This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syntax baddly needs attention. It's confusing to start an article in the way that you have. --SilasM 01:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This criticism refers to an elder version. --anonymous author, 6 May 2005

This article needs to be rewritten with the general reader in mind. This passage is an example:

The work "One and Three Chairs" can be seen to highlight the relation between language, picture and referent. It problematizes relations between object, visual and verbal references (denotations) plus semantic fields of the term chosen for the verbal reference (connotations and possible denotations which are not relevant in the context of the presentation of "One and Three Chairs"): The meanings of the three elements are congruent on certain semantic fields and incongruent on others: A semantic congruity and a three-fold incongruity.

Tyrenius 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplification is a danger especially in this case: The work is simple but it is a model for argumentation. The phrase quoted above is a very short summary of the semantic aspects of "One and Three Chairs", not an interpretation. It does not seek problems where no problems are. --anonymous author, 14 May 2006

Concerning "Clean Up": Look at the actualized version. --anonymous author, 22:49, 20 May 2006 (ET)

I had to correct the description of the constant elements of the concept and its realization: The blow-up has to be realized using the copy of the dictionary´s definition as model in the sense of a repeatable basic pattern. --anonymous author, 19:04, 9 April 2006 (ET)

The term "formal analysis" needs clarification in this context: If it means an analysis in the sense of formal logic and anlytical philosophy (Kosuth´s reference in "Art after Philosophy") then the given interpretation lacks an understanding of the term "function" (f.e. a chair as a placeholder for a variable x with certain predicates of the class "chair"). If it means an analysis of phenomena and formal values then I don´t understand the implicit criteria. --anonymous author, 0:32, 28 April 2006 (ET)

I'm confused by two things. One: "Two elements of the work remain constant: a copy of a dictionary definition of the word 'chair' and a diagram with instructions for installation." And: "a blow-up of the copy of the dictionary definition is to be hung to the right of the chair..." What's the confusion? It's clear from various installation shots of this piece that the definition is different nearly every time. Is there evidence that Kosuth stipulates that the copy of the definition he supplies is to be used each time? Is there an actual copy of his instruction that anyone can cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmuse99 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]