Talk:Art

Archives:

• /Archive 1: all talk through December 2005
• /Archive 2: 2006-2007

Richard Wollheim's distinctions

Richard Wollheim's distinctions of views on art as either 'realistic', 'objectivistic' or 'relativistic' may be said to be pertaining to, even symptomatic of the predominantly anglo-american school of Analytic philosophy, as opposed to Continental philosophy; the proposed other major stream in the currents of occidental philosophy. If this is acknowledged it is problematic that the wikipedia article on art, in its current reading, frames art in this fashion. That is predominantly because of the current position in the article of Richard Wollheims distinctions . I will argue that it is at odds with the neutrality policy. In the extension of this argument, one should seek to adapt the habit of adressing the cultural position of information. This can be done in a simple and elegant way without problem; for instant. in the context of analytical philosophy, Richard Wollheim suggests three different views on arts practices...

Art Valuation

Suggest add some fact related to the financial gravity of the art industry in sales anually and relative performance to the S&P 500 (The Mei Moses index). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.242.50 (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality of art

The passage on 'quality of art' at the beginning of the article is arguable, suggesting as it does that this is determined largely by 'stimulation' and impact upon a number of people and their 'degree of appreciation'; in short, that art's quality is based upon public reaction. This might be removed, in favor of a passage on art's more intrinsic qualities. JNW 12:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done, replaced with brief reference from Gombrich on art. JNW 14:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you're talking to yourself there, so I'll jump in. I agree with the changes: reads much better, less clichéd. Freshacconci 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It would not be the first time I've talked to myself. I appreciate the positive feedback. Thanks, JNW 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'stimulation' passage has, alas, been re-introduced. I have tagged it, because it really does need a cite from a solid scholarly source. Not strong as a definition of art, and ripe for reversion. 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)JNW

I don't agree. Where is art without it's public? what kind of "intrinsic qualities" does it really have? Art is a concept, made up by people. So without people considering it (in the form of a public, be it museum visitors or art critics) art is nothing more than a piece of material, at best. I think this aspect has to be re-introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.201.185 (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A Definition of Art

Art is a manifestation of the artist’s experience. Art is the material expression of the artist’s emotional, spiritual, and intellectual response to life, everything else is craft, performance, literature, music, etc. The definition of art is independent of the purpose or responses provoked by creative works. Art is not defined by aesthetic value; whether viewers find something beautiful or are repulsed is immaterial. An artistic statement can often be taken as literally as if the artist were instead a writer. As I often say, whoever said, a picture is worth a thousand words, must have met the artist. In no way is this definition intended to lesson the importance of any other form of creative expression, we simply need to define art as opposed to say music or crafts. While many creative works or crafts do indeed provoke similar responses (music, ballet, poetry, music videos, pottery, basket weaving, etc.) this alone does not make these works art. By this definition commissioned work that does not allow the artist self expression are generally not to be considered art, advertising copy or propaganda posters are but two easy examples. Though these types of creative output can require the skill, creativity, and knowledge of artists and may at times be art, not everything artists produce is art. Picasso was endlessly amused by which every little lump of clay, or splatter of paint or ink he produced was greeted as a valuable piece of art. However, artists such as Duchamp, Dali, or Warhol do create important and influential art from advertising copy or found objects. These examples illustrate that art is the free expression in material form of the artist. So, whether it is Rembrandt’s self-portraits, Malevich’s Black Square, Rothko’s multi-forms, Pollack’s murals, Calder’s mobiles, Michelangelo’s Pieta, Henry Moore’s sculptures, or a urinal turned on its back by Duchamp, if the work gives an artist’s thoughts or emotions physical presence, which can then be experienced independently of the artist, the work is art, public opinion is immaterial. --Mindchow 18:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

By tying art to the artist's experience, this may raise issues with New Media Arts. For example, Harold Cohen creates a program AARON, which creates works of art. By your definition, the program AARON is art (Cohen's experience), while the drawings created by AARON are not. There is also the issue of Algorithmic Arts, such as Sol Lewitt, in which the artist's experience plays a minor role. Here the focus is not so much on experience as process. Finally, I think your arguments about music, ballet, poetry, music videos, pottery, and basket weaving not being art are not very strong. Perhaps you are attempting to define Visual arts, as opposed to Aural art (music), Performative arts (dance), or Literary arts (poetry). Why is a music video, or pottery, not art? What if its pottery created by Picasso? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchoetzlein (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

An artist is someone who can stroll into your garden, pick your roses, gather them in a bundle and hand them to you, and demands to be paid for them. And you are grateful, because you'd forgotten roses had a scent and you smell the bouquet for the first time. They call him an artist if you pay him, and they call him a good artist if, after he leaves, you still don't think your rosebush has a scent. Because then some day you might pay him again.

What I mean to say by this is that art is a natural resource inherent in the infinite rich history of every material speck of earth, from which some can refine a much lesser bit of purer stuff. The quality of the song is in the note, its range and control, and the quality of the note is in the quality of wood, string, metal; their quality comes from the life and death of the tree. But listen to the tree, singing softly in the gentle wind with a thousand voices, and the art of the song is already there to hear for anyone who listens. It is of course easier to see how this is true of the pigments and scenes of a painting, but the same principle. Wnt (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Art in Wiki Brazil

Look: ARTE --200.171.181.99 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It is in more wikis Arnoutf (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

definition

art is basically the ability of thinking partially independent of going on reality and to set compositions by using different communication ways. (and) its a multipurpose activity can be used for any intention like to give ideas, to relax, to provocate, to stimulate, to set comments about new developments, to reflect or share lifestyles or emotions and any purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.224.184 (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

== Do you know that you are creating a contradiction you are saying that man invented art and then you givining way that art can not exist due to your perception meaning. Sorry your argument for me seems to me totally ignorant. It would make more sense to make the assuption that man not by force exist and does senses show illusion to make your argument valuble and logical.The point remain that art should be free for the reson that a true artist due that there are many imitations is that an artist is not a man with skill but with a free intelect and great passions. To UTC

Why Hirst and Emin's names are repeated so many times all over the different sections of the page Art with the same arguments?

It seems that the endless repeating of Emin and Hirst in this page is not only redundant but voluntary. Can some experienced editor look over this and balance the picture? From first reading this looks very problematic. Contemplating21 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC). The reason it looks problematic is that each time in fact the names come with exactly the same argument and exactly the same example. In a page where there are hardly any names mentionned this looks disturbing: it's not as if we have some more examples of artists around here from the same period; they are the only ones that appear, as if there are no more interesting artists in the contemporary period. I took few of the repetitions out, and left few repetitions in, though. I added three theorists after Greenberg, about whom I believe that there is a concensus.Contemplating21 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics

I've reverted a long passage on the evolution of academic training in the U.S. since WWII for several reasons: It has little to do with the 'characteristics' heading it was placed under, and represents too narrow a scope for the article. It's all about the direction of academia. Though featuring some citation, it also seemed rather POV. It happens that I agree with much of it; it just reads as too editorial and off-track for this article. Having said that, the current edition of this and other passages would benefit from citation of sources. JNW (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the content would be more appropriate under Art school or Art education. But I see my edit has been reverted. Not feeling like an edit war, I will consult with other arts editors, which is what I would advise others do before reverting without so much as an edit summary or talk page explanation. JNW (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Art education is probably a more apropos place for the essay. It seems an obvious violation of WP:NPOV as well. Modernist (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. IMHO there are 3 reasons to delete that section. First two conceptual on POV

1) Only deals with post WWII art (this is not the history section, so should be generic for the whole history of art); which excludes artists like Rembrandt, Michelangelo, da Vinci.

2) Deals only with the USA. While the US is very important in post WWII art, it was not before, the academy of Paris for example was prominent in the 19th century and should have at least as much attention. (after all the refused works of art for the academy were the origin of modern art)

3) The lengthy section is very weakly sourced and reads like an opinion article / original research.

I reverted the added section and hope the editor who went through the extensive effort creating it will consider our reasons to do so seriously. Arnoutf (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with these - I suspect anything goes at Art school, so try there! Though written only about the US, I think the phenomenon described is West-wide. Needs cleaning-up though. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the section but understand why it does not fit. I moved it under art education. (When I moved it I also fixed its US focus and tried to remove POV) I wrote it because the current characteristics section seems to represent a late Eighteenth century ideal of art with no citations and I wanted to fix this. I still think this is a problem. I will try again and put it up for your review. Sorry I reverted it at first without reading or understanding. New to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.32.169 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and no harm done. I recall my early contributions were often made without cites, and the editors who oversaw articles on art were remarkably patient. When I get a chance I will look over this later, and I hope that other contributors will, as well. Incidentally, as I suggested earlier, I have deep misgivings about art education as it exists in academia, though I liked what Modernist had to say, that somehow good art gets created anyway, even if in spite of systematic approaches. 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)JNW (talk)

We could always go back to the South Kensington system (forthcoming attraction)! Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No harm done indeed, I wish all new editors were as serious in their first efforts, mine was pretty naive.... Hope to see you around. By the way, if you decide to stay on wiki, making an account with user name has many advantadges not the least that you tend to be taken more seriously by other editors (should not, but is the case) Arnoutf (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Its all thought provoking, the academic PHD-ing of art making...The problem of an elitist, investment oriented society with an attention span of 45 minutes. Modernist (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. My compliments to Arnoutf, Modernist, Johnbod, Tyrenius, and 128.206.32.169 for working together. The passage has found its place in Art education. Oh, but I have so much to say about the university system, and the impending PhD business. But not here, not now. 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)JNW (talk)

Burden's and his gallery's commercial publicity

In a major essay that hardly cite any contemporary artists, it is shocking to see few detailed lines on a sole artist, Burden, going even into such details as the commercial price of works and his gallery publicity. I took this last line off, and if someone objects, I would like to discuss the objection. Even as it is, it still looks unjustfied to me to find such detailed explanations on one artist's work, when most artists, at least as important and probably also much more important, from all different periods, are not even mentionedContemplating21 (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good edit to me. It would seem that an article of such broad scope need not spend so much verbiage on any one person. JNW (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove all mention of him. It seems out of place and he's not exactly the biggest contemporary name. Tyrenius (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are enough problems of century and race balance already without having to pick through this minuate. Ceoil (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, this article is called art and covers a broad territory; Da Vinci, Picasso, Michelangelo he ain't. Modernist (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the mention altogether. Tyrenius (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

took out a repetition from Adorno's sentence given exactly in the preceding sentence

I took a repetition from Adorno's sentence, given exactly in the preceding sentence to the one taken off, but referred to some unknown name (in the second repetition). This was redundant and strange. I tried to find the name of the person I took off and who repeated Adorno's sentence, but couldn't find. I hope you agree with me. Trying to make the page better. Contemplating21 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a nice catch. Modernist (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Skill

I am thinking how to ameliorate the "Skill" section. The section gives examples of what is art that does not demand skill. But, if the idea is to show that there is a debate on that, perhaps we should show the other side of the debate: for example, that the paintings of Raphael, Rembrandt, and also today's some painters or sculptures, need and insist on skills, while others, like the ones quoted already, are on the opposite side of the debate. Especially that the Modern and postmodern time have excellent artists of both "skill" and "no skill" tendencies. Lets think in a civilized manner what (very few) examples of "skilled" painters or sculptures of the present and past periods can represent the sense of the debate up until today. We can propose names in this page of discussion, for discussing, and try to reach concensus, and then (and not before) someone among the very experienced editors, can perhaps add a line, if consensus is reached. What do you say? Contemplating21 (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Your suggestion speaks to a topic that engages me, and I'd like to find some good references for this--I suspect Gombrich or Clark will be helpful, but I know there are quotes by masters re: the importance of basic skills, esp. drawing. Over the next few days I will try to find something (though I will be painting this afternoon, and my books are scattered all over the place, etc.), but if you or another contributor find something first, go for it. JNW (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, it is good idea to base ourselves on Gombrich, Pollock, Clark, Krauss, and the other very significant art historians upon whom we all agree with regards to their having grand knowledge, serious research and dedication to the field; so we do not get into losing energy on conflicts between galleries, nations, art journals, artist's ego, etc. I will start to look too, and will discuss in this page, with references. My priority is to find artists who undoubtedly have notablity and whose painting or sculpture are object for intensive research by art historians and other artists alike. Contemplating21 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have sources in order, but I am thinking of brief mention of skill as it was perceived by contemporary commentators in works of classical art, during the Renaissance, in the academy system under the Carracci and Poussin, and at the dawn of modernism, when Picasso was thoroughly versed in the academic tradition, the understanding of which enabled him to experiment as freely as he did. Those are some possible points, but I think brevity is important: a few examples and out. JNW (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that, but art education is so far purely about the modern US - that could do with an expanded version also. Or a new article - we don't have an artist's workshop or similar article, which we should. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe some background re: workshop and apprentice systems, the academies and reaction to them, will find a place under Art education, where all this can be included at greater length. And, as Johnbod suggests, a new article on the workshop system sounds valuable. My good intentions notwithstanding, if someone else can get good information together on these topics before I do, please have at it. JNW (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

so far sounds good. I would want to think of few examples of modern and contemporary artists who believe in skill, but very carefully, few names only, backed by serious art history chapters or philosophy chapters as references. I will come up later today with the examples and the references, for example Bacon or Ernest, and perhaps 3-5 names up to today. I like the idea to discuss this list first here, and come up into the article itself after concensus among us has been reached. We don't want a "who's who" list with commercial involvmentsContemplating21 (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC).

If the contributions are sourced and include artists of real standing, there is no problem with adding the passage to the article itself. If anything doesn't pass the smell test, it will be discussed or deleted anyway. JNW (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just added a few lines; it's late and I have not yet sourced them, but the Leonardo stuff is via Gombrich, the Rembrandt from a recent publication (Rembrandt/Caravaggio), and the Sargent and Picasso references are easy to supply. The real question is whether it fits well here, serves the purpose. If there are substantive questions, feel free to make changes. Buenas noches, JNW (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

hi JNW and others. Here is how I see this: the whole Skill section needs attention. It doesn't make histoical or theoretical or artistic sense to have Emin and Hirst already in a pervious section and then in this one for some 10 lines, as if they have invented the Duchamp's road. I think that I would try to rewrite the sesction, putting on the one hand a serious line and aquotes, starting with Duchamps (quoting nesbit and krauss), Warhal, perhaps Calle, and mention at the end of this line also Emin and Hirst, not in so many details, and present the argument, and on the other hand a line that goes from Rembrandt, Michelangelo, going into 20 century with Klee and Ernest, Cezanne, and Khalo, and moving until Rothko and then until today with Richter and Ettinger who seems, according to Lyotard and Pollock and even Obrist, to be the only painter in some of the most important contemporary contexts, while all the other artists are doing video and performance and 'bricolage" etc. I want to lean on that "skill"/ non-skill lines on analysis (and references) of Krauss, Clark, Deluze, Deleuze-Guattari, Lyotard, and Pollock (who is interesting when she shows how with Ettinger the situation is again revolutionized because FROM art comes concepts, and not the opposite. But I clain that already from Klee, Bacon and Cezanne comes concepts, while Ettinger's new step is that she articulates the concepts herself so that again the role of the art changes. I want to show through quotes, that painting itself in its most skilled way, is not for the artists themselves a question of skill but of becoming the source for new concepts and insights. The quotes will range from Delueze (for Bacon), Deleuze-Guattari (for Klee), Rothko's quotes, Richter's quotes, Lyotard and Pollock (for Ettinger) as well as quotes from the artists' notebooks themselves. This takes me some time and some research, and I will put references to all but it will also be short. it is important in my view to well argument, and, again, not to put names that come and go but those who have reached notability and are of influence on the world and creation of the present generation of research and art. My attempt will be to try to put all this in 10 lines only. and references. It will probably take me few days to do the first draft in the Article page, and corrections of style will be welcomed. Contemplating21 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) to Contemplating21, Sounds a solid project. I would suggest that you add Beuys on one lane, and Cassat on the other lane. If you feel you can put them, I will add the references later. Artethical (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really sound very much like WP:NPOV. It sounds more like - I'll write a section about my point of view...and for me and my friends. - I'd rather see less then more in that section. JNW (talk) did a good job in his additions to the beginning of that section, and I agree that some more input can be added, perhaps covering the history of art made by hand (both abstraction and imagery) by painting, drawing and constructing sculpture; - to the idea of digital printing, computers, the media, the school of trace and appropriation...art produced by other means. Modernist (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not particularly attached to what I added recently, but I do agree with Modernist as to keeping it brief, and more general in tone (again, the framework Modernist suggests makes sense) as opposed to citing numerous artists; that's where the whole POV concern began here. JNW (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain some half of the section on Emin and Hirst? I copy from "POV": The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. Shortcut: WP:YESPOV As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". My point of view is to include the feminist art historians perspective and to add masters. Contemplating21 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, my interest in certain artists and certain feminist art historian is no secret: it is reflected in my contributions. it will not be respectful to take me for one of them. I am too young, I share the same school as "Contemplating"', but my research is serious.Artethical (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me that Contemplating21 (talk) objects to Hirst and Emin, - I agree that neither makes much sense in the context of the section or the notion of skill, except perhaps to demonstrate how the basic definition of the skill of a work of art has changed and expanded to encompass an artist producing works that others have created in his/her name. Artethical (talk) I meant nothing personal, I have observed your edits, and please continue doing careful and thoughtful work as you have been doing. Modernist (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Adorno: Impossibility?

How is a 1970 Adorno quote possible if, according to his page, he died in 1969? --24.250.126.240 (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• either publication date, or a mistake. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe another way. Tyrenius (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been published posthumously. Arnoutf (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine arts - Aristotle

The article says: "The ultimate derivation of fine in fine art comes from the philosophy of Aristotle, who proposed four causes or explanations of a thing. The final cause of a thing is the purpose for its existence, and the term fine art is derived from this notion." Is it really true? I think, this idea needs some proof: quotation?..

77.244.212.104 (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This seem to be crackpot theory and quoting a dubious source would not improve it. More probably 'fine' is a translation of the french 'beau' as the expression 'beaux arts' (eg Batteux) gained currency in the XVIIIc. The adjective was adopted as it made clear the modern idea that arts are striving after beauty. When this is clarified the etymological 'explanation' would probably have to be discarded.al (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

fine arts. J. D. Redding 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, according to the OED 'fine arts' was a translation of 'beaux-arts'. Their first citation is from 1767.----beamish son

Can somebody change the false etymology on 'fine art.' I can't do it, and it's just wrong as it currently stands. The OED etymology entry for 'fine art' is: "Orig. in pl. as transl. of F. beaux-arts"----beamish son

This statement was added to the article by User:Marcusscotus1 back in 2006; see this revision and this revision(on Fine art). I think it's utter nonsense. The words fine and final do come from the same root; something that is fine has been pushed to it's supreme degree, its finis. Fine in this sense dates to middle english, however, fine art does only date to 1767. Aristotle uses the word telos, and did not apply it to art at all; being a student of Plato he would not have been very amenable to the idea of art for art's sake. I'll remove the etymology. Lithoderm (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

and JD, it's not valid to provide statements in one article as verification for the same statements in another when they were inserted by the same person Lithoderm (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Animal Art

It says that man is the only species that makes art, but this is a controversial position as other species paint, such as orangutans, chimapanzees and elephants, and Tillamook Cheddar is a well-known canine painter. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling errors

The word tropes is not spelled correctly. (appears as "troupes") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.36.4 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Done. You are welcome to make changes yourself. Ty 23:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Art Therapy

The reference to the Rorschach Inkblot test is somewhat misleading- Art therapy entails the making of art by the patient as a form of catharsis, while the Rorschach is used only as a projective test, an ambiguous stimulus, and is randomly generated... the DDS is a better example. Article is semi-protected, or I would change it. 216.54.198.18 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Another note, Hirst under classification disputes leads to a disambig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.198.18 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Art and Beauty

The first sentence in the whole article mentions that art appeals to the senses and emotion "espescially beauty", however art may seek the opposite (ugliness,rough aesthetic,horror films, etc.) and additionally may not even address beauty at all (conceptual art, theories, etc.) The intro needs to be changed or reworked in addition to the intro to the 4th paragraph and its contents as a whole. The American Heratige Dictionary definition(citation #3) is not valid and the opinions of random philosophers and thier possible bias is questionable in thier effectiveness to define art. AnimalArt (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible Functions ?

The section "Possible Functions", which I believe used to be called "Utility" or "Purpose" of art, now starts with: "It is virtually impossible to pin down why art is made and why it is valuable." Yet, the same section provides at least 10 concrete functions, with supporting quotations. It would be nice if the modifier of this would comment (or anyone else). Why is there such a tendency to say that art has such a "mysterious function"? Its functions in society are quite concrete and well studied in both art history and the philosophy of art, which the list clearly outlines with quotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.90.205 (talk • contribs)

See WP:BOLD. Ty 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Art, The arts, Visual arts

We need to make a clear difference between these three articles. "The arts" encompasses all of the arts, while "Visual arts" obviously only pertains to visual art, but what about "Art"? It says on the article it mainly refers to Visual arts, so what's the point in having both pages? Voyaging^(talk) 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is the distinction between art and visual art. Art is a broader subject than visual art, even if the art article is unbalanced with examples of visual art. The problem isn't redundancy. The problem is, not enough examples of the other non-visual arts in the article. The art is to visual art what design is to graphic design. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Then what is the difference between "The arts" and "Art"? Voyaging^(talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Semantics? The word "the" perhaps? Maybe a merge or a split may be in order here, but I'm reluctant to say. Even if the "art" article is truly a narrower scope than "the arts" there is still plenty of contrast between the way the articles are presented. The visual art article is more about techniques, whereas the art article is more about appreciation. Maybe a simple title change of either article would suffice. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Either way, The arts article needs to be expanded similar to the way the design article is expanded if it should remain a separate article. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you both contribute valid referenced subject matter to the articles that you think need improving...Modernist (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to, but fine art is not my discipline. Commercial art is. And I got my hands full because I'm one of the few artists who are standing up to the overwhelming bias against art in general on wikipedia. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is calling art a process but says very little about the process for producing art. The visual art article says more about the process but little about the product. One article should focus exclusively on product while the other should focus exclusively on process to avoid future conflicts. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Since "The arts" is just a listing of the various forms of art, it should be included in this article, or else otherwise turned into a list. Voyaging^(talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm in favour of the articles staying as they are. "The Arts" is a grouping of disciplines that has a meaning in and of itself - it's certainly not simply a list of topics related to art. "Art" is an abstract concept, and is very well dealt with in the article. For example, saying "I am interested in The Arts" is very different from saying "I am interested in art". Merging them makes no sense to me. Bobathon (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how they are completely different. "The arts" includes visual art within its scope, and "Art" usually refers to visual art. What is the difference? I think that "Art" needs to include all of the arts, not just visual arts, since there is already an article for that. Voyaging^(talk) 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that "art" usually refers to visual art. Often, but certainly not usually. I'm suggesting that "The Arts" and "art" are not comparable categories at all. If you study "The Arts", then part of what you study will be "art", in the abstract, and also in history and in practice. If you are philosophically concerned with "art" as a whole, then "The Arts" will fall within that, as the broad set of disciplines that have been developed for the purposes of encouraging and furthering art in all its forms. I don't believe one is part of the other in the way you're proposing. - Bobathon (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Art doesn't usually refer to visual art. The article says it does. That's the problem. "Art" and "visual art" shouldn't refer to the same things, which the articles do in their current state. Voyaging^(talk) 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The article on art doesn't say any such thing. It's far broader. Many of the examples are from visual arts, as are many the images (unsurprisingly), but the article covers much more than that - surely that's evident? - Bobathon (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"In its narrow sense, the word art most often refers specifically to the visual arts, including media such as painting, sculpture, and printmaking. However, "the arts" may also encompass a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature." Voyaging^(talk) 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Visual art is a vast, historical, worldwide subject. It's scope are all the continents, all of history. The other arts are just as vast, just as historic and each deserve and demand their own separate study. In the context of this article art is used here referencing visual art - as in painting and related forms of art. And it is generally common usage to refer to visual art that way. Modernist (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree with me. What are you opposing? I'm saying we shouldn't have the page "Art" as well as "Visual art" both refer to visual art. In their current state there is no difference. "Art" should contain all the arts, not just visual arts. Voyaging^(talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am opposing everything that you suggest. I am absolutely opposed to any merger..Modernist (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You said that this article references visual art. We already have a page for visual art. We don't need this page, it's just the same as the visual art page. We need to change what this article covers. Voyaging^(talk) 03:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is important and needed. Speak for yourself - you do not represent a we in fact you sound like this -WP:IDON'TLIKEIT - well others have worked long and hard on this article...and it looks like the consensus so far is in agreement...Modernist (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding. I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself. I thought the correct process to follow was to have discussion on the issue and come to a consensus. I am voicing my individual opinion on what should be done. I have not made any changes to the articles themselves and don't plan to with the great opposition I've had. I understand that you disagree, but there's no need for any misunderstanding. I am speaking for myself and don't claim to be doing anything otherwise. Voyaging^(talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Voyaging, I don't see much redundancy of subject matter between the art article and the visual art article. And the title "Art" serves as an umbrella term for visual art. This is not a problem with the definition of words, but with the structure of an encyclopedia. It's not a dictionary. The conflict is over the titles. The "The arts" article is just a bigger umbrella. It could use a little more expansion and perhaps a name change to The various arts or Art disciplines to make the contrast. Keep in mind that name changes will automatically redirect the old name to the same article, so search and links of the old titles will not be effected. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider the phrase "the arts and sciences": this common phrase defines a broad category of many fields of interest. "The arts" part of the phrase, as used and defined in the arts, defines and explicates that array of fields of cultural concern. "Art" is an enormous subset of "the arts", and unless mega-child art can miraculously birth categorical mother Arts, it would be illogical to merge the two, not to mention confusing and onerous to readers. Analogously, one could try merging a recipe for bran muffins with the category bread in a cookbook. -- Sctechlaw (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. The subject matter of the three articles are slightly different, see previous section. I think a renaming of any or all three of the articles may be a less controversial solution. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article could be renamed Art works and it would solve the conflict. The name "art" would still be directed to it. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We need an article on art. Art works is much narrower than art. - Bobathon (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, This article is calling art a process but says very little about the process for producing art. The visual art article says more about the process but little about the product. One article should focus exclusively on product while the other should focus exclusively on process to avoid future conflicts. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merging The arts with either art or Visual arts. Neither of the later is perfect, especially Visual arts, but a merge would not help. One takes an aesthetic, theoretical approach, the other deals more with types of art. That seems reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganize?

Although I'm against a complete merge, a split and reorganization may be in order here. Voyaging may not have the solution, but he has identified a real problem that will most likely resurface until resolve. Note how we handled a similar conflict on the Talk:3D computer graphics page. We split the article and created a template for showing how all the articles are related. A template could serve to contrast the articles if we did nothing else. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to realize that a merge probably isn't the best choice. However, something obviously needs to be done. We need to make a clear scope that each of the articles should cover. "Art" should cover art as a concept, art theory, history, etc., and "The arts" should cover the different disciplines themselves, which is fairly close to what they are now. My main problem is that "Art" currently is almost entirely made up of visual art, while it should encompass all of the disciplines covered in "The arts". Voyaging^(talk) 04:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouln't entirely agree with that. Many sections do cover all the arts, and many others have text that does, or could, but the examples are all from the visual arts (eg:Controversial art). Adding more literary or musical examples would go quite a long way to solving the problem, though things like the History section need rewriting. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Although this "art" article should expand to include a wider variety of examples, it probably won't happen because it's focused on art works, and most of the other products of art outside the visual arts are not usually called "art works." For instance, the product of literature is a book, lyric, or poem. The product of performing arts is a performance, play, concert, or recording. The product of culinary arts is a dish, sauce, or dessert. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Expansion is a sound option, and supportable...Modernist (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an invite of participation should be put in the related wikiprojects and article talk pages. I would do it myself, but I think it would be better coming from a more active editor of this article or the Visual arts wikiproject. I wonder why there isn't a wikiproject for "art" or "the arts". I'm already a member of the Graphic design wikiproject which has more than a share of it's own problems. But I don't mind helping other art-related articles every now and then. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I put a notice there [1] a few hours ago...why don't you join the project...Visual arts wikiproject, there is always a need for good editors about art...we can use a few more hands. Modernist (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The "art" article is already very large. Perhaps, rather than adding in more non-visual art to balance it, a good option structurally would be to take explicit discussions of visual arts from that page and merge those into the visual arts page. The "art" page can then focus on "art as a concept, art theory, history, etc." (Voyaging) and "aesthetic, theoretical approach" (Johnbod). This would clarify things immensely, and make for a more intuitive structure overall. And probably take less work. - Bobathon (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. This is definitely the best option I've heard. Voyaging^(talk) 16:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That might work, but will be rather difficult to do - much of the content here is fairly good, I think (compared to the other articles), & the issues covered are the right ones, it's just the examples often only refer to visual art. By the way the lead from last June [2] seems much better to me - I don't know when all these changes were made. It would be a start just to revert to that. Aesthetics is also not bad, & covers the philosophical side more thoroughly - "what is art" etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I see this was cut by Ceoil just on Jan 18th - not an improvementr as far as the lead is concerned, i think. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod the old lead here: [3] is preferred to the new lead by Ceoil...I think we should return there and then proceed...but we need consensus..Modernist (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry....Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries - we've agreed below some of the stuff should go elsewhere than the lead. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The first and last sentence of the first paragraph of the June lead are definitely superior. However, I don't think it should say that it usually refers to visual art. That is the reason why I started this discussion in the first place. It should just say something along the lines of "it can refer to visual arts, such as painting and sculpture, performing arts, such as music, as well as any other medium." Just a rough example of what I think would be best, definitely should be changed though. Voyaging^(talk) 04:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Voyaging that the opening sentence was better in the June version, but wouldn't say overall that the lead was better then. The paragraph on the problem of evaluating what is and isn't art isn't really appropriate for a lead – it's better suited as part of the discussion later on – so I can see why that was cut. Also agree that first paragraph should be split in two as per the original. Re visual art, I think the offending sentence is "Visual art is defined as...", particularly as it's opening a paragraph, which does makes it feel as if the subject is visual art. I'd be happy to see that sentence removed. I've no objection to "It is most often used to refer specifically to the visual arts", because I think that's straightforwardly true, and doesn't (to me) imply "usually". Perhaps removing the "most" would help prevent the focus shifting to visual art. But I certainly wouldn't object to Voyaging's rewrite for that sentence. - Bobathon (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with those points I think - we seem to have concensus to restore along those lines. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds okay...Modernist (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the changes to the lead section mentioned so far. I still think that it could only help to have a template showing the relationship between articles. It could be at the bottom of the page if we didn't want it to distract from the images at the top. The related articles would benefit from having such a template even more than this one. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Down the bottom is best. We have some under/unused ones at Category:Arts and culture templates that might be cannibalizable. Why not do a draft? Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking me to make the template, I don't feel qualified as I'm not that much of a fine artist. I'm more of a commercial artist. I'm only sure of the relationship between the three articles, and I got my hands full in a dispute over a wiki style guide, which I will be burned out from once it's resolved for quite awhile.

Also sounds okay...I like the idea of an interconnectness between The arts and Art; (keeping the articles separate), but which might eventually and hopefully interconnect the two projects better...Modernist (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a 'see also' header...Modernist (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you saw there was a template explaining the differences between "Art" and "The arts" right underneath where you put the See Also header. Fine if you still think it's necessary, just making sure you know. Voyaging^(talk) 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, first of all they are not the same - and I added Visual art for your benefit; but if you prefer I can delete it.... Modernist (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to add both "The arts" and "Visual arts" in the same template. What do you think? Voyaging^(talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made changes to the lead paragraph, as per above. Please revert and discuss further if you disagree. Bobathon (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (NB I've changed a lot less than the difference-viewer suggests: splitting a paragraph obviously confuses the poor thing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobathon71 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

High/Traditional/Popular

It seems to me that most arts have some sort of distinction between high art, traditional art, and popular art. I use these in the sense of the Art/Traditional/Popular distinction represented on the Music genre page. Some arts may not currently use all these categories, but I think they're useful enough that they could be applied to nearly all arts. Is this a useful distinction to put in the article?

-- TimNelson (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea which also shows how much the established order looks down on new forms of an art. Interestingly a lot of the "classical" music of today (Strauss and Mendelsohn, etc.) were considered light, pop music in their day. Also note that in painting this distinction has all but disappeared after the pop-art period (and even earlier Dada, e.g. Duchamp) when people like Andy Warhol and Roy Liechtenstein declared mundane objects and picture to be high art.

So all in all, some kind of discussion of the High art-Pop art topic maybe in place. BUT we should carefully avoid original research on the topic and need to take highly acceptable secondary sources. Preferably by well established art-historians. Arnoutf (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

All those of you watching this page, please come and have a look at linguistics. There is a gross misrepresentation and censorship taking place there. Post-structural linguistics has been deleted and censored by the community there, and I urge you to participate in the discussion to restore a balanced view for the article. Supriya 07:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetic question regarding the image from Pompeii

The colors in the painting from Pompeii strike me as unusual; and if you click on the image and look at the other version, you'll see a palette that seems quite different. One of these, probably the one with this and a few other articles (shown at left), has been digitally goosed. I don't necessarily object to that, because you can argue about what the colors originally looked like; however, particularly in an article daring to call itself "Art", there ought to be some kind of "digitally enhanced" note, or recognition of the question. The one at right looks more like what we're used to seeing from Pompeii, but that doesn't mean the one on the left is "wrong." For all I know, it's more faithful to what the original colors should have been. Unfortunately, there's no note at the image file either way. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The one on the right is a crappy Yorck Project file scanned from a book whose copyright had expired (at least in Germany), so from about the 1950s or even earlier. The washed out look, shared by so many many art images on WP, is more to do with 1950s printing technology & durability than the appearance of the original. Have you been to Pompeii, or the Naples museums? The left one may or may not have been tweaked, or nor, but the colours, at full file size, don't seem implausible. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Link Error

There is a link to 3rd of May, where it ought to be The Third of May 1808, as it is referring to the painting of that name, not to the date.DanzaBarr (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Clutter

Would anyone mind if I rearrange the images a little, distributing them more evenly and based more on relevance to the topic being discussed? It seems unfortunate that our Art article would be aesthetically unpleasing. :) -Silence (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I made the changes; feel free to discuss here if there are any objections. In addition to clearing away the clutter, I opted to add some gaping holes in our coverage: We had zero images from Africa or the Americas, and zero examples of still lifes, functional art (e.g., pottery), textiles, etc. Based on our previous selection, you'd have assumed that half of the world's art consisted of Italian and French paintings. -Silence (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. I like that big round piece of pottery anchoring the beginning of the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Simplicity is next to divinity. The text is already visually complex enough, I wanted to balance the lead with something less detailed. -Silence (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

High contrast between the spherical container and the text. Nice. Bus stop (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Art & Craft - Ceramic Bottle as Art?

There will always be debate as what qualifies as "Art" or "Craft", but it seems somewhat inappropriate to me to have the very first photo in an article titled "Art" be an image of an object that can arguably be defined as contemporary "Craft". I am not trying to engage the debate of the distinctions between the two terms, but that photo hardly seems to be a fitting, general example of "Art", at least not enough to be the foremost image in the article. Of course what would be the fitting image? Maybe an image of a cave painting or one of some ancient statue? Finwailin (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just any bottle. Visually it rises above most other similar items that could be considered its type. That is purely opinion, and I understand your argument that its type is either that of craft or that which straddles the gap between art and craft, if such a gap even exists. But perhaps that is an argument for it being the topmost image in the article. The problem that you point out — the distinction between art and craft — is a real one. It might not be a bad idea to start out the article with a question, as that one that I think you correctly point out is contained in that choice of image. This is random rambling on my part. But it is my response. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the bottle with something more visually appealing and appropiate: a collage of portraits of different times and styles. File:Huskyeye.jpg Husky ^{(talk page)} 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, what's that anime stuff doing there? I think that anything can be art if you want it to be, but only some things can be good art, and anime (especially that type) is not good art. If you have to put anime, put Miyazaki, not that hentai looking crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.243.39 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

:). In my opinion, art like the manga portrait is art as well. Also, it's quite difficult to find a good-looking piece of modern art because almost everything is copyrighted, such as Miyazaki's works (which of course, i'd love to include). File:Huskyeye.jpg Husky ^{(talk page)} 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are infinitely better things that could be uploaded instead of that manga character. Have we really sunken so low culturally that in the four images we chose to represent pictorial art as a whole, that is one of them? 99.232.87.157 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The manga image needs to be changed. The other pieces are classical works of widely agreed upon aesthetic value. The manga character is just a generic piece of bad manga. It needs to be replaced. 24.199.65.167 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely we can throw Spider-man in there! --ItsWalky! (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, it seems overdoing it to include two Japanese examples. This collage makes Wikipedia look like it's run by obsessive Japan-ophiles. Let's change it, please. 24.199.65.167 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)