Talk:Neo-futurism

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Sustainable development#Culture|Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development Theory]] The anchor (#Culture) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Futurist architecture

More connections should be made with the original movement: Futurist architecture -- Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

This entry should be deleted. "Neo-futurism" is not a thing, outside of the experimental theater group, which is properly cited in Wiki. None of these references can survive scrutiny, and if they can, they still don't validate "neo-futurism" as a real thing, worthy of a wikipedia entry. Sorry. 50.141.72.131 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think deletion would be premature. Please allow more time for additional references to be added. Biscuittin (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be a small movement. You quite often get small groups of people using an existing term, such as that of Futurism, and piggybacking its notability to get exposure for their own works. Either way, I would wait a few days for references, and then put it forward for deletion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this looks as a personal editing warring by 209.162.18.52 and 50.141.72.131 (maybe the same person, I'm afraid). After his proposal of deletion has been reverted, he has deleted section after section. Over ten days, the article has been systematically destroyed. I'm not expert enough to give a judgement, Is there any administrator who can have a look at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.209.218.43 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 213.209.218.43: it was such an interesting article and it is being destroyed with unreasonable hostility! Why? Is it a personal resentment? is this acceptable? Architect77 (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is vandalism! This guy is killing an excellent article using multiple accounts! And giving inconsistent reasons: Jean-Louis Cohen is one of the most authoritative historian of architecture in the world and Professor in the History of Architecture at New York University Institute of Fine Arts. Check Wikipedia. And his definition of neo-futurism was canceled without a good reason, why? he wants to ask for a deletion again, that's why... 95.74.121.212 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't defend the 'vandal,' so to speak, but this article has problems. The first line refers to neo-futurism as a 21st century movement, and yet the gallery has many structures that were done during the 20th. The St. Louis Gateway Arch, for instance, is OLD. I was brought here by the article of Buckminster Fuller, and he died in 1983. If you can't tell us what century something is from, this does create a credibility problem. Also, and this is just personal musing, the nomenclature is problematic and recursive. How many times are we going to reinvent futurism? If I built a building today and designed it to look as futuristic as possible, would that be neo-neo-futurism? ChiffChaffThrush (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with your comment ChiffChaffThrush! My doctoral dissertation was on Neo-Futuristic architecture and I can't understand how I didn't notice it myself... nor anybody else :) I've adjusted the date now Archlover (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the party, but I completely agree with the OP: "Neo-futurism" hardly qualifies as a "thing", and certainly not in the way that it is being presented here. To wit: under the heading "Origins", it claims "Pioneered in the late 1960s and early 70s by thought leader Hal Foster; American architects Buckminster Fuller and John C. Portman, Jr.; Finnish-American architect and industrial designer Eero Saarinen, Archigram, a British avant-garde architectural group...based at the Architectural Association, London; American avant-garde architectural group ArchiGO, centered around the Illinois Institute of Technology; Danish architect Henning Larsen; Czech architect Jan Kaplický; Swedish artist Simon Stålenhag; Italian light sculptor Marco Lodola; American concept artist Syd Mead; American theatre screenwriter Greg Allen and Russian poets Andrei Voznesensky, Serge Segay and Rea Nikonova." Good fucking grief.

First, the syntax employed in that one sentence is so cumbersome as to nearly be illegible. Sequential semicolons are not a license to string 100 words together into one sentence.
Second, the claim is made that "neo-futurism" was "pioneered by thought-leader Hal Foster". The citation provided for Foster leads to a 404 error, but a little sleuthing came up with a cache of the page, which is a video from 1987, in which Prof. Foster is introduced thus: "Hal Foster begins by reciting the text of a recent newspaper ad in which AT&T argues for 'Telecommunity...a vast global network of networks, the merging of communications and computers...' Foster wonders if there is a kind of architecture that can resist 'Telecommunity.' He reviews and dismisses a range of options. Foster proposes a 'neofuturism' to critically engage contemporary technology in a world in which science no longer has any existence apart from economic life, creating an erosion of boundaries between bodies, machines, nature and artifice. Foster wonders what 'a valid technopolitics for the First World' might be. He discusses some possible positions, stressing the dominance of the 'permanent war economy'." (ellipses in the original) So if Foster is "proposing...neofuturism" in 1987, I fail to see how the "movement" could've begun in the late-1960s, especially since Foster was born in 1955 and would've been no older than 14 in the late-1960s.
Third, as for Buckminster Fuller somehow "pioneering 'neo-futurism'": rubbish. When Fuller died in 1983, his productive years were long behind him (the late-'60s were the end of them), and I doubt very much that he would've been sympathetic to his work being reframed thus. He saw himself and his work as pragmatic and outside of any "school" or "style".
The third paragraph in the lede claims "In the Western countries, futurist architecture evolved into Art Deco, the Googie movement and high-tech architecture, and finally into Neo-Futurism. Neo-futuristic urbanists, architects, designers and artists believe in cities releasing emotions, driven by eco-sustainability, ethical values and implementing new materials and new technologies to provide a better quality of life for city-dwellers." What, pray tell, does it mean to "believe in cities releasing emotions"? That sounds more like a sentence fragment than a cohesive idea. And actual modernism promoted "implementing new materials and new technologies to provide a better quality of life for city-dwellers", as early as the beginning of the 20th century. So...modernism plus "releas(ing) emotions", ethical values and eco-sustainability somehow equals neo-futurism?
Fifth, under the heading "Definition", it claims "Neo-futurism was relaunched in 2007 after the dissemination of 'The Neo-Futuristic City Manifesto'..." What does "relaunched" mean? Movements aren't generally described as "relaunched"; they're not product lines.
Finally, under "People", it claims "Neo-Futurist architects, designers and artists are French architect Denis Laming, American artists Josh Hadar, Erin Sparler, Marlow Rodale, Studio-X Lawrie Masson; Panayiotis Terzis, and Miguel Ovalle; urban-noise artist Joseph Young; French designer Patrick Jouin British artist Olivia Peake; Japanese designer Yuima Nakazato, Swedish artist Simon Stålenhag, Italian artist Luca Bestetti and Greek artist Charis Tsevis." Now I know I'm in the presence of nonsense. Who are most of these people?! Laming is known in French architectural circles, but many of the others are relatively non-notable. Marlow Rodale, for example, has a whopping 375 Google hits. I fail to see how an "urban-noise artist" such as Joseph Young is described, could possibly exemplify the aforementioned definition of neo-futurism ("eco-sustainability", "ethical values", etc.) (And there go the semicolons again!)

My assessment: this is pure listcruft, and some editor(s) took it upon themselves to add the names of some of their favorite people (or perhaps of themselves), attempting to reverse-engineer as "movement" that somehow contains all of this. Again, the onus is on the editor who adds something to demonstrate that it meets WP:N and the other requirements for inclusion. This has not been done. I suggest that the article be pruned down to what meets those requirements, or it be deleted entirely. WP is not a platform for expressing any person's, or small groups of people's, notions. Bricology (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bricology I found this discussion through the AfD of one person mentioned in this article. I totally agree. The article is a combination of nonsense, self-published and questionable sources. I tried to clean up... but [WP:TNT] might be a valid solution. Most of the references, if not all of them, are impossible to verify. I also noticed that the article has been translated word by word in several languages (Eg. Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Portuguese, etc). It seems a PR stunt. Interestingly, the both the French and Italian articles were deleted and recently recreated. But those new versions never mention the ‘innovative designer’ from Milan, who is also the author of the self-published manifesto. However both articles do not have enough references and I wouldn’t try to translate towards English. Indeed, is neo-futurism just an hoax? --109.37.135.105 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badly written

This article is written in a muddy-headed style that is ill-suited for any encyclopedia. Instead of elucidating the nature of this supposed architectural movement in clear language, the article is filled with nonsensical and indistinct phrases that seem chosen to confuse the reader.

The introduction, for example, concludes by informing us that neo-futurism is connected with "a need to periodize the modern rapport with the technological." Got that?

To begin with, the word "technological" is an adjective. The noun to which it refers is simply missing from the sentence. The technological what? That problem alone renders the sentence nearly meaningless.

Secondly, a report is a relationship between two or more parties. What is "the modern rapport"? Who partakes in this rapport? Does the word "modern" mean anything in this context? Or is this indistinct phrase meant to confuse the reader more than to communicate anything in particular?

Finally, who exactly has this "need" to periodize such nonsense?

And that's just a single quote from the intro. The article is rife with ambiguous and meaningless phrases. It reads as if the authors are deeply insecure about their intellectual prowess, heavily inebriated, and ESL. It does not impart a clear understanding of the subject matter. As such, I heartily second the above suggestion that this article ought to be deleted.

flat (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this entire article is dubious

This entire article is dubious. I do not advocate deletion -- yet -- and I have sympathy for the editors because this effort seems sincere. However. Retroactively dragging Buckminster Fuller and Eero Saarinen, just to take one detail, into this newly defined genre is not consistent with everything I know about their architectural careers. As noted above much of the language of the article is ambiguous at best. Some of it sounds promotional. Some of it cited to blog postings. "Futurist architecture evolved into Art Deco, the Googie movement and High Tech Architecture and finally into Neo-Futurism"? Absolutely not. You can't fart around with history like that in an encyclopedia.

There's a tendency on wikipedia to establish broad architectural categories ("Art Deco") and classify buildings into them. That's an easy and dangerous habit. Some of those classifications are useful and consistent with the designers' original thoughts and influences. I just don't think this one is. Lockley (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Neo-futurism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

As galleries containing indiscriminate images of the article subject are discouraged, the entire Gallery section ought to be removed. It bears none of the hallmarks of acceptable galleries discussed in WP:IG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArchiGO has no connection to Neo-Futurism

This group is falsely connecting themselves with IIT and Neo-Futurism: http://www.lumpen.com/secrethistoriesmuseum/archigo.html

They are not at the same category as the other architects mentioned in this article. Please check your sources before you edit someone else's contributions :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johann Gaspard Schmidt (talk • contribs) 00:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC) (Moved here from User talk:Richard-of-Earth)[reply]

@Johann Gaspard Schmidt: Thank for your message. I have moved it here for other to see and discuss. The external link you gave says nothing about them not being an influence in Neo-Futurism. In fact if I read it right it says others were influenced by their work, it just does not mention Neo-Futurism. It says: These works were among the most influential shock vibrations of the 1960's for architects and planners around the world. Do you have some personal experience with this? The source in the section you are trying to remove makes it quite clear they were an influence in Neo-Futurism. I am not completely opposed to removing them, I just want to understand. Somebody else added this bit and we should not delete their contribution without good reason. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard-of-Earth: Thanks to you too. More like serious Neo-Futurist architects inspired these Archigo folks to copy the movement then hijack the article by insinuating themselves and their activities as if they are legitimately recognized Neo-Futurists. As you can read in the article, the architects linked to Neo-futurism are heavy hitters and are actually respected designers with more than (2) finished, high-quality and high-profile projects. At best these Archigo kids are big fans of and are wannabe communistic-socialist anti-capitalist anti-consumerist counter-culture and are somewhat loosely linked with this group called Lumpen, see link: http://www.lumpen.com/about_us.shtml

What they are saying as Archigo's [W]orks were among the most influential shock vibrations of the 1960's for architects and planners around the world. is plain-faced fraudulent and an excellent example of anti-materialist post-modern pro-luddite subversive advertising and should not be in our venerable online encyclopaedia. I recommend deleting any and all reference to Archigo and possibly recommend a new category for this group under {{Architecture fanclubs.}} Johann Gaspard Schmidt (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johann Gaspard Schmidt: Well . . . your citation does not exactly say what you are saying, you are clearly not objective on the subject and the citation http://coprosperity.org/2014/06/version-14-event-archigo-50-years-later/ clearly says ArchiGO was an influence in Neo-Futurism. However, Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS driven. You do not want it in and I do not actually care. I just do not let people remove content without an explanation. You have explained it well enough, so it can stay out until someone else who wants it in shows up. Thank you for taking the time to discuss. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is badly written.

Here's a little, painfully pretentious, sample of the lead: "...as well as a futuristic rethinking of the thought behind aesthetics and functionality of design in growing cities." I challenge the writer of this nonsense to explain just what the f*ck that means. Either completely rework this article or prepare for deletion, pal. 2001:569:5814:E200:C4CB:A8CA:4FD9:6E97 (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]