Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts

Opinion on Early Modern Art

The very detailed article Early modern art has been moved to draft space by @Johnbod without comment (except from "Back to draft space - still needs a lot of work").

This is a translation from a featured article in Spanish, and is thus very detailed and extensively sourced. Johnbod seems to suggest that the article has issues relating to the terminology in English -- however, as neither I nor the person who translated it are experts in this field, it is hard for us to judge how much work would be required to fix the problems, so I would like to get the opinion of the community.

--> Do you feel that this is an article that we could keep in the mainspace and improve over time, or that it has fundamental issues that cannot be fixed easily?

Note: this article was previously moved to draft space because the initial translator had done a poor job, but has since then been considerably improved, so I think it deserves fresh pairs of eye 7804j (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't taken a deep look at the article but from a first glance, it does seem to have quite a lot of issues. For starters, those walls of text on image captions in lead need to go; most of the article is unsourced and the article flow is very hard to keep up with. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed it does! The article begins "Early Modern Art is the period or temporal subdivision of history of art that corresponds to the Early Modern Age. It should not be confused with the concept of modern art, which is not chronological but aesthetic, and which corresponds to certain manifestations of contemporary art." And goes on for 96k bytes. This is one of a series of very large WP:CONTENTFORK paid-for machine translations commissioned] by 7804j. In several of them, as here, the problems begin with the title, and don't get any better. A quick brush-over of the grammar etc isn't enough. I think we need a centralized place to consider what to do about them. See the article talk also - it's not just me! Others relevant to this project: History of engraving (see talk), Ancient Greek crafts, The Gardener (painting) and Art Nouveau in Milan (maybe ok, as non-forks). That's from just one of several editors involved, Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the image captions have way too much text, and that it could benefit from a better structure as it is currently very dense; however, I am not sure that these types of issues require to take down the article entirely.

As for the title, maybe it is not the best, but from a quick Google search I found quite a few references to the term "Early modern art" which seems to map to this time period (example 1, 2), so it isn't entirely obvious to me that it is incorrect. 7804j (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, regardless of what the University of Basel thinks, "Early Modern Art" suggests to English-speakers "Early Modern art" (of the 1890s, say), rather than "Early Modern art". Neither term is in regular use, if only because of the fatal ambiguity, and it is easier and better to use the traditional art history demarcations of Renaissance, Baroque etc, rather than bring in a vaguely-defined concept from general history. The main trouble is just that the article duplicates much better material elsewhere on wp. The "Oriental art" section is beyond embarassing, and unusable. Most of the article just gives airy nuanceless summaries of political developments, followed by a list of names of artists with vague indications of styles. Dutch Golden Age painting gets one sentence, and this one on Van Dyck has to do for all of Flemish baroque painting: "Anton van Dyck found his audience in England, whose peculiar socio-political-religious situation was an intermediate between the two alternatives of the time" - whatever that is supposed to mean.

The problems vary by article - Ancient Greek crafts is a wierd one - a theoretical dissertation on the concepts, status and conditions of Ancient Greek craft-workers, but nary a word on what they might have made. No links to the 100+ articles we have in the tree under Ancient Greek pottery, or the sections in Ancient Greek art on that, metalwork, coins, mosaics etc. As a template at the bottom of the Spanish says, it is actually a 2nd hand translation of "Artisanat en Grèce antique" from French wp - all the refs are French. Suitably renamed, and with some material added, it could stay. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Are photographers navboxes applicable for visual arts parent categories

For example, the best example would be {{Ansel Adams}} (and maybe the worse, {{Jessica Lange}}, where I have removed the parent category Category:American artist navigational boxes, and then stopped after a few to bring the question here. I've been assuming these categories are for painter and sculptor templates, keeping the categories limited to the ancient arts, and not for related visual arts (filmmakers, photographers, architects, etc.). Opinions? (I'll ping Mistico Dois, who does great work on visual arts navboxes). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For example, and this is what I'm basing it on, you wouldn't add Category:Deer in art to all the photographs of deer on Wikipedia although, if a painting or sculpture prominently features a deer, it would qualify. I reverted my edits and added back the category to the navboxes pending this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just one more thought. Would publishing a book of photographs qualify the navbox in the "American artist navigational boxes" category, i.e. {{Jessica Lange}} above, and the navbox of filmmaker. {{Larry Clark}}. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The category of photography as a visual art has been established for a long time, in my opinion and I suppose most art historians and critics would agree with me, despite the fact that it only appeared in the 19th century and only had the status as an art form recognized in the 20th century. H. W. Janson landmark History of Art (1962) already includes photography. You can see by yourself all the museum categories where the historical photographies from art photographers appear, like Alfred Stieglitz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, etc. Architecture is also a visual art of course, if you remember Giorgio Vasari's historical Lives of Artists, it is dedicated to architects, painters and sculptors. But I think since architecture is very different from painting, sculpture and photography, it would make more sense to have a specific category for architects by nationality. I think when we reach the number in 50 in the Architect navigational boxes, I will start that category. Regards.Mistico Dois (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

About the individual categories. I think if someone becomes known or as an important work as a photographer it does qualify themself for the photographers category, even if they are more better known in other category, like actors or filmmakers. Jessica Lange, for example, does have several photography books published and they have been critically acclaimed.Mistico Dois (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's a visual art, and that photographers belong in the photographers category. My question concerns adding photographer's navboxes in artist navbox categories (i.e. Category:American artist navigational boxes). A deer in a photograph, would that photograph be within Category:Deer in art (categories and navboxes are two-thirds of the "Lists, categories, and navboxes" trifecta). My opinion would be no to both, as a navbox categorized as an artist's navbox brings to mind painters and sculptors and, to myself at least, nothing else. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I think the categories concerning Category:Artists by nationality should include painters, sculptors, but also other visual artists, like photographers, engravers, installation artists, artistic designers, for example. About what you mentioned concerning Category:Deer in art, I think it would make sense to create in a near future a category for Category:Wildlife photographs, like there is already Category:Landscape photographs, for the photographers who have worked in particular concerning animals, like Peter Beard and Sebastião Salgado, among others. There are still very few entries concerning individual photographies, compared with paintings and sculptures, so I think its still to soon for that.Mistico Dois (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Larry Clark published a book of photographs. That's one entry as a photographer in his navbox, yet his template is in Category:American artists navigational boxes. Templates of artists (I mean painters and sculptors) should conform to the unofficial five-entry rule (many now don't), but Clark, for example, has one entry relating to his photographs. Not enough to fit the category, even if it is open to photographers, which I argue it shouldn't be because that makes way for filmmakers and others to be similarly linked. Painting and sculpture are hands-on formed works of art, a photograph of a bowl of fruit isn't a still-life painting of a bowl of fruit nor should it be classified in a similar manner. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Larry Clark does have an important and controversial photographic work, with several books published. He also appears at the International Center of Photography website: [1] I understand your point but there are also other templates with at least five entries, and this sometimes includes only one artwork. I am doing my best to expand them when I locate them. Thats why I always try to start a template with at least six artworks. I mantain my opinion that the artists by nationality categories should include visual arts as usually understood in art history. Cinema is also an art form but of a different kind, thats why they have their own templates. Visual artists who work in cinema and painting or photography can appear in both categories, like for example Template:Julian Schnabel.Mistico Dois (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Listings of photographers or photos in Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Article alerts seem nonexistent, so some lines remain drawn on Wikipedia between photographers, painters, and sculptors. All I'm saying is that one of those lines could be keeping things like Category:French artist navigational boxes exclusively to painters and sculptors. I'm sure Claude Monet might have taken some very good photographs if he'd a mind to, but didn't, and letting Michaelangelo loose with a camera would have given the world some iconic photographs. But turning that around, notable photographers have always had access to paints and sculpting tools but I can't think of a one who could actually use them well enough to create a well-known work. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Paint mixing

I have promoted Paint mixing to mainspace. Please feel free to improve however you can. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)