Talk:Art and emotion

Psychology C‑class Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Art and emotion appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 November 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that art can make people angry?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Art and emotion.

Wikipedia

Untitled

Hi all, I'm working on this article as a school assignment, and it is in process now, but should be finished and prettied up by Nov. 20. Any suggestions you have would be welcome! For more info in our class visit our course page Rebeccaworrell (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

Other comments

Also, in the personal and perhaps unrepresentative opinion of this groupuscule:

... some paragraphs are actually a little overpeppered with refs to the same footnote; if there's one source for the whole pagaraph, than a single footnote at the end may suffice. (Or even two footnotes at the end for two sources, with interlocking facts being used.)
... we need to talk about what is "aesthetics" for the purpose of this article/content, and how it differs if it does from 'emotional response to art'. (Later the text implies that "aesthetic appreciation" is not a "real emotion", which is confusing and probably not encyclopedic.) Are aesthetic chills different from regular chills?
... although this article draws on many scholarly sources—and that's great—it is not necessary to use the language of academic journals in an encyclopedia. I'm not saying "dumb it down", but I would ask if the article can be pushed towards readability for as large an audience as possible. (On the same tip, it would be great to have some sources not behind paywalls).
... images.
... it would be great to have more detail about museum experiences and effects of expertise. These seem like really interesting areas where currently the article alludes to the existence of findings without elaborating them.

Pace, groupuscule (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of references for each sentence, even if they point to the same ref, is fine. It allows future editing where content can be introduced with a new ref, without worrying about the referencing of the old content. The other points are fine.

If you don't have a fully devolped historical section, or a blank one, you can place {{Empty section}} or {{Expand section}} template at the top of the section.

It'd be interesting to cover culture/religion. How do emotions differ (or not) for christians viewing islamic art and vice versa. How do emotions differ for westerners viewing oriental art (and vice versa).Smallman12q (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff's Review

Hey Rebecca,

I really like both the content of the article and how you organized the information into categories. My main reviewing advice would be to go over the actual written work a little bit. When explaining some of the psychological concepts, you use a bunch of terms and ideas that might be difficult for non psych majors to understand, so for the average wikipedia user it might help to get some elaboration. Since you clearly did plenty of research it might also be interesting to elaborate on some of the theories you present: for example, in the five-step part to aesthetic experience it might be interesting to actually include the five parts you mention. There are also just some basic errors like an incomplete sentence or verb with the wrong punctuation here and there that should be easy to correct if you read through it carefully one more time. Other than that the article looks really good. Good work!

Geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffRodman (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nat's Review

Hey Rebecca,

I like the content of the model and your organization as well as conciseness is impeccable. I agree with Geoff that you need to expand on things a bit. The conciseness is great and at least you got the style down but there are some terms that people that haven't been reading empirical research articles in psychology will be confused on. An example is this sentence under the Cognitive mastery and introduction of discrepancy: "It is at this point any discrepancies between expectations and the work, or the work and understanding arise." Please expand here because I am not really sure what you mean by understanding arise. Spell check, revise and read your article out loud. You will find grammatical mistakes that can be distracting. Also, get rid of the spaces after your periods before your citations.

Otherwise, great job! This article really adds and you have a lot of great research here. It is just getting down to explaining it in a concise yet informative manner to a wide variety of audiences. Nathalya Cubas (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, maybe adding an article or reference from an individual stating that art therapy was very beneficial for them to be able to express their emotions would provide more information to the readers.Evelynvpizarra (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]