Talk:Art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Art was a Art and architecture good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 16, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Art:
  • Add more inline citations.
  • Address the concerns noted in:
Priority 1 (top)
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, High-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Public Art (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Public Art, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of public art 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 project's quality scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Richard Wollheim's distinctions[edit]

Richard Wollheim's distinctions of views on art as either 'realistic', 'objectivistic' or 'relativistic' may be said to be pertaining to, even symptomatic of the predominantly anglo-american school of Analytic philosophy, as opposed to the Continental philosophy; the proposed other major stream in the currents of occidental philosophy. If this is acknowledged it is problematic that the wikipedia article on art, in its current reading, frames art in this fashion. That is predominantly because of the current position in the article of Richard Wollheims distinctions . I will argue that it is at odds with the neutrality policy. In the extension of this argument, one should seek to adapt the habit of adressing the cultural position of information. This can be done in a simple and elegant way without problem; for instant. in the context of analytical philosophy, Richard Wollheim suggests three different views on arts practices...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xact (talkcontribs) 12:16, 23 September 2009

Identification of Chokwe statue[edit]

The identification of the Chokwe sculpture should read "Central African Chokwe sculpture" to be as specific as possible. An artwork should not be attributed to an entire (incredibly artistically diverse) continent whenever possible.

An even better edit that would help (1) with uniformity and (2) with understanding non-Western pieces as works of art would change other parts of the photograph section so that it reads: "Clockwise from upper left: a self-portrait by Vincent van Gogh; a female ancestor figure by a Central African Chokwe artist; detail from the Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli; and a Shisa lion by a Japanese artist."

This makes sense, I agree. Edit Request:

Change "Clockwise from upper left: a self-portrait by Vincent van Gogh; an African Chokwe statue; detail from the Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli; and a Japanese Shisa lion." to "Clockwise from upper left: a self-portrait by Vincent van Gogh; a female ancestor figure by a Central African Chokwe artist; detail from the Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli; and a Shisa lion by a Japanese artist."

Secondplanet (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yellow check.svg Partly done: I took out "Central African", so it reads "a female ancestor figure by a Chokwe artist"; "Chokwe" is linked. Feel free to reopen. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias[edit]

I notice that the four examples of art at the top of the article shows two paintings, and two sculptures. This is a very narrow definition of works of art. I propose that the article is expanded to show other examples of art, for example mathematical algorithms, or lines of computer code - there is certainly an art to these things, as also for cooking, performance arts, etc. --Rebroad (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

From the first paragraph: "This article focuses primarily on the visual arts...". I'm not sure how serious you are, but including everything that somebody called art would probably take thousands of pages. Bhny (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is an article on visual art, not human creativity in general. In English "art" tends to be synonymous with visual art, as opposed to the Arts. Any expansion of the definition of visual art into these other areas would be original research. freshacconci talk to me 02:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)