Talk:Work of art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 

Disegno[edit]

The subsection on disegno badly needs to be split out into it's own article. It seems very out of place here. —mako 06:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The section also doesn't define the word disegno. Which part of the long sentence is the disegno? -Phoenixrod (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Digital Art[edit]

This also seems quite out of place here. It's enough to include some digital arts media, in that first sentence that lists examples of the various media that works of art can be created within, and a 'see also'. That it requires formal analysis, includes algorithmic art, or isn't intended to replace traditional media but to challenge it (an unsupported claim) is irrelevant here. It seems to serve as an argument that 'digital artworks are works of art too!' and wikipedia isn't the place for that. Why not have a separate paragraph explicating what makes makes printmaking a legitimate sphere for works of art? Actually, I could chop some of this out, and move the rest to an appropriate place in this article.

Also the use of the term 'formalist analysis' seems to me to be incorrect diction. 'Formalist' would refer to [formalism], an historically specific concept, and is linked there, but whoever wrote this means 'formal analysis'. One needn't subscribe to formalist theories to conduct a formal analysis, I don't believe. --bntrpy (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Art Object[edit]

This deserves a seperate article.

A distinction has long been made between the physical qualities and existence of an art object and it's status as an Artwork. [1]. An Artwork such a Dutch 17th Century painting has a physical existence as a painting that is seperate from it's identity as a Rembrandt Masterpiece[2]. Many art objects, such as the Duchamp's famous Fountain (Duchamp) have been denied the status of art. Research Method (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If no objections are made, I shall create such a page, and remove the automatic redirect.Research Method (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It was previously merged to this article, so it might be an idea to wait for a week or so to see gather any responses. Ty 11:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It should be section here, rather than a seperate article, imo. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Please give reasoning for your opinion:)Research Method (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As no reasoned objections have been made, I shall create a seperate article.Research Method (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What was the reason it was merged in the first place? Even if there hasn't been an active discussion on this page, I'd think the merge history of these two pages is important to consider. --Clubmarx (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
How do I find out? This article states that it is a term created in America to convey a different meaning to "work of art".Research Method (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"The related terms "artwork" and "art object", used especially in American English, came into use in the 20th century, especially to describe modern and post-modern art, in order to avoid an older syntagma "piece of art" as a concept which was strongly tied with traditional aesthetics."Research Method (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it was merged because it contained very little text, but I can't find any reasons.Research Method (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC) The concept of art object can perfectly well be contained here, at least unless the article becomes maasively larger. It is confusing to have two articles on aspects of the same thing - this is known as a content fork. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a different concept [1].Research Method (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I have read Benjamin. You will notice he (or rather his translator) uses different terms interchangably: "The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated. This holds not only for the art work but also, for instance, for a landscape which passes in review before the spectator in a movie. In the case of the art object, a most sensitive nucleus – namely, its authenticity ....". No different definitions are given. Frankly I think you should continue your studies a while longer before attempting these sorts of moves. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Lippard makes a firm distinction - [2]Research Method (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.Research Method (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Note also that in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term.Research Method (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What page? And it would take much stonger referencing than that to justify a separate article. Under WP guidelines, subjects should not be split between what are essentially different terms for the same concept. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Content forkResearch Method (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that a Work of Art is an object per se?Research Method (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine Art[edit]

Why isn't music or literature included? needs a disambiguation page. Research Method (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

They were included, I think until you took them out. They do not need a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Did I take them out?Research Method (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did [3]. now please go and have an argument with yourself. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither was mentioned there.Research Method (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? "song and "book"? This is getting very silly. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant sections not one word mentions, as I think is clear from the context.Research Method (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It is not at all clear - why would you say you want a disam page, if what you meant was you wanted sections here? Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Objet d'Art[edit]

This is seperate from a work of art. It should not redirect here. It does not refer to "Works of Art". Eg "The National Maritime Museum's collection of objet d’art comprises over 800 objects. These are mostly small decorative art items that fall outside the scope of the Museum’s ceramic, plate, textiles and glass collections." [4]

References[edit]

Merge with Art object[edit]

There has been some preliminary discussion at Talk:Art object. I and others feel any distinction between the two terms, so far not made at all clearly, is not enough to justify having two articles. "Art object" should be a section here. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC) There is also discussion above.Research Method (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  • as nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge - 1 is enough...Modernist (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nomination. --Clubmarx (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. This is a general encyclopedia. The merge will cover the subject perfectly well. Ty 07:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -merge for a more complete articlePontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Research Method (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, that's consensus I think. I have merged & trimmed the article, but it is still a bit of a mess. Can anyone help? Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

There is a clear difference between a work of art, as defined by this article, and an art object. An art object can be a work of art (such as the Mona Lisa), and a work of art can be an art object(such as a painting), but equally an art object may not be a work of art(a chinese copy of the Mona Lisa), and a work of art may not be an art object(such as The Portrait of Dorian Gray)Research Method (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Why was this article merged in the past? The last article was 50 words long. I can find no other reason. Why should it be merged now? Why is an "Art Object" of necessity a "Work of Art

"in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term."Research Method (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

They have been merged twice in the past for the reasons given in the nom & the other discussion. Art object is a subset of "work of art"; all art objects are works of art, by your own definition in the other article. But WP works by concensus, so let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is nom? Can you copy the reasons here so others can see them? Are you saying that all paintings are Works of Art?Research Method (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I can't find the definition you can see. Please can you quote it.Research Method (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nom means the nominator - Johnbod was the nom of the merge vote...Modernist (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry, I am new to Wikipedia. I want to collaborate on an article entitled "Art Object". Please explain why someone searching for Art Object or Objet d'Art should be taken straight to this page. The term is widely used, and according to the text of this article, was devised specifically to have a different meaning.Research Method (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Google, there are 392,000 references to "art object" of which 360,000 do not mention "work of art".Research Method (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just curious but have you read all 360,000? Modernist (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The ghits do not demonstrate that there should be two articles. The (your) definition was "An Art object is a physical object that is considered to fulfil or have fulfilled an independent and primarly aesthetic function", which works also for the great majority of works of visual art. As far as I am concerned "an art object may not be a work of art (a chinese copy of the Mona Lisa)" is wrong - if it is one it is the other. You have not produced anything to justify the distinction made here. "Art object" is a subset of "Work of art" and (this is the killer) by far the more likely term to be used to describe that subset, though of course in practice most descriptions will use more specific terms than either - painting, sculpture etc. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There are also 964 million pages with the term "car" that don't mention the word "automobile", and 76 million pages with the reverse situation. Since when do people compulsively list all the synonyms for each term they use when the write? —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining yourself. Please have a quick look at this [Experience and the Art Object: The Intellectual Approach of Criticism by Michael Betancourt] and see if it supports the creation of a new article. I agree that the difference is subtle, but I think that it is material.Peace and Love (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He seems to agree with me:"Conceptual art did not produce objects that can be experienced in the same way as traditional art objects". The best book on these sorts of issues is the classic by Richard Wollheim: Art and its objects, 2nd edn, 1980, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521 29706 0. Not a light read though. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
"Conceptual art did not produce objects that can be experienced in the same way as traditional art objects", but did it produce works of art that can be experienced in the same way as traditional works of art? That is the difference I seePeas & Luv (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
That is your interpretation. It is not contained in the statement. Please be accurate to the source. Ty 07:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I see no sign he is attempting to differentiate between the two terms. Johnbod (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think an art object (an objet d’art), has lesser aspirations. A Fabergé egg is an objet d’art. But a Malevich painting is a work of art. One tends to have the emphasis on material worth, or luxury status, or pretensions of being art; but the other tends to have the emphasis on intellectual content, and what is considered serious aesthetic accomplishment, or even more importantly, some sort of "pushing of the envelope," breaking through into new aesthetic territory. Therefore objet d’art should be a subset of Work of art. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
They are merged now - I don't know how to do the box to close this. But in English "art object" and "objet d’art" are used differently, which the article does cover, if not very well. Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge now done, see above Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material in the lede[edit]

The following material is unsourced, and, in my oppinion, oppinionated and innacurate. What is more it covers material dealt with in the body of the article. I have removed it here for these reasons. "The related terms artwork and art object, used especially in American English, came into use in the 20th century, especially to describe modern and post-modern art. It was applied to works without significant skill or craft in creating the physical object. Some contemporary works of art in conceptual art and other fields exist essentially as sets of instructions by the artist for the physical creation of the object, which is expected only to be physically created periodically—just as a piece of music or drama exists as a score or script. An example is Emergency Room by Thierry Geoffroy. Sometimes physical objects are transferred by the artist, but the work requires their arrangement in a specific form set out by the artist. In such cases, the distinction between the terms is useful; the "work of art" has no permanent physical form, but sometimes manifests as a physical "art object." Equally a work of found art may not change its physical properties, but becomes art when so presented by the artist. In contrast, a work of art may change the qualities of the materials concerned, as in An Oak Tree by Michael Craig-Martin." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

In complete agreement with the comment above by (talk), the offending text has been removed and stored opn this talk page, in accordance with Wikipdia guide lines, and the links have been removed. Please see WP:OR, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OVERLINK.

[printmaking|prints]], sculpture, drawings, photography or buildings. Since modernism, the field of fine art has expanded to include film, performance art, conceptual art, Welded sculpture and video art.What is perceived as a work of art differs between cultures and eras and by the meaning of the term "art". From the Renaissance until the twentieth century, and to some extent still, Western art critics and the general western public tended not to define applied art or decorative art as works of art. They tended to accord them lower status than works, such as paintings, with no practical use, according to the hierarchy of genres. Other cultures, for example Chinese and Islamic, have not made this distinction so strongly.The related terms artwork and art object, used especially in American English, came into use in the 20th century. Some contemporary works of art in conceptual art and other fields exist essentially as sets of instructions by the artist for the physical creation of the object, which is expected only to be physically created periodically—just as a piece of music or drama exists as a score or script. An example is Emergency Room by Thierry Geoffroy. Sometimes physical objects are transferred by the artist, but the work requires their arrangement in a specific form set out by the artist. In such cases, the distinction between the terms is useful; the "work of art" has no permanent physical form, but sometimes manifests as a physical "art object." Equally a work of found art may not change its physical properties, but becomes art when so presented by the artist. In contrast, a work of art may change the qualities of the materials concerned, as in An Oak Tree by Michael Craig-Martin. The French form of "art object," objet d'art, has been used for much longer in English and usually means a work of decorative or applied art. To establish whether a work is a work of art, the concepts of attribution, artistic merit and literary merit may be invoked. Among practitioners of contemporary art, various new media objects such as the DVD] the web page, and other interactive media have been treated as art objects; such treatment frequently involves a formalist (or "medium-specific") analysis. The formal analysis of computerized media has yielded such art movements as internet art and algorithmic art. The purpose of "new media objects" is not to replace traditional media, but to challenge old media. --Kudpung (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

Contributions that continue to be in confllict with WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:RS and WP:V policy will no longer be WP:AGF, and will continue to be reverted, and may eventually be reported as vandalism.--Kudpung (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you should leave this article alone, and maybe take a wiki-Break!

The above is not in accordance with wikipedia policy - AGF is the founding principle!93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

The article was tagged for neutrality. I have removed the tag - please explain why it should be added, should you believe it necessery!93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)