Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techspressionism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scribe1791 (talk | contribs) at 12:07, 15 March 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Techspressionism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Techspressionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Techspressionism has no reliable sourcing that it is an art movement or style. The portmanteau coined by an artist, but it entirely his own invention. The references in the article point to interivews, press releases and self created website. There is no reliable sourcing. https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ is a puff piece on Colin Goldberg. https://www.27east.com/arts/techspressionism-a-global-movement-with-local-roots-1933155/ refers exclusively to Goldberg's self named style. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ has a quote by Goldberg naming his own art. Techspressionism is part of a walled garden created by COI accounts. There is no alternative to deletion. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please see my reasoning below. Scribe1791 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Scribe1791 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates I feel that an accurate definition of Techspressionism is that it is a community of artists.
Christiane Paul, Digital Art Curator at the Whitney Museum, stated in a discussion on Techspressionism (which I moderated):
"One thing that I like about Techspressionism is that as a term, it can transcend boundaries, and in terms of the question of whether we need to clearly delineate things, I am all for openness, and I think Techspressionism already fulfills an important function if there are artists aligning themselves with that term and finding a platform to discuss issues that are relevant to their work; that is always a function that makes a term valuable."
Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Glurhxyms&t=1478s Scribe1791 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per WP:RSP, Wired is considered a RS and I'm not sure how a quote from the artist who coined the term would invalidate that. Most of the arguments here made for Keep are completely irrelevant though. YordleSquire (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hashtag #techspressionism is widely used on social media by artists around the world to refer to their technology-based artwork, with over 71K posts using the hashtag on Instagram as of today: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/techspressionism. For the sake of transparency, I am the artist who coined the term, and like any term, it has an inventor. To be clear, the term was defined as neither "an art movement or style", but as an artistic approach in which technology is utilized as a means to express emotional experience. This definition was created in 2020 by a group of artists (Patrick Lichty, Steve Miller (artist), Oz Van Rosen, and myself) as well as the art historian and critic Helen A. Harrison, who is well-respected in her field. It would seem that at this point, the term became something beyond a "portmanteau" describing my work alone, although it certainly started that way. The 27 East article that you stated "refers solely to Goldberg's self-named style" is about an exhibition which I curated that was comprised of the work of more than 90 artists working with technology from over 20 countries, and thus clearly did not represent "my personal style." Moreover, to address another editor's comment in the article's revision history: "(Techspressionism) was one show, not a "movement": the activities of the community are ongoing, as evidenced by the group's monthly meetups on Zoom (Techspressionist Salons) in which artists from different countries gather to share work related to art and technology and discuss ideas. There have been 80 of these meetups since 2020, and they are archived here: https://techspressionism.com/salon/ There is also an active Techspressionists Facebook Group, to which I will post a link to this discussion, so hopefully other members of the community can weigh in on whether the term is simply a description of my own work. To state "there is no alternative to deletion" shows an unwillingness to consider any sides of this discussion other than your own. Scribe1791 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    very well said and reasoned. seems a bit silly to dismiss this term you had originally coined and have since championed through it's growing community and reach. It evolves not only with the technology used by artists but it relevance in the art market and institutions. It that way it is like every other art style and movement that has emerged in the last few centuries. Mwoody37 (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Mwoody37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Being only an 'occasional' editor on WP I'm not sure of how to engage in a debate here, but I will try.
1) As an artist who sees his work well described by Techspressionism as a term, I'm a bit confused as to where the deletion author comes to the conclusion that it is simply a Goldberg portmanteau. I identify my work as Techspressionist. See my work as example (https://leeday.photography).
2) As you can see from the references above in Instagram and other physical and online forums there is a substantive group of people who also identify as Techspressionist Artists.
3) Furthermore if Whitney Museum Curator of Digital Art Christiane Paul and Helen A. Harrison, Director of the Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center can debate the significance of Techspresionism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Glurhxyms) then it would seem a worthy subject to include in Wikipedia.
Finally, if the article needs work then I would suggest this retention category WP:POTENTIAL certainly applies. poltergeister (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. The movement, while relatively new, is established, there are artists, who are considering themselves as part of it. There are exhibitions, there's a community, there are publications. One could also find it strange that the proponent of the deletion didn't engage with the editors on the talk page, but instead suggested it directly for a deletion. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note to closer there's a !vote on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Techspressionism that should be included in the assesment. It's not in English but is accessible via google translate Star Mississippi 12:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it now has been added below. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wikipedia article on Techspressionism should not be a candidate for deletion. The four articles you mention with their focus on - Colin  Goldberg “ puff piece” and “self named style” do not adequately address the totality of what techspressionism is. You mention it is an art movement or style.Techspressionism is an “approach” rather than a movement or style. https://techspressionism.com/artists/. Colin Goldberg is not alone in ushering in this approach.There are a number of notable artists who are a part of this approach.https://techspressionism.com/artists/. Goldberg strives toward a model of decentralized social sculpture created by participating artists akin to the German artist, Joseph Beuys who believes that “social sculpture could potentially reshape society and politics.”
You point out articles that only speak of Colin Goldberg’s artistic practice. Take the time to do a thorough reading of the Techspressionism website. Visit the link below to see the work of other techspressionists artists such as Oz Van Rosen, Steve Miller, Patrick Lichty, and many others who join Goldberg in this approach. https://techspressionism.com/history/. Please note the number of artists listed in the index. https://techspressionism.com/artists/  Also note that techspressionism has 78.K international artists that use the hashtag #techspressionist on social media. Many of these artists meet at our monthly online salons moderated by several different artists.
The Techspressionism group advisor Helen Harrison, director of the Pollack-Kasner Museum is also an art historian, museum director, critic, artist and journalist who specializes in Modern American Art. In her interview with Colin Goldberg she discusses Techspressionism. She sees it as an “approach” that uses technology in a subjective way revealing internal feelings.See “Art in Focus: What the Heck is Techspressionism?”
Lastly, watch the interview between Christiane Paul, curator of digital Art at the Whitney Museum and Helen Harrison in a discussion focusing on Techspressionism as it relates to art historical movements of the past. https://techspressionism.com/video/roundtable/curators-in-conversation/
The Techspressionism Wikipedia article should be retained. Cynthiadidonato (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Cynthiadidonato (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment and suggestion - I have noticed that some editors are repeatedly refactoring/editing their previous comments/arguments. In an AfD it's probably best practices is to strike your earlier comment (if you change your mind) but leaving it visible, then add the changes with a notation that it is new text. For example: This is old stuff and (revised) this is new stuff. This is performed by adding <s> before the text you want to strike, followed with </s> at the end of the text you want to strike. This simple procedure helps others to follow discussions/thoughts better. Please consider doing so if your comments or !votes change. Thanks. Netherzone (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though I'm here to argue in favor to Keep this page, I don't know Colin and I first became aware of Techspressionism in 2021 through noticing artists using the hashtag and have since become conscious of both the community and the greater sphere of Techspressionism slowly over the past couple of years.
I have found many great artists through Techspressionism as a hashtag and do believe it has gained a life beyond it's creator and the creator's inner circle, and I take note that even on the creator's website it states that anyone who claims to be a Techspressionist is a Techspressionist. It is not exclusive, and it is a way for many artists working in modern tech modes to give a name to what they do. To delete this article would be premature, I believe it is being adopted and growing more with the passing of time and with the ever increasing influx of tech in our modern art world. The entire sphere is likely still coming into focus and while there may be collective debates about what "is" or "isn't" Techspressionism on the road ahead, Techspressionism itself most certainly subsists.
It's growth is of a modern virality itself through artist profiles, posts, tags and a collective consciousness, rather than PR articles or outmoded promotions of that nature. MarioCCult (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — MarioCCult (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to all participants please put your comments at the bottom of the page, such as I have done here. Click edit and scroll down. @Scribe1791: may I suggest you close up the spacing in your comment so editors don't think it's finished. That's what's leading to some of the astray comments landing in the middle of yours. (To be clear, there's nothing wrong with yours, people just don't realize you're not done). Thanks. Star Mississippi 02:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Star Mississippi - I am not exactly sure how to do that without messing up the formatting of the entire thread, as my technical expertise here is fairly limited - if you are able to assist, that would be great. Scribe1791 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've done so, leaving your keep and your further comment distinct, but please feel free to restore if you think a line break was key to your meaning. Thank you Star Mississippi 01:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for guidance As of March 13 a major contributor to the article Techspressionism has WP:CANVASSed on Instagram, Facebook, and their own talk page. What are the suggested next steps to get this conversation back on track and within the recognized Wikipedia boundaries of discussion? Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WomenArtistUpdates, in your request for deletion it appears that your primary concern is that Techspressionism is simply a "portmanteau" that describes my personal artistic output, with no sourcing to prove otherwise. I have made other members of the Techspressionist community aware of this discussion so that they can weigh in, and actually stated above that I would post a link to the discussion on the Techspressionists Facebook Group. There was no effort made to disguise this action, as it was publicly stated directly. Is this something that is inappropriate if the very fact of whether there are other artists who identify with the term appears to be the primary issue? I was not aware of the term "canvassing" (within the context of Wikipedia) until looking it up just now, or the fact that obtaining public opinion outside Wikipedia is a no-no. It was also brought up in the discussion for deletion above (by a contributor I have no familiarity with) that you did not first raise your concerns in the article's talk page first. Wouldn't this approach be more aligned with a collaborative spirit, versus your declaration that "there is no alternative to deletion"? Lastly, regarding the question of sourcing referring to Techspressionism as a movement, I would point particpants in this discussion here. NB: it was not me who wrote the article, or its headline. Scribe1791 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-هنرمندانی از سراسر دنیا خودشان را با اصطلاح Techspressionism
    همراه دیدند و از این هشتگ استفاده کرده اند.
    Colin Goldberg
    هرگز از این از کلمه بعنوان به عنوان سازمان یا سبک استفاده نکرده و ازاین کلمه به منظور روش یا رویکرد استفاده کرده . اصطلاحی فرامرز که باعث همراهی هنرمندان زیادی از سراسر جهان شده و امروز هشتگ آن به 71.8 هزار رسیده است .
    ورود این اصطلاح به
    مثال دیگری از تایید این اصطلاخ می باشد . لطفا تمام منابع را مطالعه بفرمایید . Oxford University Press بعنوان یک لغت
    SAHARMOUSSAVI (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — SAHARMOUSSAVI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - I'm holding off on !voting on this AfD for now and am debating whether or not to spend the time to do a source analysis chart, which I may do after the SPA activity dies down. Regarding the subject, Techspressionism, I think it has cultural value, however am doubtful if it has encyclopedic value.
In the meantime, I've worked up some Google N-gram charts for the term/movement/style in relation to all these other terms: Techspressionism, Techspressionist art, Digital art, Computer art, Digital painting, Computer painting, Electronic art, New Media art, Multimedia art, Digital media art, Generative art, Systems art, Ars Electronica, Virtual art, Cybernetic art, Art and science, Technology and art, Augmented reality, Generative art, Algorithmic art, Computer graphics, - and came up cold with ZERO hits for Techspressionism and Techspresionist art in relation to these other terms. I will place screenshots of these on the talk page of this AfD. (Don't know how long these screenshots will remain on talk, they might be taken down by Commons.)
I also found zero hits on google books other than Colin Goldberg's self-published Blurb book. And found zero hits on JSTOR, zero hits on Oxford Art Online, zero hits on entire WP Library.
I do think, however, there is a viable alternative to deletion. This article could be redirected to or merged with Colin Goldberg, Digital art Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Netherzone; thanks for your thoughtful note on my user talk page; the links you provided did provide insight and make sense to me. I think that your proposal that the Techspressionism article and the Colin Goldberg merge makes sense; however I would like to see what you think about the proposal that the Colin Goldberg article should go away and be redirected to the Techspressionism article, or simply be deleted, if that makes more sense. I feel that Techspressionism is certainly more notable than I am as an individual artist, as it has grown into a sizable community with many other artists involved. For instance, we have our first museum show coming up in Brooklyn this summer, for which I am not a curator. The other artists in the group feel strongly about the importance of this community, and in this video, Whitney museum curator Christiane Paul discussed the importance of Techspressionism, not me as an individual artist. Regarding the Ngrams you posted, they are based on Google results up to 2019 and Techspressionism did not formulate into an artist group until 2020, so the outcome that there are minimal results in comparison to longstanding terms such as Digital art is predictable. However, Google shows about 12,300 results for "Techspressionism" vs About 4,990 results for "Colin Goldberg". I feel that Techspressionism is not a subset of Digital art and should not be merged into this article, as it encompasses artforms such as painting and sculpture. In fact, the term was created because of the inadequacy of Digital art as a term to describe work that is physical but created with the aid of technology, (such as my own, and that of many others in the community). Please let me know what you think about this line of reasoning. Also, I think the Techspressionism article should be the one that remains of the two since the article has already been deemed B-class (I'm not even really sure what that means), and the Colin Goldberg article is start-class. Certainly, I would add that any edits required to establish a neutral tone should be made. @WomenArtistUpdates, and @Netherzone, what are your thoughts about this proposed solution, and the rationale behind it? Scribe1791 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Scribe1791 Please read and think about the articles suggested to you on your talk page. I don't think you are understanding Wikipedia's policies about COI editing/involvement and behavior on talk pages and AFD pages. Your discussion fails to brings in any established wikipedia policies as reason for keep. I believe the article is WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates I read them, and respectfully disagree with your position. Note to closer: a cursory Google Scholar search on Techspressionism yields these results. I realize that the actual academic papers are behind a paywall, but I would assume that Google Scholar can capably index their contents. I also submit that the Master's thesis on the topic of Techspressionism by Vivian Lazaridou is currently under review by her university in Greece and was given to me by the author to post on the community website for feedback on a page with writings by notable artists in the community, as well as a short essay by art historian and critic Helen A. Harrison on the topic. Scribe1791 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Techspressionism&oldid=1213837224"