Talk:Social realism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:12, 16 March 2009

Philosophy: Aesthetics Unassessed

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

Social Realism, is not a style nor a form it is a context or content of an art work. SR is also a form of "sociopolitical commentary" using art works as the vehicle. Social Realists believed that art is not only for decoration but can also be used as an instrument of attack and defense against an enemy. How... enlightening. 02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I find very arguable that "Guernica" by Pablo Picasso is a social realist painter, because I never read in any place this. User:Mistico

Literary Social Realism

I think this article needs to be modified to include more of the literary aspect of social realism, with such authors as Henry James, Edith Wharton, and Anzia Yezierska. Their contributions were not insignificant.

Personal Bias

"Undistorted by personal bias ..."

Since when is any artform undistorted by personal bias? Social Realist art reflects personal bias by subject choice, composition, omission and inclusion of details, and as is the case with some Orientalists, absolute fabrication. Perhaps it should be clarified that this is an ideal not a fact of social realism?

Social realism vs. socialist realism

At the top of the article it is written "not to be confused with socialist realism", while the following article is one huge confusion with socialist realism. Social realism is not the officially endorsed state art of the Soviet Union and its sattelites; this is socialIST realism. This article is about socialist realism, and there is already an article about that subject on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.89.96.86 (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's a confusion with Socialist Realism, per se, but rather a far too detailed tangent. A simple mention that Social Realism branched into Socialist Realism in the Soviet Union would be appropriate, but the way it is, more than half the article is on something Social Realism ought "not to be confused with"! Toxicologia (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, confusing.

Also, this sounds very unlikely:

"The decline of Social Realism came with fall of the Soviet Union in 1991."

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World View Completed?

I read and contributed to this article tonight. After looking over what others have posted and some additions I've made tonight, how does everybody feel about removing the global view tag? It almost seems as though there is now not enough American contributions to this movement now. Happy Editing! Love, Anna (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 [[User:Calamitybrook|Calamitybrook]] ([[User talk:Calamitybrook|talk]]) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
+== World View Completed? ==
+I read and contributed to this article tonight. After looking over what others have posted and some additions I've made tonight, how does everybody feel about removing the global view tag? It almost seems as though there is now not enough American contributions to this movement now. [[User:A20anna|Happy Editing! Love, Anna]] ([[User talk:A20anna|talk]]) 03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)