Talk:Art/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Lede issues

The sentence "The definition and evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the early 20th century" is a classic example of WP:NONCE, in that it talks about an "especially" difficult or "problematic" issue.. in the humanities (!) - ie. a statement that reads quite trivially. Also I note the excessive reference to Richard Wollheim in the lede - quoting him and linking his name in two separate lede paragraphs is just too much.-Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 02:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Skill and Craft Section

The skill and craft section doesn't cite any references. And although the mentions of Tracey Emin and Hirst follow logically from Marcel Ducamp's fountain piece, why is it that the two examples are both YBAs? There is a rich history of de-skilling that precedes these two artists. Jerry saltz has written about how contemporary artists redefine skill in his book "Seeing Out Loud". It seems strongly biased that the only living artists mentioned directly in the whole article are YBAs. I'm not necessarily advocating removing the mention of Emin and Hirst, but some other living artists should be mentioned. That goes for the whole article. I'm going to work on including some living artists that have been omitted. Any thoughts on this? Warrenking (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As for why this is incomplete, or why those examples were chosen, see Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia :) See also, Wikipedia:Systemic bias (and dozens of other self-reflective pages). Please help improve all our articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to write my own little essay on Systematic bias or who writes wikipedia so I'll save my thoughts for that forum. But it seems that there may be at most 30 active visual arts contributors on wiki whereas twitter has hundreds or even thousands of people who contribute to the category of visual arts on a daily basis.Warrenking (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What is it specifically that you would like to see in the Skill and craft section? I'm not sure if I understand you. You are right that it doesn't cite references, and that is a very big problem. Bus stop (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem, besides the needed citation, is that Emin and Hirst are the only living artists with a link from that page, giving their pages a lot more traffic than other living artists. Emin and Hirst also are very late in the game to the de-skilling of contemporary art. It reads as though they have set some kind of precedent with their redefining of craft, however they have not. Other artists and critics had already redefined that long before they came along. Emin currently has the most popular page of a living artist which surely has to do with the traffic from this page. Again, their mention doesn't need to be removed but some other living artists need to be added to the page to balance it out. Artists who actually led up to Emin and Hirst in the de-skilling of art should be mentioned. I'm going to make some contributions soon.Warrenking (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to know what the theoretical underpinnings are of art that doesn't require skill. Just giving examples of artists working this way or artworks embodying this characteristic is not really shedding light on something the reader may find puzzling. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Picasso?

"at nearly the same time the artist who would become the era's most recognized and peripatetic iconoclast, Pablo Picasso, was completing a traditional academic training at which he excelled."

To say that Pablo Picasso excelled at his academic training is a value judgement, and one which is neither accurate, nor proper for an encyclopedic article. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's accurate. It just needs a source. Instead of complaining, how about helping out? freshacconci talktalk 18:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

People named Art

Looks very strange that there is no mention of, nor any link or reference to, all the people called Art, many of whom are not covered under Arthur either. 213.64.236.190 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Then add them to Arthur. It's at the top of the page. freshacconci talktalk 18:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There are too many anyway - we should not be attempting to list people by most first names, it's just silly. Imo anyway. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference for section: Skill and Craft

"Art can connote a sense of trained ability or mastery of a medium. Art can also simply refer to the developed and efficient use of a language to convey meaning with immediacy and or depth. Art is an act of expressing feelings, thoughts, and observations."

could follows -

Breskin Vladimir : Triad: Method for studying the core of the semiotic parity of language and art , Signs - International Journal of Semiotics 3, 1-28, 2010. ISSN: 1902-8822

with farther link to:

http://vip.db.dk/signs/Articles_Signs_International_Section/2010/Breskin_(2010)_Signs_Triad_eng_final_rev_2010.pdfAbovement (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Le fléau de la seconde trompette

Le fleau de la deuxieme trompette

The other images on this page have appropriate titles to accompany them but this particular fine work has nothing to describe what it is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indipage (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Le fléau de la deuxieme trompette

Le fleau de la deuxieme trompette

The other images on this page have appropriate titles to accompany them but this particular fine work has nothing to describe what it is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indipage (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.79.167.187, 31 March 2011

Architecture ("the mother of all Arts") should be inserted to lead the list shown (music, literature, film, etc.)

74.79.167.187 (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done I can't find sources (besides a email group) to back up that statement. – Ajltalk 23:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Simpler Definition of "Art"

Simplify definition of "art" to: premeditated symbolic expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.0.175 (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove the "Characteristics" section?

I suggest completely removing the "Characteristics" section, and will do so myself if there are no suggestions. It is tagged with "multiple issues", but I don't think there's anything there which adds to the article. I'm not sure a more well-written "characteristics" section would do anything but rephrase the first section, which at many points tries to define art by its characteristics. Any thoughts? --MillingMachine (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary and Arguably Incorrect Aside on the Philosophy of Aesthetics

"The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics, whereas disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and psychology analyze its relationship with humans and generations." Having read widely in aesthetics, I can tell you that the philosophy of aesthetics deals extensively with the relationship of art to humans and successive generations. Clearly each of these disciplines overlap on the topic in a complex way. If this contention (though flawed in my view) is kept, it should at least be supported by a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.152.243 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 December 2011

I think the section "Characteristics" section in "Art" should be removed in large part due to its lack of references. There is already a comment requesting the same action on the talk page.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art#Characteristics 64.30.119.26 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Removed because of its lack of references. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Examples of art

Shouldn't one of the two examples of Western art-the Van Gogh or the Botticelli-be replaced with an example of modern art, such as Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, to show the evolution of art? Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completelyanon (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't an example of Chinese art be included instead of one of the two Western images? 93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Promotional Image by R. Gopakumar should be removed.

The image described as "R. Gopakumar: Cognition-Libido (Digital Print on Canvas, Limited Edition, 1/7). In the permanent collection of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction" should be replaced by a work by a known artist. He does not seem to satisfy any criteria for having his work displayed here, and the " Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction" are not respected for their artistic judgement.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012

[I wanted to help improve the article by providing one more possible definition of human art from the perspective of cultural anthropology]:
"Art may be understood as the creative use of the human imagination to aesthetically interpret, express, and engage life, [while] modifying experienced reality in the process. ...Most societies past and present have used art to give meaningful expression to almost every part of their culture, including ideas about religion, kinship, and ethnic identity" (Haviland 323).
[citation in MLA format] Haviland, William A., et al. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge (2005). 12e. Instructor’s Edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth /Thomson Higher Education, 2008. Print. p. 323.



I think this defines art very well. Because the quality of a work of art is assessed on the basis of the nature and extent of the stimulation it produces. Often, the stimulation results from a combination of beauty and originality, sometimes in a indefinable way. But the strength of the stimulus, the amount of people who are affected, how well this stimulation is appreciated, and how much impact and influence the stimulation appears to have or have had in history all contributes to "the degree of art." Timeless masterpieces in art all have highly affected and influenced the 'artworld' in this way.

Something is not considered art if it only affects the senses, or only the intelect, or when it has another primary purpose. For examples a simple image of a beautiful waterfall serves as decoration, or sometimes kitsch. It gives a visual stimulus, but does not stimulate the intellect. However, when the waterfall is put in an original context, in such a way that also the intellect is stimulated, it will be seen as art. A nice background tune (elevator music) is not art, but when music is emotionally compelling, it is.

Many classical and / or successful films are also considered art. These stimulate the senses and the mind of many people. But when a movie has little influence on its audience, nor on the film world, it is less considered to be art. Additionaly one could argue that some films are made with the primary purpose of monetary profit, and may therefore be less regarded as art.

An architectural structure like a bridge may also contain artistic aspects, and even be assessed as a piece of art. But because a bridge has a different primary purpose, a bridge is generally not considered art.

Sometimes, something not originally made as a work of art can be 'elevated' to be art, like the can of tomato soup by Andy Warhol. The object loses its original purpose at that moment, and gains the new purpose to stimulate the human intellect, and thus becomes "Art".


The history part I leave to write to others, but it could also incorporate a history of definitions of art..

Best regards, Jogannez (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Prefer the former, sorry...Modernist (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, but why..? The introduction IS a bit messy, as well as the 'definition' section.. I'm just trying to clean up a bit!Jogannez (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Lets get some input from other editors...Modernist (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The lede should summarize the article, so it is appropriate that this article's lede provides definition, description, and history. I think your proposed definition, "Art is that which has been made with the primary purpose of stimulating the human senses, emotions, and intellect", is unsatisfactory—it's not necessary to know what the primary purpose of an artifact is before the object can be regarded as art. Ewulp (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
-- maybe the word 'purpose' isn't right, and the word 'intention' is better. because its about why something is being made, that will make it art (and to what degree it succeeds in that intention, ofcourse). so a definition would then be:

"Art is that which has been made with the primary intention of stimulating the human senses, emotions, and intellect" Jogannez (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


Blah. Here's a draft for a proposed introduction. It's not great, but it is better than the current one. It is not particularly well sourced, but obviously heavily indebted to Elkins among others, mostly 'cause I like Elkins. It is also pretty sketchy. Feel free to rip it to shreds etc, but I do think that the current intro is practically unworkable. (Art is not deliberately arranging items, for instance, and that claim has no source, as always. A press release from Gombrich is not a reliable source for the (dubious) claim that it was during the romantic period that art stopped being used to refer to any mastery or skill.)

SO:

Art is a human activity. It is very hard to narrow the boundaries of art further than that, as today it is widely accepted that anything from a cup of water to the Sistine Chapel ceiling may be art. This broadness of scope is a result of modernism, a movement in art that drastically expanded and altered the concept of art, to the extent that it has even been argued that we live in a post-art world.


(important here: to emphasise that currently, it is generally accepted that art is, if not inherently undefinable, at least practically impossible to draw stable boundaries around art. Leading with a definition of art is inherently misleading at this point.)

-- I'm sorry but I dont think this is any better then the intro that's there now. this doesn't really say anything else then that you can't really say anything about art. apart from being a kind of depressing message which i personally dont believe, I think an encyclopedia should emphasize very directly the things you CAN say about art.
'Art' being undefinable is a kind of self-proclaimed belief cherised by many bohemian artists, uncomfortable with the idea of working and being within bounderies. Which is nonsense ofcourse. There's a lot of things artists will never do, and a lot of things art has always done. so finding a definition describing these bounderies must be possible, and I belief wikipedia is THE ideal tool to find it! be my guest and think of how you would define 'art'..! Jogannez (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
PS i hope it doesnt include 'Blah'..
Unfortunately, it is true that is very hard to give a definition of art & that there is currently no widely accepted definition of art. Therefore, it is our NPOV duty to accurately state that. Giving a definition is misleading. If I had a broadly acceptable definition of art, I would be the most famous & important aesthetician in centuries, which gives you some idea of how difficult it is. It's our job to tell people that. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, the current Intro has unsourced claims (i.e that art is Art is what has been created to deliberately affect and influence the human senses, as well as the human mind, consisting of emotions, intellect and spirit. That claim definitely needs a source, and Danto & Dickie, for instance, would strongly disagree. Someone should delete them, or source them. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It's true there's no widely accepted definition of art, and that wikipedia should state that. But that, or the fact that it's difficult, should in my opnion be NO REASON to at least try and formulate one. After all, giving definitions is an encyclopedia's job, and checking it for wide acceptence is something only wikipedia can do like never before..! I propose something like this.. explanation can be found above. shoot! :)
Art is what has been created with the primary intention to stimulate the human senses, as well as influence the human mind. Jogannez (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
But many people disagree with that definition & it's original research to try and formulate our own. Given that, someone really really should delete that sentence from the intro. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why it should be deleted. The sentence has been there in the introduction of the article for ages allready, only it was split up in two sentences basically saying the same thing. I just condensed it into something that comes pretty close to a clear definition. Danto and Dickie's work could appear as a chapter in the article, but they never really came further than to very elaborately say;" 'art' is what people in the artworld call 'art' ". Since it is using the same word to define what the word means, it is, by definition, no definition. It would be the same to say "a cow is what people in the farmworld call 'a cow' "...
Anyway, I wonder why you think many people would disagree with the text I proposed..? Jogannez (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


Art has been described as what makes life worth living blah blah blah, as one of the major drivers of human culture, and so-on.

(i.e. a non-technical summary of how art has been seen)

Historically, art has been seen as the intrinsically valuable and artistic objects made by skilled workers, particularly painters, like Botticelli or Rubens, and sculptors like Michelangelo or Canova. This view of art, originating in Europe in the Renaissance, saw the goal of art as the skilful representation of reality in order to convey emotions or ideas, and the pursuit of beauty. BLAH, obviously could be better put but what's important here is to present a rough overv

(important to give a pretty rough idea of the general shape of post-renaissance thinking about art)

However, following the Industrial Revolution, modernism challenged many traditions of art. At the same time, new media like photography and film, destabilised the previous hierarchies of art. This eventually lead to the collapse of almost every prior definition of art, evaluations of artistic worth and skill, and theory of art. Modern theories of art, such as the artworld theory, emphasise the social construction of arthood,

(here, modernism and post-modernism are introduced, and the previous shape of art is made problematic.)

That would prob. do for an intro. The current structure of the article is pretty much a mess. There's way too much detail, and far too little coherence, and that really needs dealt with. I would propose creating a structure something like Art -> History/Broader Social Issues/Art Forms/Theories of Art/. One way to think about it is that this should be the most valuable six thousand words on art possible (although imo six thousand words is too long; I think we should really aim at more like 2-3 thousand.) I do not think anyone thinks this, for instance, The Diagnostic Drawing Series, for example, is used to determine the personality and emotional functioning of a patient is one of the most important six thousand words on art. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I disagree strongly with the idea that 'art' includes theatre, dance and literature. Certainly these are part of the arts, but not art. You could confidently say that art includes performance. Writing can also be a by-product of art, but is not normally the primary art product. Otherwise, cite me any authoritative publication on the history of art that includes dancers, playwrights and authors.
I would prefer a sentence such as:
Art is a term that describes a diverse range of creative human activities - including painting, film, photography, sculpture, music, performance and interactive media - and the products of those activities.Sionk (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a line to the intro to clarify this. The broader definition should not be excluded, though. Here's OED, "art", definition 8a:

The expression or application of creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting, drawing, or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Also: such works themselves considered collectively ... Although this is the most usual modern sense of art when used without any qualification, it has not been found in English dictionaries until the 19th cent. Before then, it seems to have been used chiefly by painters and writers on painting. The unmodified mass noun it is normally understood as referring to the visual arts; however, it may sometimes to extended to include music, literature, dance, drama, etc., though the plural form arts (see sense 7) is frequently used to indicate a broader range of creative activities. [the two typos are in the original]

In other words, the unmodified noun art sometimes extends to literature, drama, dance and the rest, although art is frequently pluralized to arts for this purpose. Ewulp (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I strongly think any attempt to delineate art is highly misplaced. No two modern authors will agree on what art is, and this is broadly acknowledged. It would be much better to state this in the intro, rather than giving a misleadingly authoritative statement, that will end up being contradicted further down the page. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "performance" is a more suitable term for one aspect of 'art' and that "Theatre, dance and literature" belong to 'the arts'. Good edit.
About the definition, I wonder where all that fear to formulate one comes from..! Ofcourse its true that there is no general agreed-upon definition for 'art', and that this shoud be stated as such. But still... 'art' is not something that is indescribable, and for an encyclopedia to be truely useful, it should come up with the most to-the-point description of what art is! When all it states is that it's oh-so-hard-to-describe in many fancy words, people won't be any wiser... Jogannez (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Folk art?

There seems to be nothing about folk art - unless I missed it. Many "real" artists have drawn from it too, so deserves a mention. What about intercultural exchange? That's worth talking about as well: Van Gogh was inspired by Japanese prints, and Picasso by African masks. Malick78 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a soapbox

Wikipedia articles are normally based on published thought and consensus (see above discussion), not unpublished essays or original thought. Sionk (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to confirm I am not going mad and talking to myself, this comment was in response to an essay by a self-appointed expert, that has been repeatedly added here
Agree with the above...Modernist (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not the proper role of wikipedia editors to articulate a concise universal definition of art. Wikipedia serves the reader by summarizing what others have published. Notable aestheticians have struggled to identify the defining characteristics of "art"; varied definitions have been recognized but none has settled the matter to everybody's satisfaction. Our article communicates this, however imperfectly. Ewulp (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And here [1] and here [2]...Modernist (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A good source

This article is currently locked, but I would suggest, particularly with reference to the above including some material from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/ in the lede. Particularly something relating to "The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated." I am not convinced by the current restrictive description of art in terms of film and painting.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition

The current 'definition' of art in the intro, I believe, is not an optimal summary for what is art's meaning - that is, no one can really say. The most mainstream point of view is that art is the arrangement/creation of anything with a certain aim, which can be personal expression, communication, etc. This being said, however, I think the definition of art would differ radically if you asked a 1990s YBA, for instance, or a Pre-Raphaelite; hence, since there is no objective definition, I think the article must be neutral and reflect a wide spectrum of opinions. I have included this line: "Though art's definition is disputed and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of human agency[1] and creation through imaginative or technical skill.[2]". This, I believe, succinctly encapsulates an extremely watered-down definition of art (which probably wouldn't fit on one million pages), to lead the reader to what is an overall, generic summary. If anyone disagrees, please reply. --&レア (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your addition is sourced and seems to be a useful general definition to me. Sionk (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing is wrong with this one: "art as a mastery of transferring certain information to the viewer or listener using only one of the three media (graphics, music, or dance) or their combinations (multimedia) – theatre, ballet, opera, and cinema. Literature, as the art of transferring information though writing, starts from the time when writing was ‘invented’ (petrography or other signs scripting were systematised) and widely introduced. In linguistic terms: visual art (including architecture, landscaping, fashion and other graphical genres and elements of graphical presentation in mixed media) – represents an attempt of expression by means of nouns; performing art, dance, pantomime (including elements of movement determined by a technique of a given genre, mixed genres and media) – an attempt of expression by means of verbs; musical art in its diversity – by means of interjections."[3]

Staban (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is always an ambiguity in English (as in other languages) between art as all of that & art as just the visual arts, which we are going with here - as opposed to the arts. Johnbod (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The introductory citation for the OED was not to the definition but to a website that is subscriber only. The free online definition I used is the same: art (singular) is now used as referring to the visual art(s), while the "the arts" includes literary and performing arts.FigureArtist (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Please don't do this this way - the reference was indeed to the definition , in the full OED, & I have returned it. Free web-links can change, & may not be accessible globally etc. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I followed the link, and it was not to the definition...FigureArtist (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Tried again, and see that the ref had a link to both the OED and the definition of art, which is confusingFigureArtist (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No it isn't - just leave it please. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Art through centuries

You say in the article that art has changed through centuries and other bla bla. People never change through century, so things that are connaturated to people like instinct of survival, the war (the art of winning without giving battle) will never change. You try to lie but you better try again.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.153.107 (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The more things change, the more they stay the same,[3] plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.[4] Bus stop (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Reordering of Sections

It seems to me that Classification Disputes should be with Controversies, perhaps as a sub-section, while Theory should be immediately after the sections defining the topic, before History. I did not see a link to creativity in the Creative Art and Fine Art section, so have added it.FigureArtist (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I recently moved "Theory" down a bit, mainly because the section is so poor. I wouldn't support it going higher up until it is a lot better, and then not as high as you suggest. I think Classification Disputes is too detailed, but just about rates its own section. Or it could be cut down to one para & added to Controversies. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Art, The Arts, Visual Arts

I have been editing several visual arts articles for a couple of months and would now like to move on to this one. The other articles were stubs or start class and poor, so I had no reservations about jumping right in Being Bold; but that is certainly not the case here. My first reservation is based upon the opening section declaring that the topic is mainly the visual arts. If so I do not see the relationship between this an the Visual arts article. There needs to be an article on art as a general concept, which is philosophical but narrower than the entire domain of aesthetics. Oddly, the simple English version of WP has a good opening section which I would like to adapt:

The word art is used to describe some activities or creations of human beings that have importance to the human mind, regarding an attraction to the human senses. Therefore, art is made when a human expresses himself or herself. Some art is useful in a practical sense, such as a sculptured clay bowl that one can put things in. Many people disagree on how to define art. Many people say people are driven to make art due to their inner creativity. Art includes drawing, painting, sculpting, photography, performance art, dance, music, poetry, prose and theatre.

FigureArtist (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be a big change, requiring a complete revision of visual arts for one thing. I see your point; is there a case for using Artistic expression, artist or Work of art as the vehicle for a general aesthetic article? It might be good to mention this discussion at the VA project page. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Artistic expression now redirects here to Art but expression is barely mentioned and not explained. Artist is so generalized that it could apply to anyone who does anything with skill, or produces anything with aesthetic interest; i.e. it impacts the senses. 'Work of Art' now could be anything, or nothing since "conceptual art" has removed the requirement that there is anything tangible. Is it any wonder that there are philosophers who have declared Art a useless concept? There is already an article on aesthetics, which not being a philosopher I would not edit. Aesthetics is a much broader topic than 'The Definition of Art' which I propose this should be, the definition being only one chapter out of 48 in the 800+ page "Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics".FigureArtist (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Motivated functions of art

Perhaps add reference the e-book Earth for environmentalism ? See http://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/earth_art_detail.html KVDP (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Art is made intentionally by an artist, not anything that may incidentally have aesthetic qualities, such as unedited nature. There is lots of art created to celebrate the environment, but the NASA book is not one of them.FigureArtist (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that any of the given purposes of art are "unmotivated". I don't even think this means anything, outside of a person's own individual dentition, which is not given in this article. For this article to make any sense you would have to say what you mean by saying that art was motivated or not motivated. Do you mean motivated by a conscious desire? That is the only explanation that I could come up with. If you think you want to keep the article the way it is tell me what it means to have a motivated function of art? I think all art is motivated by a conscious motivation. Your brain will subconsciously create art in your sleep. But to create it while you are awake means that you have motivation for doing it. Isn't that a fundamental property of art? You consciously choose to slow down and grab these images that you see moving past your eyes, and make them semi-permanent? myclob (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fountain

Duchamp's "artwork" is mentioned twice, but does in need to be shown twice? FigureArtist (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Scope: Art and fine art

Please see Talk:Fine art#Scope: Art and fine art for a question pertaining to the scope of this article. czar ♔ 21:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

New Introduction

The introduction as it is now seems to be three different things mixed together. A definition, a discription and a history. I propose to start the article with a general description, and then make the definition and the history of art into seperate sections in the article.

Breakdown of the introduction as it is:

"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. (= Definition) It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. (= Description) The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics, whereas disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and psychology analyze its relationship with humans and generations.(= History)

Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[1] (= History) Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions. (= Definition) "

To seperate those parts would create;

-A definition: "Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect." "Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions."

-A description: "It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings."

-And a history: "The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics, whereas disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and psychology analyze its relationship with humans and generations." "Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science"

Rewriting could produce a general description as introduction like this:

"Art is the product of a diverse range of human creative activities, like music, literature, sculpture, painting, drawing, photography, film, theatre, dance, or interactive media."

And a Definition (!):

"Art is the product or the process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) with the intention of stimulating the senses, emotions, and intellect."

I personally think this definition is pretty good. It could be refined a bit more but it's pretty close.. Maybe something like this would be even closer:

"Art is that which has been made with the primary purpose of stimulating the human senses, emotions, and intellect." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogannez (talk • contribs) 07:49, 19 February 2012

  • This valiant attempt to improve this vital article by proposing a redefinition of the topic has gone nowhere in 20 months...!? This does not encourage me to attempt the same, since the task cannot be done by one editor.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Levi-Strauss

Has section 4 [The Purpose of Art: Motivated and Non-motivated functions of art] been included here without any reference to its origin in the writings of Levi-Strauss or am I missing something?

I find the idea interesting even if I don't like the order in which he lists each genre of art. However, I can't find where these ideas exist in print.

Are these his ideas or not? Aristotle, Einstein, Immanuel Kant and many others are quoted in this section but it needs a clearer reference to the author who is credited with the idea.

Please excuse me if I've just overlooked the link, thanks AP

Indipage (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013

87.227.114.32 (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Art form is

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format.

Mustafa Rakim

I think it would be a good idea to add the name of the calligrapher who created the stylized signature of Sultan Mahmud II (Mustafa Rakim) on the picture footer. Like this:

"The stylized signature of Sultan Mahmud II of the Ottoman Empire was written in Arabic calligraphy by the calligrapher Mustafa Rakim. It reads Mahmud Khan son of Abdulhamid is forever victorious."

.62.37.81.138 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Identification of Chokwe statue

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)
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

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)
    • Even with the connotative considerations of the word 'art', is it not still possible to further diversify the examples of visual arts presented alongside the introduction? For instance: abstract art, landscapes, images depicting something other than or in addition to a face? With all respect, WikiEnthusiastNumberTwenty-Two (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Principles of Art

Principles of Art redirects here, yet the principles of art are nowhere contained on this page. Should we copy the information from Principles of Art to this article? Jjnishiyama (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I just found a minor mistake on the second sentence of the paragraph entitled Motivated functions of art: "to (with commercial arts) to sell a product". I don't have the rights to edit the article, if anyone can do it, thank you! Narzil (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Mduvekot (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge "Art" with "The arts"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was consensus against the merger. Gmcbjames (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


I have been trying to understand the difference between Art and The arts, and based on the 2 articles it is very hard to see a difference. The arts is listed as one of Wikipedia's top-10 important articles but of moderate quality, and Art seems to actually be the more comprehensive article. Talk:The_arts suggests merger with Art as a potential path for improvement.

I would like to suggest a merge proposal. Talk page history shows this was considered a few years ago but the discussion doesn't seem very thorough and the conclusion seems based on a misunderstanding about wanting to merge "Visual arts" into "Art". Would like to see if a new discussion 7 years later might yield different result.

My main argument in favor of Merge would be, per guidelines on Wikipedia:Merging, that everyone would agree there is a large degree of overlap. There could be discussion around whether or not the 2 topics are in fact a duplicate of each other. If someone can clearly explain the difference between The arts and Art, I would encourage that person to add this distinction to the articles in question.

I could understand a distinction where one might refer to a process and the other to a result (like the articles on Building vs. Construction), but this does not appear to be the case here. I could also understand one being a subcategory of the other such as Art vs. Visual arts and Fine arts, but if this is the case it is not clearly defined as such in the article.

92.71.13.2 (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Have you tried a dictionary? "Art" often, as here, means visual art, as in art gallery, and also often all type of things that can be analysed by aesthetics, as in "poetic art". Meanwhile, "arts" as a collective noun (unless qualified) always means the full range of artistic media, including literature, music, performing arts etc. All that may not be entirely clear from the leads of the current articles, but the subjects are different. "Art" is part of "the arts", but only one part. There is actually not an overlap between the two articles, once the visual arts part of arts is over. It would be clearwer if we could call arts "the arts", but MOS types would never allow that. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose There is bound to be some overlap but the subjects are not the same. The second paragraph of Art explains (perhaps not plainly enough) the distinction: "Music, theatre, film, dance, and other performing arts, as well as literature and other media such as interactive media, are included in a broader definition of art or the arts." The article on the arts is a survey of the activities known as the arts, with links directing the reader to the main articles for each. This article summarizes the many ways that various thinkers have tried to define the nature and purpose of art, and there is no shortage of material there for a long article. Ewulp (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, though there is obviously some overlap between parts of The arts (and Visual arts too for that matter). Art is a specific area of the Arts. I think the current intro to Art explains it with surprising (though welcome) brevity. Sionk (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose An enormous subject like Art which clearly refers to the visual arts needs its own space...Modernist (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, think the difference between "Art" and "an art" is the difference between a class of things vs a specific thing which happens to carry the same name, similar to "God" vs "a god" or "sugar" vs, "a sugar". The statement "making music is an art" doesn't mean the same as "music is art". Merging is not the right solution. Confusion should be resolved in the article disambiguation header. 2A02:1810:1C1F:1500:5108:A804:380A:1F4F (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

art was for people to do while waiting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.194.218 (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2017

Reference 9 - Dr. Robert J. Belton. "What Is Art?". Archived from the original on 27 April 2012. - This is a dead link and returns 404. One relevant and informative link for a powerful reference would be https://theartist.me/art/what-is-art/ Afzalibr (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The link to the archived page still works. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Humans are the only artists?

The first sentence of this article states art is a human activity... Is art only limited to homo sapiens? When life of a silicon-based nature arises, will it/they feel left out, or even unaccredited? Computer-generated art makes up a majority of our graphic design. We merely provide an input, often times at random, and a computer generates a desired output. The computers of our life are some of the greatest artists to exist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.130.141 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

LACK OF SUPPORT

There is not a single citation to support the claims made in "Controversies" section of this article. I have seen Wiki editors of other articles become apoplectic because a single sentence was not supported by citation.

Improvement

Some of the books I'm going to ref from.

I will try to improve this article these days because I have enough resources to provide citations to some of the {{cn}}-ed statements. Maybe if more of us would address some issues we could make a GA nom again.

A Further reading section would be advisable since some of the books I have cover more sections and I don't want to cite the same ref each time it applies.

If anyone has any suggestions please ping me here or on my talk page. Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

you spelt artefacts like this ARTIFACTS. SPELLING MATTERS IN WIKIPEDIA!!! 103.213.128.209 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: "Artifacts" is the American spelling. Wikipedia is international and does not prefer any variety of English, so the established spelling should not be changed without good reason. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Art/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Review may take a day or two to put into a starting form. You might mention here when you will be ready to start and what has drawn you to nominate this article. Also mention if you would be able to make any revisions or expansions to different sections of the article if needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo:. The Art article is one of the main starting point for a lot of other art related topic. It's like the root of a tree, if you like. During my 6 years (and counting) studies in the field of arts, I collected a lot of knowledge, books needed for my projects, dissertation and more. A few weeks ago, when I saw a lot of citation needed tags in the article, unaddressed for years, I started to improve all the affected section until I have finished referencing each of them. Yes, I can make revisions and expansions to any of the article's sections if needed. The article failed the GA assessment a few years ago because no one was willing to fix the referencing issue. But, as an expert Wikipedian in Arts, I'd be more than happy to improve this article (even if it passes of not the GA review process successfully) and any other art related article because I can, I have tons of books, I have access to several thousand art related books and publication in several languages (at my university) and.. besides the cleaning, patrolling, fighting vandalism aspects I love doing on WP, improving articles that can and worth being improved is one of the things I love doing So, please ping me from here for any issue, I'll try to fix them as soon as possible even if 'till June 14 I am very busy because I have some exams (all art related, haha)... so it is doable. :) Cheers! Robertgombos (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Start point for Review

0 Lead section

The lead section shall be discussed for the most part at the end of this assessment and some revision are to be reviewed. One example is that the citations in the lead section are seemingly out of place since the lead only summarized what is already covered in the article. All those citations in the lead should already be in the main body of the article. More on lead section later in the review process. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Improved it. Further imrpovement may be needed. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It is highly important that it be verified that each sentence of the lead section be a summary of material already covered in this article. Once you verify that each one of the references in the lead section is already covered in the main body of the article then that reference should be removed from the lead section as being redundant. At the end of your revisions to the lead section, then there should be no references in the lead section at all when you are done. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

1 Creative art and fine art

If this section is dealing with innovation and taste as assessing the status of fine art, then should these topics be made more apparent in the text of the section. This article as a whole deals strongly with an orientation towards the visual arts, possibly at the cost of the other arts such as sculpture and photography to name but two of the other arts. Also, as a general comment, this article as a whole seems oriented to the perspective of Art history meeting Art theory which in itself is not a criticism, but does that limit the full perspective of what a comprehensive article on 'art' should encompass to be complete. The words "Few modern scholars..." appear as an isolated sentence and looks like it is part of the paragraph following it with unnecessary line breaks. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, you are right. The cited source starts with Plato's view about crafting (art, as a term, was non-existent at that time) and ends with 20th century viewpoints (Croce, Collingwood, Cassirer, Nahm, Evans and Read etc). Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

2 History

Have you read the essay on art by Martin Heidegger "The Origin of the Work of Art" which has been reprinted several times. I will hold my comments on this section until you confirm if you are familiar with Heidegger's essay on Art and its origin. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art". Added a paragrapraph sumarizing his opinion about art. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice Heidegger addition. You don't have to add the nice descriptive phrases you have added about him since he is well liked already by many Wikipedia editors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

3 Forms, genres, media, and styles

The outline of this section contrasts with the material in the linked Wikipedia article The arts and its listing of the different arts in a sequential manner. I have already mentioned that this article on 'art' is strongly oriented toward the visual arts. Should there be a generalization in some form to acknowledge the prominence of other art forms such as sculpture and photography, etc, rather than having a strong orientation from the standpoint of visual art as painted artworks alone? JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This section needs a more extended structure since art includes sculpture (even living sculptures, eg. Klein), painting, photography, ready-mades, installations, collages and many more. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I am assuming you are planning to add these missing sections over the week-end? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

3.1 Skill and craft

This is a single section delineated in a larger section. Usually at least two subsections are expected. If you have an approach to assessing the relevance of the article on The arts which I mentioned above to this article on 'art', then you might consider some further subsections here based on sculpture, photography, etc, and their demands on skill, craft, education, mentorship, technology, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Strong agree. Working on it. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

4 Purpose

The purpose of art to express and represent beauty should not be overlooked. This is part of the larger topic of art and aesthetics which seems underplayed in this article on art in its current form. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Pleasing the eye, serving religion and those who were paying for art was the main purpose of art untill Expressionism - when art's purpose wasn't anymore "to impress" but "to express". Probably a paragraph about this would be welcomed? Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess the question here is whether the article should say more about the experience of the aesthetic and perhaps something about the human perception of beauty and what that means. I think that would be welcomed and useful. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

4.1 Non-motivated functions

These two subsection on motivated and non-motivated functions of art seem a little off-center, the issue of intentionality in art is fairly well addressed in one of the later sections of this article. In fact, these two sections appear to deal more with questions related to the art-for-art's-sake argument facing the art-for-profit and art-for-vocation arguments. All these issues are significant though its unclear why they are called motivated and unmotivated in isolation from all these other discussions of similar themes in art. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd lean towards merging these two sections. There isn't "non-motivated" art since any artwork, according to a lot of thinkers, is the result of a motivation, no matter their nature. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Merge the sections and maybe find a better a title if you think that helps and I will try to support. More on intentionality in the mind of the artist would be nice to see here. Is the artist doing something for the purpose of creating something beautiful, is the artist trying to make a political statement, does the article care about the represented subject matter, etc. It is an extensive topic. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

4.2 Motivated functions

See related discussion points raised above in 4.1. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Noted above. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

5 Public access

Very important issue. Should public museums charge for entrance or not. Are there limits on what art institutions should expect people to pay for access to art? Should exceptions be made for students? See the Walter Benjamin essay on 'Art in the age of mechanical reproduction' which may have some interesting comments along these lines of inquiry of public access. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Walter Benjamin's essay but I'll try to access the resource. Obviously, if we dig into the last two centuries comments about access to art we'll have a wide range of opinions. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a link to a Wikipedia article on this book here: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. It would be nice if you could make some comments on free access museums in the world and non-free private museums in the world. London's museums are often free, but Chicago and New York museums often charge $25-$30 for even student to make a one day visit. Something should be said on this issue here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

6 Controversies

Interesting section with interesting references. Possibly more on this section later. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7 Theory

Interesting section with interesting subsections. Looks fairly strong for now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7.1 Arrival of Modernism

Interesting section with interesting subsections. Looks fairly strong for now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7.2 New Criticism and the "intentional fallacy"

Same comment as above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7.3 "Linguistic turn" and its debate

Same comment as above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

8 Classification disputes

Duchamp material is appropriate here and might be expanded to include the general discussion of the cultivation of taste which actually dated back to Kant well before Duchamp. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Now, it really depends on how long we want this section to be. We can write hundeds of pages only about this topic and it still wouldn't be enought. Every time something new was created (e.g. Picasso, Mondrian, Malevich...) it was disconsidered. Even Duchamp's first painting (Cubism) was rejected from an exhibition which led him to question the meaning of art. Dadaism ironized art as people were seeing it. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
My main purpose in citing Duchamp was to the 'What is art' debates which he helped focus in his own time. For example, when I look at a photograph of a urinal, Duchamp asks me if I am looking at a work of art. Should this general topic of 'What is art' be elaborated in this section?

8.1 Value judgment

Value judgment and taste are certainly related. This section also seems to hint at political judgments as also being relevant which might be expanded as an explicit theme here. For example, censorship in art, deprived funding for the arts in general or art projects in particular, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Among the most notable controversies there is Mapplethorpe's art. Hystorically, there are several reliable studies showing that camera obscura and mirrors have been used to create various paintings [5]. I'd add these to this section. What do you think? Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the question of value judgments concerning Mapplethorpe's controversial images, especially of the erotically charged images, needs some commentary. Should they be censored? Should children be allowed to view extreme erotic domination, etc? I'm not sure how you are relating camera obscura and mirrors to the question of 'value judgment' in your comment above, maybe you can clarify? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


That should get things started. You did a nice effort by improving the citations which are now formatted and well-linked. Let me know if any clarifications are needed for my comments above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo:, I will address the highlighted issues. Tomorrow I have my last exam, so the day after tomorrow I'll have time to improve/fix all these details. Cheers! Robertgombos (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: Is there an update on the edits? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@JohnWickTwo:, not yet, still gatherting some data + sources. :) Robertgombos (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: I am in the habit of chicking in every 5 days or so to see if I can be of any usefulness for your gathering information. Is the start of editing planned for this week or next week for this important article? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@JohnWickTwo: working on it right now. Robertgombos (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: Some comments and links have been added above that may be useful. If you have not read the Walter Benjamin I have linked above then it is likely to be worth your time to at least glance at it and make some comment. Let me know when you make your edits on these various sections and when you are ready for the next round of comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: Its been a few more days and I have not heard from you. Is there anything useful I could offer for editing of improvements, etc. The one edit you have tried on Heidegger was flagged by @Diannaa: as being copied from a Martin Heidegger page, and its been nearly two weeks. Let me know of the status. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No response to repeat pings over several days and no progress in article. The article is subject to quickclose at this time as there is no progress and Diannaa has indicated the single edit of size made has been copied without full attribution. This page should not be re-nominated until all of the items discussed in this review have been fully addressed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018

Meow calico (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2019

Purpose/Motivated functions, item 9: Please change "evolutionary important" to "evolutionarily important" because grammatical error. 79.71.173.140 (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 23:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. REDIRECT [[
Header text Header text Header text
Example Example Example
Example Example Example
Example Example Example

]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.195.252 (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake


Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Rename of art

I think this article needs to be renamed. What would be the best title to call it? Interstellarity (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there must be one simple word we could use for a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power... freshacconci (✉) 15:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Freshacconci: There is a similar article called The arts which can be confused with this one. Interstellarity (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Should we invent a new word? freshacconci (✉) 16:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Confusion, eye of the beholder and all that. Freshacconci's idea for one simple word, maybe of two or three letters and internationally familiar. Hmmmm, since lots of words are taken this is surely a puzzle to be solved in time, and academia may have to be called in. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Freshacconci and Randy Kryn: I don't think we should invent a new word as article titles on Wikipedia are based on usage in reliable sources. Maybe something like Concept of art? Some of the topics such as The arts and Visual arts overlap with each other. Outline of art redirects to Outline of the visual arts which I proposed to be retargeted and all the votes have been to keep it there. Another option would be to merge Visual arts and Art together. These are my thoughts, but I'd be interested in hearing yours as well. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
To be more serious, the page seems fine and doesn't need a renaming. The vastness of the topic deserves the several principal articles it has now, and the nuance between them is only apparent from either close up or at a distance. Art and all its aspects, and the arts and all their aspects, overlap. Yet they also have defined individual qualities which appeal to the brain, its senses, and endocrine-system chemistry which Wikipedia's many separate articles cover well. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is something of a problem here. This article is supposed to cover the general concept of "art" in all areas of the arts, thus risking overlapping with aesthetics (rather a tough read imo). In fact much of it is, especially after the lead, mainly on the visual arts - the history & "public access" sections in particular. A rename to Art (concept) or similar might make the subject and scope clearer, but more importantly more content should be added, and maybe some moved elsewhere. We already have several very brief histories of art dotted around. It doesn't help that all the images are from visual art. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Then where would 'Art' redirect? If it's going to direct back here then either of those work, although I doubt that more than a dozen people a year will be typing 'Art (concept)' into their search line (still a red link, so Theory of art could be another potential redirect, with Concept art having a horse in the race). Since The Arts covers the arts already, this 'Art' page title, with an emphasis on the visual arts, seems what people expect when they seek the word 'art', singular. You seem to have a good vision of what the page could be shaped into - if it's a clear vision go for it, under either name. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Good points - it would have to be a disam page, with all these major articles (but nothing much else). I actually think the best single thing to do here is to remove the history of art bits - I suspect they were lifted from another article - and maybe the public access bit, also all VA. Then this article would be more clearly about the concept of art - also add some pics of dancers books & musicians. I'm reluctant to rename Visual arts to Art, though as you say, this may well be what most readers are looking for when they type in "art". Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In my opinion the title Art is fine; and should remain as is. However we need to expand the content with sections and links encompassing art beyond the visual arts....music; theater; literature; dance; conceptual and online action; and performance can all be covered here...Modernist (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree - then it would become just The arts Mk2. This article should cover more general issues as to what art is, and avoid most specific coverage. I'm somewhat allergic to aesthetics myself, but there is quite a lot of general aesthetic-ish content here, which may be good in quality. The article should imo be rich in links but fairly short, which it would be if some sections were re/moved - currently it is already 99k raw bytes. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Concern I'd have is not to separate 'Art' from 'Visual arts' too much. Art seems commonly known as visual arts, and to mix it up too much with 'the arts' or 'performing arts' (which are not commonly known as 'Art' but 'the arts') will dilute other areas of Wikipedia (categories, etc.), and again brings up the question of where would Art be redirected. This is really a major change of direction for the article if the ideas are implemented, so let's continue to accent the visual arts as 'art' as commonly known. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
To go that way, Art should redirect to Visual arts (or more likely the other way round), and this page be called something else. That's one way of doing it, which I can go along with (whether the wider non-VA community would be, I'm not sure). The aim of this page is not just to repeat either Visual arts or The arts, but to cover the wider sense at a more conceptual level. That the other areas are called "literature", "music" etc is NOT the point. They are always accepted as means of artistic expression etc etc. That is what this page has to be about if there is to be any point to having it, and what about 60-70% of it already is. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I am going to formally propose a RM with this page being moved to Art (concept) with Art redirecting to Visual arts. I think Visual arts is what most most readers are looking for. If not, we could redirect them to any of the pages linked in the hatnote. We could put a hatnote on top of the visual arts page that looks like this:
"Art" redirects here. For concept of art, see Art (concept). For the group of creative disciplines, see The arts. For other uses, see Art (disambiguation).
I think this is the best scenario for titling the article. Interstellarity (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 17:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


Art → Art (concept) – Please see my rationale in the above comment. Interstellarity (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose - if you need a disambiguator like "(concept)", you can tell you're on the wrong track. This meaning is PRIMARY. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per primary topic. The above discussion exemplifies why you should never use sarcasm over text Red Slash 20:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is the primary topic, there's no need for a dab qualifier. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Can go along with this - as I said above. I'm not so sure the general meaning, covering all forms of artistic expression, which is the subject of this article, is in fact the primary meaning - certainly I don't believe this is obvious. I'd suggest most usage by most people means what we cover at Visual arts, as in art class, art school, art museum etc. Currently this article tries to straddle the two meanings (see above), but this should be remedied. There might be a better new title though. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    • This article seems to be following the WP:BROADCONCEPT model, doing a good job of directing readers to those more specialized articles you mention. -- Netoholic @ 15:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Not at all, the one that does that is The arts. This one says it is about the concept, and much of it is, but a large "history of (visual, Western) art" has been copied in from elsewhere, plus some other sections, like the public access ones. These need to be removed (probably to visual art). The article has nothing at all to say about music, literature, drama, dance etc (nor even any images of them). Nor should it really, or it is just a fork of The arts. The clean-up and refocus here should have preceded any move proposal - I'm dubious all commenting above are aware of what this article actually covers. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I feel like when someone is looking for the page "Art" this is overwhelmingly what they are looking for. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 04:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor edit re grammar

"Though there is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art,[5][6][7] and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[8] and creation.[9] "

I'm not a linguist, but it looks like the grammar seems off. Maybe something like:

""Though there is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art,[5][6][7] and while the usage of the termhas changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[8] and creation.[9] "

"while the usage of the term" would be an example to make this sentence less 'clunky'. I can't edit as I haven't bothered to sign up for an account yet.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.152.112 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it used to be "disputed, and has changed over time". Changed a bit. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done This left a small run-on which I've broken up. I think the two changes together correct the concern expressed by the anon. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding meditative practices

I think that art as a meditative practice should be added under Art for psychological and healing purposes in the Purpose section under motivated functions. I think it's important to note that it is used for healing outside of art therapy. Goldfishemily (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

Hello Admins may I please edit this page to change some capitilizations that I noticed needed some changing to make a paragraph gramaticly correct I hope we can work together, thank you. Thatweirdeditor (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

​Until your account is a little bit older, you'll have to request specific changes here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y". – Thjarkur (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Art and Occupational Therapy

  • The Occupational Therapy (O.T.) field approaches the modality of art expression in a holistic view, where opportunities for skill development and psychosocial benefits are provided.
  • In the realm of art, the use of crafts in occupational therapy can be used by an

individual, in order to practice skills that can be applied to other functional activities of daily living (ADLs). Crafts may even become tasks that fulfill one’s occupational needs.

________________

( Reference for all sentences: Leenerts, E., Evetts, C., & Miller, E. (2016). Reclaiming and Proclaiming the Use of Crafts in Occupational Therapy. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1194 )


(In the first line, “Occupational Therapy (O.T.)” as well as “holistic” can be hyperlinked)

(The last few words of the 2nd to last sentence: “activities of daily living (ADLS)” can be hyperlinked) --Avi Aminov (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(Perhaps the context can be placed within the “Motivated Functions” section of the page, as part of #7/“Art for psychological and healing purposes”.) --Avi Aminov (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021

88.242.232.248 (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JavaHurricane 08:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge Art with Visual Arts (the broader concept article exists at The Arts)

NOT MERGED
Clear consensus against merger czar 03:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These two articles are covering the same topic. The scope of this Art article is simply Visual Arts. This is confirmed via consensus in previous threads (e.g. Talk:Art/Archive 3#Rename of art, Talk:Art/Archive 3#Merge "Art" with "The arts"?, Talk:The arts#Requested move 10 October 2020), and it is stated in the second paragraph of the lede (The three classical branches of visual art are painting, sculpture, and architecture. Theatre, dance, and other performing arts, as well as literature, music, film and other media such as interactive media, are included in a broader definition of the arts.) The broader concept "Arts" article is at The Arts.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onceinawhile and thanks for bringing up the issue. I agree with you that there is significant overlap between the three articles Art, The arts, and Visual Arts. But I'm not sure whether the merge you propose is the best solution. There is a sense in which the term "art" refers to much more than merely the visual arts, like additionally to music or poetry. For example, see here. It can refer both to the practice and the product. To my ear, the term "the arts" refers only to the practice or discipline but not to the product. In this sense, it would be more narrow than the term "art". But I'm not sure that this distinction justifies having two separate articles. In the case of "visual art", I think it's more obvious that it refers to one form of "art" among others. So my first hunch would be to have one article covering the terms "art" and "the arts" together in their widest sense and then another article for "visual art". Phlsph7 (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, again The last time this was rejected was I think in this discussion, though maybe there are others. The contents of the two long articles are nearly all different, with "Art" on higher level, more conceptual and aesthetic, stuff, and "Visual arts" more going through the history & techniques etc in a more down to earth fashion. I wonder if the proposer actually read the articles. A merged article would surely be too long. It's not true that "The scope of this Art article is simply Visual Arts", though it is mostly so. More stuff on other areas of the arts could be introduced. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand this as saying you are comfortable with the article having an imprecise scope. The imprecise scope is not by design, but as a result of many years of editing confusion as to what the scope really is here. This imprecision discourages editors and confuses readers. Historical consensus (including in the discussion you linked to) is clear that the title Art is to be about Visual Arts. It is time for us to own that, and tidy this up once and for all. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Johnbod's analysis. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Art is a much wider category, which includes Visual Arts within it. The 2 articles are different enough to be separate. — Golden call me maybe? 10:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Each article needs to stand individually...Modernist (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Art is clearly broader than a simply visual thing Sionk (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Art encompasses a larger arena of practices including the design arts, performance art, sound art, etc. where as Visual art is a subset of art and is normally used for painting, sculpture, drawing, photography. Merging the two would create an unwieldy article which would make it more difficult for our readership to find the information they are seeking. Netherzone (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

Please remove the top image in Overview, it' too big Lina211 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Terasail[✉️] 03:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Art/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Review may take a day or two to put into a starting form. You might mention here when you will be ready to start and what has drawn you to nominate this article. Also mention if you would be able to make any revisions or expansions to different sections of the article if needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo:. The Art article is one of the main starting point for a lot of other art related topic. It's like the root of a tree, if you like. During my 6 years (and counting) studies in the field of arts, I collected a lot of knowledge, books needed for my projects, dissertation and more. A few weeks ago, when I saw a lot of citation needed tags in the article, unaddressed for years, I started to improve all the affected section until I have finished referencing each of them. Yes, I can make revisions and expansions to any of the article's sections if needed. The article failed the GA assessment a few years ago because no one was willing to fix the referencing issue. But, as an expert Wikipedian in Arts, I'd be more than happy to improve this article (even if it passes of not the GA review process successfully) and any other art related article because I can, I have tons of books, I have access to several thousand art related books and publication in several languages (at my university) and.. besides the cleaning, patrolling, fighting vandalism aspects I love doing on WP, improving articles that can and worth being improved is one of the things I love doing So, please ping me from here for any issue, I'll try to fix them as soon as possible even if 'till June 14 I am very busy because I have some exams (all art related, haha)... so it is doable. :) Cheers! Robertgombos (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Start point for Review

0 Lead section

The lead section shall be discussed for the most part at the end of this assessment and some revision are to be reviewed. One example is that the citations in the lead section are seemingly out of place since the lead only summarized what is already covered in the article. All those citations in the lead should already be in the main body of the article. More on lead section later in the review process. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Improved it. Further imrpovement may be needed. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It is highly important that it be verified that each sentence of the lead section be a summary of material already covered in this article. Once you verify that each one of the references in the lead section is already covered in the main body of the article then that reference should be removed from the lead section as being redundant. At the end of your revisions to the lead section, then there should be no references in the lead section at all when you are done. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

1 Creative art and fine art

If this section is dealing with innovation and taste as assessing the status of fine art, then should these topics be made more apparent in the text of the section. This article as a whole deals strongly with an orientation towards the visual arts, possibly at the cost of the other arts such as sculpture and photography to name but two of the other arts. Also, as a general comment, this article as a whole seems oriented to the perspective of Art history meeting Art theory which in itself is not a criticism, but does that limit the full perspective of what a comprehensive article on 'art' should encompass to be complete. The words "Few modern scholars..." appear as an isolated sentence and looks like it is part of the paragraph following it with unnecessary line breaks. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, you are right. The cited source starts with Plato's view about crafting (art, as a term, was non-existent at that time) and ends with 20th century viewpoints (Croce, Collingwood, Cassirer, Nahm, Evans and Read etc). Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

2 History

Have you read the essay on art by Martin Heidegger "The Origin of the Work of Art" which has been reprinted several times. I will hold my comments on this section until you confirm if you are familiar with Heidegger's essay on Art and its origin. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art". Added a paragrapraph sumarizing his opinion about art. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice Heidegger addition. You don't have to add the nice descriptive phrases you have added about him since he is well liked already by many Wikipedia editors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

3 Forms, genres, media, and styles

The outline of this section contrasts with the material in the linked Wikipedia article The arts and its listing of the different arts in a sequential manner. I have already mentioned that this article on 'art' is strongly oriented toward the visual arts. Should there be a generalization in some form to acknowledge the prominence of other art forms such as sculpture and photography, etc, rather than having a strong orientation from the standpoint of visual art as painted artworks alone? JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This section needs a more extended structure since art includes sculpture (even living sculptures, eg. Klein), painting, photography, ready-mades, installations, collages and many more. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I am assuming you are planning to add these missing sections over the week-end? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

3.1 Skill and craft

This is a single section delineated in a larger section. Usually at least two subsections are expected. If you have an approach to assessing the relevance of the article on The arts which I mentioned above to this article on 'art', then you might consider some further subsections here based on sculpture, photography, etc, and their demands on skill, craft, education, mentorship, technology, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Strong agree. Working on it. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

4 Purpose

The purpose of art to express and represent beauty should not be overlooked. This is part of the larger topic of art and aesthetics which seems underplayed in this article on art in its current form. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Pleasing the eye, serving religion and those who were paying for art was the main purpose of art untill Expressionism - when art's purpose wasn't anymore "to impress" but "to express". Probably a paragraph about this would be welcomed? Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess the question here is whether the article should say more about the experience of the aesthetic and perhaps something about the human perception of beauty and what that means. I think that would be welcomed and useful. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

4.1 Non-motivated functions

These two subsection on motivated and non-motivated functions of art seem a little off-center, the issue of intentionality in art is fairly well addressed in one of the later sections of this article. In fact, these two sections appear to deal more with questions related to the art-for-art's-sake argument facing the art-for-profit and art-for-vocation arguments. All these issues are significant though its unclear why they are called motivated and unmotivated in isolation from all these other discussions of similar themes in art. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd lean towards merging these two sections. There isn't "non-motivated" art since any artwork, according to a lot of thinkers, is the result of a motivation, no matter their nature. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Merge the sections and maybe find a better a title if you think that helps and I will try to support. More on intentionality in the mind of the artist would be nice to see here. Is the artist doing something for the purpose of creating something beautiful, is the artist trying to make a political statement, does the article care about the represented subject matter, etc. It is an extensive topic. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

4.2 Motivated functions

See related discussion points raised above in 4.1. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Noted above. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

5 Public access

Very important issue. Should public museums charge for entrance or not. Are there limits on what art institutions should expect people to pay for access to art? Should exceptions be made for students? See the Walter Benjamin essay on 'Art in the age of mechanical reproduction' which may have some interesting comments along these lines of inquiry of public access. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Walter Benjamin's essay but I'll try to access the resource. Obviously, if we dig into the last two centuries comments about access to art we'll have a wide range of opinions. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a link to a Wikipedia article on this book here: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. It would be nice if you could make some comments on free access museums in the world and non-free private museums in the world. London's museums are often free, but Chicago and New York museums often charge $25-$30 for even student to make a one day visit. Something should be said on this issue here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

6 Controversies

Interesting section with interesting references. Possibly more on this section later. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7 Theory

Interesting section with interesting subsections. Looks fairly strong for now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7.1 Arrival of Modernism

Interesting section with interesting subsections. Looks fairly strong for now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7.2 New Criticism and the "intentional fallacy"

Same comment as above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7.3 "Linguistic turn" and its debate

Same comment as above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

8 Classification disputes

Duchamp material is appropriate here and might be expanded to include the general discussion of the cultivation of taste which actually dated back to Kant well before Duchamp. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Now, it really depends on how long we want this section to be. We can write hundeds of pages only about this topic and it still wouldn't be enought. Every time something new was created (e.g. Picasso, Mondrian, Malevich...) it was disconsidered. Even Duchamp's first painting (Cubism) was rejected from an exhibition which led him to question the meaning of art. Dadaism ironized art as people were seeing it. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
My main purpose in citing Duchamp was to the 'What is art' debates which he helped focus in his own time. For example, when I look at a photograph of a urinal, Duchamp asks me if I am looking at a work of art. Should this general topic of 'What is art' be elaborated in this section?

8.1 Value judgment

Value judgment and taste are certainly related. This section also seems to hint at political judgments as also being relevant which might be expanded as an explicit theme here. For example, censorship in art, deprived funding for the arts in general or art projects in particular, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Among the most notable controversies there is Mapplethorpe's art. Hystorically, there are several reliable studies showing that camera obscura and mirrors have been used to create various paintings [6]. I'd add these to this section. What do you think? Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the question of value judgments concerning Mapplethorpe's controversial images, especially of the erotically charged images, needs some commentary. Should they be censored? Should children be allowed to view extreme erotic domination, etc? I'm not sure how you are relating camera obscura and mirrors to the question of 'value judgment' in your comment above, maybe you can clarify? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


That should get things started. You did a nice effort by improving the citations which are now formatted and well-linked. Let me know if any clarifications are needed for my comments above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo:, I will address the highlighted issues. Tomorrow I have my last exam, so the day after tomorrow I'll have time to improve/fix all these details. Cheers! Robertgombos (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: Is there an update on the edits? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@JohnWickTwo:, not yet, still gatherting some data + sources. :) Robertgombos (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: I am in the habit of chicking in every 5 days or so to see if I can be of any usefulness for your gathering information. Is the start of editing planned for this week or next week for this important article? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@JohnWickTwo: working on it right now. Robertgombos (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: Some comments and links have been added above that may be useful. If you have not read the Walter Benjamin I have linked above then it is likely to be worth your time to at least glance at it and make some comment. Let me know when you make your edits on these various sections and when you are ready for the next round of comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: Its been a few more days and I have not heard from you. Is there anything useful I could offer for editing of improvements, etc. The one edit you have tried on Heidegger was flagged by @Diannaa: as being copied from a Martin Heidegger page, and its been nearly two weeks. Let me know of the status. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No response to repeat pings over several days and no progress in article. The article is subject to quickclose at this time as there is no progress and Diannaa has indicated the single edit of size made has been copied without full attribution. This page should not be re-nominated until all of the items discussed in this review have been fully addressed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: KatrinaBaldeo, Minzhe Qi, Sunflowerdandelions, Linlin Jiang.

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

I want to add the following information, There are different aspects to art. These are perspective, value, contrast, colour, depth, and proportion. വർണ്ണാഭമായ (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Experimental art?

several red links are for experimental art. Is it a defined concept, at all? In addition, Wikidata item exists (Wikidata:Q2355696), and even a category in itwiki (Wikidata:Q9471807) Estopedist1 (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

A question it would be better to ask at the project talk. My own feeling is that, while the term has no doubt often been used over the last century, there isn't really a coherent topic. One might redirect to Conceptual art to catch most links. Some would say that experimental art has taken over much of the contemporary art scene, but not under that name. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Btw, we have a category called: Category:Works about avant-garde and experimental art. Most members cover stuff ove 50 years old. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

What should we do about the length of the lead section?

I noticed that the lead section of the article is supposedly "too short to adequately summarize the key points." I was wondering if a viable solution could be to move at least half or all of the second paragraph into the first, since I don't think there's much we can actually "add" to the lead. The second paragraph also (at least in my opinion) summarizes what art is generally well, so I'd think it'd work fine. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. The 2nd lead para is rather too long imo. I don't normally like "overview" sections, but here it may work. If we agree here, we could just remove the tag - I could live with that. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Just to make sure, you're suggesting that we combine segments of the second lead paragraph into the first and then remove the tag, right? TheBrickGraphic (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Or just remove it. The "globalize" one too maybe - there was nothing on talk. Tags aren't sacred. Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Food art🤢🤢

No just no 2600:1014:B132:84BD:38E6:D508:D01F:FDA1 (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Food art🤢🤢

Bad =( It does not taste good even though it may look good do not try it you will not like it. Arya7866 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't start irrelevant conversations in the talk pages. The Old Macintosh (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Not very neutral

The wording in the article doesn't seem so neutral. It sounds a bit directed towards the subject. The Old Macintosh (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.ubc.ca/okanagan/creative/links/arthistory/What_is_Art_.html
  2. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/630806/art
  3. ^ Breskin, Vladimir, Triad: Method for studying the core of the semiotic parity of language and art, Signs – International Journal of Semiotics 3, pp.1–28, 2010. ISSN: 1902-8822
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art/Archive_3&oldid=1170422067"