|WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated Start-class)|
Theres a lot of vandalism on this page. I notice for intstance someone has removed the hyperlinks from several websites, including The Visionary Revue and Lila.info. These have been restored.
The spirit of visionary art is cooperation and co-support, not suppression or slander. Nor should the wikipedia entry be used for too much self promotion. For instance, a group calling themselves Multimedia Layerists put themselves at the top of the networks and organisations entry. Of course its fine to put ones project in, but right at the top ? Hows about a bit of humility ?
I recently had a mentions of myself and the Lila project (the author of most of the content on this page) removed, which I feel is unfair. I am not using this page to self promote, but it happens that my website is one of the largest repositories of visionary art theory and interviews with visionary artists on the internet. I have also contributed work to several visionary art journals. This just happens to be how it is, and a mention of the Lila project and my work is fair enough, because I use it primarily to promote other artists.
So anyone modifying this page I ask, lets cultivate respect and integrity...
Danielmirante 18:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)daniel mirante18:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
choice of art used
the Klarwein painting used to represent visoinary art at the top of the entry also gets used at the top of the Psychedelic art entry. seems a little redundant to have this in both entries. certainly a great piece of art, though. preferably, we could have some art, that, while visionary, most people *wouldn't* qualify as psychedelic. (Ernst Fuchs, for example.) ***Ria777 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
looks like its been done, great choice of work too...
Redirect to outsider art
Can this redirect to outsider art, with a discussion of the subtle differences in terms (while they describe the same art, basically, the difference is in emphasis), or does "visionary art" really have enough to say about itself as a category? I'd think seriously about making it a redirect. Philthecow 23:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've made a redirect, it was removed without comment. Please explain why you'd like this to stay if you want to remove this redirect, oh person who does this. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
How about we not do that, mmkay? These are fairly different things. Backed out redirect and added comment about how some people lump them together and added a link. 184.108.40.206 19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
see below for an explanation of how the two fields of art (visionary and outsider) differ. ***Ria777 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Visionary versus Outsider Art
I hate to delete someone else's work, but this page starts with what, for me, is a completely false assertion:
"Visionary art is art produced by self-taught individuals, usually without formal training, whose works arise from an innate personal vision that revels foremost in the creative act itself."
You only need to look at the work of the visionary artists cited as examples; H. R. Giger, Alex Grey, Mati Klarwein, to realise that this is plain untrue.
The author seems to be referring to a very American specific subgenre of visionary art and seems to be promoting a particularly narrow view of what visionary art is - taken from this site: http://www.avam.org/stuff/whatsvis.html
Take a look at the wide range of art at the society for art of imagination ( http://www.artofimagination.org/Pages/MemberArt.html - does this look like it has been done by self taught individuals, without formal training?
The comments may, perhaps, to relate validly to 'outsider art', but are certainly not true of 'visionary art' in the broader sense.
- Perhaps the writer was only familiar with that sphere of visionary art, but yes, it is not exclusive to untrained artists. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed all external links from this article relating to Example Artists. I think that going by Notariety, it can be safely assumed that one must be meritorious of an article in order to be included. Otherwise it bears the potential of being a link farm. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that external links to the (non-wiki) artists should be removed --220.127.116.11 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, such an outlook strikes me as elitist. In this formative period of Wikipedia there are many great artists, new and mature, who have not yet been 'enshrined' in wiki articles. The musician Iasos has had a beautiful Visionary Artist gallery on his web site for years, filled with artists who have earned a place in that pantheon,(with the possible exception of myself, although I admittedly barely register on the VisArt meter he likes my work), so I have offered his gallery link to the mix on the strength of the work shown. I agree that a huge number of artist web page links could be unweildy however a good collection, of managable size, of artists on one site serves as a 'window' to Visionary talent out there. Don Davis
Standards should be kept, in my opinion. That inevitably means excluding artists. Bus stop 04:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but whose? I urge a look at the artists in the 'visionary artists gallery' link, some of whom have been in the business for over 20 years, to evaluate their qualifications to be listed as 'Visionary Artists' on the basis of their work. These are examples of the San Francisco Bay Area 'school' of Visionary Art, examples of which appeared for years in the 'Illuminarium' gallery in Marin. Don
Wikipedia's standards. That means (to me) artists who have articles on Wikipedia. If they have articles on Wikipedia, that pretty much means that they have met Wikipedia standards. Bus stop 06:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a 'catch 22' reply, with all due respect. BTW, At least two of the visionary artists in the Iasos gallery have Wiki articles, but I haven't checked them all. If someone were to add wiki articles about the others would that elevate their arbitrarily defined status or would a decent percentage of them be sufficent? What do you think of the art so referenced, within the context of 'Visionary Art'? That should be the primary factor. Don
The example artists listed are extremely well known, recognised masters of their craft and strongly allied with the visionary art theme of this wiki. Several people have been coming to these pages and adding themselves to the list of visionary artists, without being humble and recognising that they do not have the widespread acknowledgement but are rather 'up and coming' or in the development phase as artists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielmirante (talk • contribs)
- The "visionary art theme" you speak of smacks of unconscionable elitism. It is one thing to relay information. It is another to load a (supposedly) encyclopaedic article with so much bias that it becomes a self-parody of everything that is wrong with the exclusionary nature of the "high art" world. The quotation of the museum's definition of "visionary art" is shameful and embarrassing. People vandalize this page because they implicitly understand that it's nothing but a vulgar farce that is attempting to parade as an informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone keeps moving Brigid to the 'emerging artists' section. Brigid is an 'old master', quite literally. Not only is she in the National Portrait Gally, she is ther founder the Society for Art of Imagination, she holds regular classes on visionary art, produces a visionary art magazine, and was Ernst Fuchs' apprentice. In other words, she is highly renowned and VERY WELL RECOGNISED as a visionary artist.
Please stop moving her name !
J S Hill Added
I thought I'd add the name as I think he deserves a place in this article.
Inline citations and third party citations needed
I see some passionate arguments here, but the question isn't who deserves what, it's what's verifiably true. Those who argue a particular case needn't do so with proper citations. Worries about this article becoming a forum for self promotion will disapear with the proper third party citations.
Discrete facts seem particularly absent from the "Important" network and segregated artist list sections. In the absence of specific, inline citations, these sections seem to be clear violations of wp:nor. - JeffJonez (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- These points are still valid almost one year later. Organizations without a wikipedia article or significant mentions in credible sources should not be included. This information constitutes original research, which is a Bad Thing. Organizations like Lila and Laurence Caruna's Visionary Revue are both examples of links that need credible sources before they should be included in the article - JeffJonez (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just saw the request for outside eyes from the Editor assistance requests page. And hi Dan, fancy meeting you here! I have emailed a friend who is a keen proponent of WP but not herself an active editor, but is a knowledgeable member of staff at "Raw Vision" magazine, with respect to getting a few inline citations. (I also notice Raw Vision is a Red Link, the page having been deleted 8 July 2007 as spam, despite the subject being notable (1145 WP article page results, 3,639 whole site). I'm following this up too, with the person who deleted it.) And I note RV deals more with outsider and naive art than visionary.
I am also aware that there are different interpretations of what visionary art is, and who's a visionary artist - the cited para I put into the intro isn't intended to be a carte blanche description - nor is it mine! - it's the definition by one organisation reputable enough to have its own WP page. I (or you) could get round to checking whether other non-specific references (in the excessive freestanding list of external links by WP guidelines) meet the standards required here, and if so finding within them specific citations for assertions in the text. Trev M ~ 20:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC) et seq.
- I've just started Raw Vision from scratch (and from references), not using the previous content. Ty 12:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Despite it having been deleted - for having a link to its site in every para I think - the original article contains valuable info if it can be cited. Have you found the copy at my userspace: User:Trev_M/Raw_Vision?
Yes, I had found it. It was deleted with the reason "G12 (may be notable, but this content is spam)". The problem was the editorial opinion such as (from the first five paragraphs):
- a way to intelligently present art
- a form of creation so strong and so spiritually charged
- neglected creators of great quality and importance
- It reflected the best international perspectives
I question whether your addition of heading Definition is a best course at this early stage of the article. The para The Vienna School of Fantastic Realism... becomes out of context and needs yet another heading if you do this. There is very little verifiable content at this stage and almost too many headings. Would suggest create cited content then section it. Trev M ~ 12:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC) et seq
- Text moved to appropriate section. I don't see anything wrong with the current structure as a starting point. At least there's some organization in the article now, but it's obviously still not in a very good state, particularly because of the lack of inline citations. The first heading is needed to create a WP:LEAD section. Otherwise the Table of Contents comes halfway down the article. Ty 13:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- PS Please avoid bold text: WP:TPG#YES. Ty 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
visionary art definition
Hi, just coming across this page and I'm confused on what is visionary art. In web search results it seems visionary art is a kind of cross between surreal/psychedelic/spiritual genres yet the AVAM states it as some sort of outsider art. There is some kind of disconnection in definitions. The quote in this article, which is on the avam website, says there, "Visionary art as defined for the purposes of the American Visionary Art Museum refers to art produced by self-taught individuals, usually without formal training, whose works...etc." Doesn't this mean that AVAM is defining visionary art for themselves? It seems Visionary art is more like the works of Alex Grey and such... --Turn685 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)