According to this definition, it would seem that many people could be profitably noncommunicating instead of mis-communicating. —This unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) at 12:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC).
Relative to art objects, noncommunicative objects are those objects that refuse classification by means of memory or reference (what used to be called "abstract objects"), and thereby compel imagination to make sense of the object in terms of the psychology of the viewer. The significance of this interface between the art object and the psychology of the viewer is that it marks a difference in the way we view art objects: their function is no longer primarily aesthetic, mimetic or decorative, but rather psychological. I believe that noncommunication, considered in this light, amounts therefore to an advance in what might be called the "abstract aesthetic" in fine art - an advance that was made virtually impossible after the rise of the reductive and materialistic interpretations of Clement Greenberg, and so much of the media-oriented art that followed in its wake.
I understand there is an idiomatic obstacle related to this term; namely that noncommunication (with a hyphen i.e., non-communication) denotes a lack of communication, usually between two parties. The term that is being proposed for entry into Wiktionary, namely noncommunication (without the hyphen) entails a different meaning altogether, as evidenced by its proposed definition which, understandably, has been criticized as seeming somewhat nonesensical. I urge the interested reader and researcher to view the use of noncommunication on the web site www.thefeelinglife.com, as well as on the homepage for the fine artist, Robert Strang @ www.robertstrang.com. This word is also used extensively in a forthcoming book by Robert Strang and David Klugman entitled, Living Abstractly: Art and Imagination in Daily Life. —This unsigned comment was added by TFL (talk • contribs) at 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
Evidence of usage
In order to include the proposed definitions of this word, we would need some evidence that it was in use. Please see WT:CFI. Normally the usage needs to be in printed works (books, newspapers, journals) or electronic ones, archived durably. For each sense we would need three citations of the word being used with the meaning specified. 6 senses = 18 quotatons. The quotations for each sense need to be independent, from different sources and not quoting a work already being used to support the sense in quesiton. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
So strange it must be real. Any takers? SemperBlotto 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Google books suggests a real word under a definition like "a failure of communication" or "a lack of communication" between two parties. bd2412 T 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- SB: This is one I'd have been sorely tempted to speedy. It looks like something dreamt up by some Parisian student-artist-philosophers. I guess we need to give cruft a chance. BD: Is it worth the time to clean it up? Wait a month, delete, put in the kind of def. you want. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting (and somewhat disturbing) to see people respond so negatively to something they have clearly not taken the time to try and understand. —This unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) at 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC).
I would humbly like to invite Mr. SemperBlotto, bd2412 and DCDuring to participate in the discussion I've initiated regarding this term, Noncommunication, in the interest of creating some substantive dialog around its usefulness and meaning. Thank you. —This unsigned comment was added by TFL (talk • contribs) at 12:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC).
- I've just cleaned this up a bit, but I still don't understand what most of it is trying to say. Thryduulf 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)