This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

Contemporary Art (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contemporary Art, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Contemporary ArtWikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary ArtTemplate:WikiProject Contemporary ArtContemporary Art articles

This article is dismally lacking in description, definition, and sources. Bus stop 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have filled 1990s neo-conceptual art. Looking now for the 1980s. Sherrie Levine seems a good place to start.--Ethicoaestheticist 17:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a listing of artists working in this idiom in other countries than the UK & US. Breakfaster 29 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Hirst-Love-Of-God.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Hirst-Love-Of-God.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge with conceptual art?[edit]

I suggest to merge this article with Conceptual Art since the term seems to be mainly a marketing term, and not an art-historic one. --DDdW (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a problem in itself. The only issue is whether it is a notable term or not. There are enough references to be found to indicate that it is. See Google,[1] Google Books,[2] and Google Scholar.[3] The problem with the article at the moment is that the references for a lot of the content (which was taken, with attribution, from Conceptual art) do not mention "neo-conceptual" art. Another issue is that the term is often used interchangeably with "conceptual art", so that it may be best to deal with the term in Conceptual art, showing how it can be used for a later phase, but that phase is also often referred to just as "conceptual art" along with the earlier period of the genre. Ty 10:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the term neo-conceptual hasn't enough credit on academic publications and specialized press to be considered as a practice or a mouvement/tendency of its own. The sporadic use of the expression «neo-conceptual» doesn't necessarily implies it has been widely used by artists, historians or critics and reached any form of consensus. Alpha Logger (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]