Some thoughts on “cycle” and “series” …
In 2000 the artist created a cycle dealing with ... ? Seltsam, oder? (OP, Sept. 7, 2012)
Unusual. But I think in context, where the reader automatically completes “cycle” with “ … of works / paintings / drawings,” there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be used that way. (What might disturb me more than “cycle” there is “created”—not that it’s wrong, but it tends to be used sparingly. As default I'd use, say, “produced,” or “painted.”)
A “cycle,” being circular (as against the linearity of the “series” metaphor), suggests two things to me: a) that it is explicitly about, “revolves around,” something, a person, a topic, whatever; b) that it is complete, possibly, in a sense, a single work.
Monet painted series, not cycles. Botticelli, on the other hand, painted a cycle of frescoes for the Sistine Chapel in the mid-1480s.
To what extent these ideas inform general “careless” usage of the term “cycle” is a different matter.
There are also contexts where the use of the term “cycle” has become conventional. The Arthurian cycle, “song cycle” (obviously a translation of the G. but now standard E.).
Re the current issue broached in #5—My impression is that “cycle of concerts” may sometimes be used online because it seems to have a more “artistic” ring to it. Botticelli’s cycle of frescoes, Schubert’s song cycles, etc., resonating in memory. (And there is arguably something more aesthetically pleasing about a circle than a straight line, at least on the face of it!)