Talk:Nordic art

Not sure what we are supposed to do

I am new to Wikipedia and I am not sure what we are supposed to do with this article. Nordic art seems to be an umbrella term for all art throughout history that comes from "Nordic" countries. the first subset mentioned in the intro is Scandinavian art. If there is an article about Scandinavian art, should it be copied and included under this heading, or should there just be a link to the Wiki article? The same question goes for the first heading called "Viking Art." There is a page called Norse Art and Viking Age Art. But should the content of those articles be copied here, or is it good enough to have a link? Perhaps the various subsets of Nordic Art should be merged into one large article? I do not know what the wiki policy is here. Help!Simplysavvy (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles like this one use what is known as summary style, which means that it has sections that summarise the contents of other articles (with each section having a Main article or Further information link). While commonly used to split articles that are too long into several articles, it can also be used in reverse: to build up broad-concept articles from several more specific articles, and also incorporate information that is too general or broad-concept to be adequately covered in the more specific articles. So in this case, I would say expand each section, possibly reusing some material from the country specific articles, and maybe also include sections for the artistic styles mentioned in the lead. Although it could also be turned into a disambiguation page, if there isn't enough information to link to subsections - Evad37 [talk] 11:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Simplysavvy: Evad is correct, this kind of article is really an overview of a diverse subject, rather than just a single subject. If you want to add content from one of the sub articles linked with the {{Main}} templates, that would be an easy way to start. If you wanted to do some research, you could locate content about pre-Viking art from other wiki articles or sources on the internet (like Finnish rock art). You could rewrite the lede to better reflect the two ideas this article covers; Nordic art (all the Nordic countries) and Scandinavian art (just Scandinavia). It can be difficult to distinguish between the two because they have a shared cultural history. You could get content from Rock art#Europe, as well as some of the content from List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What kind of shared cultural history do these countries have that they do not also share with, say, Northern Germany, or the regions from which much of Renaissance and Baroque and later influences came, such as France and Italy? --Hegvald (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Being an expert on the subject (not really), I recently read about how this can pose a concern. My response would be that there is definitely a cultural area referred to as the Nordic countries, and that those countries share artistic elements through their cultural ancestors, the Vikings. This artistic influence, like many others, was not restricted by national borders, and therefore there are some areas that, while not considered a Nordic country, can share a likeness. I definitely think that kind of ambiguity would make a great subsection in this article, and I would encourage you to write about it. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Lede

AS I mentioned @ WT:TAFI#Feedback request: Evaluation of one-per-week format , I'm coming at this like a student. I'm glad you mention rewriting the lede. That is what was giving me trouble (as to what to do). I saw the separation (Nordic and Scandinavian) mentioned in the lede but it wasn't (as yet) spelled out in the article. How about changing the headings in some way to specify the difference? Instead of separate threads, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish would all go together in a new Scandanavian sub-thread and Finnish and Icelandish would each have their own sub-thread. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think this: "Instead of separate threads, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish would all go together in a new Scandanavian sub-thread and Finnish and Icelandish would each have their own sub-thread." Why these groupings? Do you base these on a division made by some particular art historian or school of art history? --Hegvald (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I base my suggestion on what is said in the lede. My point is that the lede makes groupings that the threads do not clarify. If they are not accurate, we need to change the lede. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The lede is not about the subject of the article, however that is to be conceived, but about what is already covered in a completely different article that exists under the title Norse art, i.e. the art of the Viking Age, which has been over and done with for the better part of a millennium.

The next question is, what is the subject supposed to be? How is "Nordic" or "Scandinavian art" anything more than the cumulative history of the various countries and regions that are grouped under those adjectives? How is this a more meaningful grouping than Southern European art or North American art? What are the commonalities, once you leave the Viking Age behind? In which way do all the Nordic countries share something between themselves that they do not also share with bordering parts of Northern Europe or the rest of Europe? What do Stockholm and Copenhagen have in common that they do not also share with Lübeck or Antwerp? Or with Paris, Rome, London or St. Petersburg, for that matter? These are the kind of questions one should think about and try to find authoritative answers to before starting an article about a subject. --Hegvald (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, we do have Latin American art, which is pretty diverse in terms of physical geography as well as artistic style. What are the commonalities once you leave the Europeian colonization behind? Or how about History of Eastern art, or Oceanic art? These are pretty diverse cultural regions, and somehow these articles have developed a coherent theme. Also, my Google books search for "nordic art" reveals that this is a legitimate subject; consider this, this, or this. I wouldn't let some ambiguity about certain areas of a subject prevent work from being done on other, more concrete areas. In fact, we should document that ambiguity (if there are sources that find it concerning), and make it a part of the article. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Hegvald. You asked, Do you base these on a division made by some particular art historian or school of art history? I base it on the following from the article Nordic countries, :

In addition to the mainland Scandinavian countries of:

• Denmark  (a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system)
• Norway  (a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system, independent since 1905)
• Sweden  (a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system)

...the Nordic countries also include:

• Faroe Islands  (an autonomous country within the Danish Realm, self-governed since 1948)
• Finland  (a parliamentary republic, independent since 1917)
• Åland  (an autonomous province of Finland since 1920)
• Greenland  (an autonomous country within the Danish Realm, self-governed since 1979)
• Iceland  (a parliamentary republic, independent since 1918.)

```Buster Seven Talk 07:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

what are two contributions that Nordic countries have made to the arts.

they should state this. 2600:8807:5C0B:2F00:C1C5:61A8:B0CD:795A (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)