Talk:Applied arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 

?[edit]

What is a list of fine arts and applied arts?

The Fields of Applied art[edit]

Another field of "utility" crafts should be added. This cover quilts, bags, kitchen "placeholders", soap, wax, bottle corks, etc... 196.218.6.209 16:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)RG

Proposed merger[edit]

Oppose. I am against merging this article with Handicraft, Arts and crafts. Applied Art is a different concept and although the article needs to be developed, I see no benefit in merging it with the other articles. Certainly Crafts are different from Applied Arts.

On the other hand, the Useful arts article is insubstantial and should be merged with this one. - Kleinzach 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Oppose. The words "useful arts" are used in the US constitution and therefore seems right that they stand on there own.


Favor and oppose. The whys and wherefores concerning the validity of naming various categories in the fields of decoration and design requires an explanation which cannot be short. Even so, mine here might be inadequate. Nevertheless, I humbly offer it and apologize if it does not seem humble. "Useful arts" is archaic and appears almost nowhere in industrial-design literature today. The fact that it was used in the US Constitution attests, in a way, to its having become linguistically passé, regardless that Section 8 of the document is the basis for copyright laws. I propose that the "Useful arts" category be merged into "industrial design" (not into "Applied arts") and that the present three categories on the Wikipedia site remain: The "Arts and crafts", "Arts and Crafts Movement" and "Industrial design". However, "Applied art" should be merged into "industrial design"; they are essential one and the same. An explanation to this fact should be included to the effect that a number of design-survey books as well as auctions-house catalogs, such as Christie's and Sotheby's, once used the terms "applied art" for its sales in Britain and "decorative arts" for sales in the US. (This brings to mind discussions of the differences among "curtains", "draperies" and "drapes".) No longer in wide use, the phrase "applied art" appears to have died out, and even before its demise, Herbert Read's "industrial art" also vanished, thank goodness. The words "art" and "artist" to reference "industrial design" and "industrial designers" are pretentious and not acceptable and cloud the differences between art and design—a tedious ongoing discussion. When "artist" is substituted for "designer", there is the confession that an aritst is more highly regarded than a designer. Paola Antonelli of The Museum of Modern Art in New York cautions against the use of "art" and "artist" when meaning "design" and "designer". More and more, only the word "design" is being used to mean applied art and, also but not necessarily accurately, to mean the decorative arts. Even those such as Jean Dunand, essentially a craftsperson, are being labeled "designers", and an example of their work is a "design". Of course, the various terms have been and are being driven more by the marketplace (such as by auction houses and mass-audience magazines) than by the academy, and evidently the academicians have acquiesced. Current books and periodicals use the all-compassing word "design" for the discipline of industrial design, even though it is ambiguous and often meant to exclude graphic design, fashion, and especially the handicrafts, within which jewelry, limited-production pottery and some glass work, as examples, are placed. The problem has risen from design history's or industrial-design history's having become a new discipline in the academy. In fact, advanced degrees on the subject of "design" have been awarded generally only in the last two or so decades and are not offered by institutions in countries such as Turkey and Israel. The Parsons/Cooper-Hewitt degree, "Master of Arts in the History of Decorative Arts", has been changed within the past few years to the present degree, "Master of Arts in the History of Decorative Arts and Design" to include also graphic design. The Bard Graduate Center, which opened in New York in 1993, serves as another example. The original name of the school, which offers master's and doctoral degrees, was "The Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts". As if the name were not long enough, today its full name is "The Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, Design, and Culture", a lengthy title much in common with a French institution. Even though The Bard's name suggests an almost-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink concept, it illustrates the common parlance, differences, and validation of the use of "decorative arts" and "design" and that they are separate categories. The Bard, which is a bit progressive, would never use "useful arts" or "applied arts". Also, see Wikipedia's "Royal College of Art" category for the phrase "Degrees in the History of Design" and the peculiar but significant, if subliminal, Germanic capitalization of "Degrees", "History", and "Design" in the text. And notice the absence of "decorative arts" or "applied art" in the degrees granted by the RCA and that, similar to the Parsons/Cooper-Hewitt's program, the degrees in the history of design are offered in collaboration with the Victoria and Albert Museum. The V&A is a museum like the Cooper-Hewitt National Museum of Design which has also reassessed its relationship with the concept and word "design", since the arrival at the V&A of American curator Christopher Wilk 18 years ago. And, unlike The Bard and Parsons/Cooper-Hewitt, the RCA would never today use "decorative arts" or "applied arts" to describe its program. —Mel Byars

Since nobody supports this merger and the discussion hasn't been added to in a while, I'm going to take the merge tag off all the pages. There's a backlog of over 10,000 articles to be merged, and there's no reason for these tags to remain up if nobody supports the idea. Jaye 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

bonsai. Is it an applied art?[edit]

Is the craft, skill, design and technique used in creating a bonsai an applied art?

I consider my approach to Alcove bonsai displays as art, as having artist intent. So does that make it art? Maybe not to everyones taste or good art, but art nevertheless.

You thoughts are very welcome. Celticknotbonsai (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC) regards, celticknotbonsai

Adding more visual examples?[edit]

Would it give the page more appeal by adding more visual examples? Primarily official examples from the museums listed or any currently used in production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkn123 (talkcontribs) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)