Talk:Remodernism

[Untitled][edit]

Is this word used by anybody other than the stuckists? If not, is there any reason for it to have a separate page - can't the info just be incorporated into stuckism? --Camembert

I'm afraid this is en route to becoming a mainstream concept Camembert so best we leave it as is. user:sjc

Fair enough. It's a new one on me, I must admit. --Camembert

Ahem! I submit that this 'movement' has gone nowhere, and takes up far too much brain space on wiki. I think Stuckism itself is barely viable at present, but of course I could be wrong...Actio 07:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)actio[reply]

I've never heard of Stuckism or Remodernism but nor have I ever heard of Cubism. Bus stop 07:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of refs for Stuckism, and Remodernism was started by them, but has been taken up by other groups too. It also has refs, so I don't see a major issue. We don't make personal assessments of things: we go by verifiable sources. Tyrenius 07:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds similar (But not identical) to the term 'New Sincerity', which had it's article pulled down a year ago. I definately think we need a page on what is a very apparent and growing cultural change from Postmodernism, but perhaps a page that includes various art theories instead of seperate pages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.153.12.126 (talk • contribs).

You can always start a page (if you register a user name). However, beware of writing an essay. It should be drawn from secondary sources per WP:ATT. This is not incompatible with separate articles also. Tyrenius 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]