave. Bum Article
--TheGrza 03:42, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly not a hoax, but I've come to think that (at least at present) it is below the threshhold of notability. TheGrza: suggest you just move this to your user area, where it would be perfectly acceptable; if the term gets broader currency beyond your own use — numerous newspaper citations, many artists identifying themselves with the term, etc. — I'd encourage you then to work on it further and demonstrate notability? -- Jmabel|Talk 19:03, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


Well, I guess trying to introduce some new information to the world was...say, a losing proposition?--TheGrza 07:50, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is about getting you new information, that's why we link articles to other articles; to introduce people to new things (to them, not to the world) and so my use of words was inaccurate and I apologize. This is information that would be new to many people and I think it should be in. Also, this post does little to betray the humor with which the previous post was made. Thanks, --TheGrza 06:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is precisely not about introducing new information to the world: see Wikipedia:No original research. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:51, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bum_Art&oldid=1071110400"