Talk:Art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Art:

  • Add more inline citations.
  • Address the concerns noted in:
Priority 1 (top)


Richard Wollheim's distinctions[edit]

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 the 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...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xact (talkcontribs) 12:16, 23 September 2009

Improvement[edit]

Some of the books I'm going to ref from.

I will try to improve this article these days because I have enough resources to provide citations to some of the {{cn}}-ed statements. Maybe if more of us would address some issues we could make a GA nom again.

A Further reading section would be advisable since some of the books I have cover more sections and I don't want to cite the same ref each time it applies.

If anyone has any suggestions please ping me here or on my talk page. Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018[edit]

you spelt artefacts like this ARTIFACTS. SPELLING MATTERS IN WIKIPEDIA!!! 103.213.128.209 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: "Artifacts" is the American spelling. Wikipedia is international and does not prefer any variety of English, so the established spelling should not be changed without good reason. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Art/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Review may take a day or two to put into a starting form. You might mention here when you will be ready to start and what has drawn you to nominate this article. Also mention if you would be able to make any revisions or expansions to different sections of the article if needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo:. The Art article is one of the main starting point for a lot of other art related topic. It's like the root of a tree, if you like. During my 6 years (and counting) studies in the field of arts, I collected a lot of knowledge, books needed for my projects, dissertation and more. A few weeks ago, when I saw a lot of citation needed tags in the article, unaddressed for years, I started to improve all the affected section until I have finished referencing each of them. Yes, I can make revisions and expansions to any of the article's sections if needed. The article failed the GA assessment a few years ago because no one was willing to fix the referencing issue. But, as an expert Wikipedian in Arts, I'd be more than happy to improve this article (even if it passes of not the GA review process successfully) and any other art related article because I can, I have tons of books, I have access to several thousand art related books and publication in several languages (at my university) and.. besides the cleaning, patrolling, fighting vandalism aspects I love doing on WP, improving articles that can and worth being improved is one of the things I love doing So, please ping me from here for any issue, I'll try to fix them as soon as possible even if 'till June 14 I am very busy because I have some exams (all art related, haha)... so it is doable. :) Cheers! Robertgombos (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Start point for Review

0 Lead section

The lead section shall be discussed for the most part at the end of this assessment and some revision are to be reviewed. One example is that the citations in the lead section are seemingly out of place since the lead only summarized what is already covered in the article. All those citations in the lead should already be in the main body of the article. More on lead section later in the review process. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Improved it. Further imrpovement may be needed. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It is highly important that it be verified that each sentence of the lead section be a summary of material already covered in this article. Once you verify that each one of the references in the lead section is already covered in the main body of the article then that reference should be removed from the lead section as being redundant. At the end of your revisions to the lead section, then there should be no references in the lead section at all when you are done. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

1 Creative art and fine art

If this section is dealing with innovation and taste as assessing the status of fine art, then should these topics be made more apparent in the text of the section. This article as a whole deals strongly with an orientation towards the visual arts, possibly at the cost of the other arts such as sculpture and photography to name but two of the other arts. Also, as a general comment, this article as a whole seems oriented to the perspective of Art history meeting Art theory which in itself is not a criticism, but does that limit the full perspective of what a comprehensive article on 'art' should encompass to be complete. The words "Few modern scholars..." appear as an isolated sentence and looks like it is part of the paragraph following it with unnecessary line breaks. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, you are right. The cited source starts with Plato's view about crafting (art, as a term, was non-existent at that time) and ends with 20th century viewpoints (Croce, Collingwood, Cassirer, Nahm, Evans and Read etc). Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

2 History

Have you read the essay on art by Martin Heidegger "The Origin of the Work of Art" which has been reprinted several times. I will hold my comments on this section until you confirm if you are familiar with Heidegger's essay on Art and its origin. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with Heidegger's "The Origin of the Work of Art". Added a paragrapraph sumarizing his opinion about art. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice Heidegger addition. You don't have to add the nice descriptive phrases you have added about him since he is well liked already by many Wikipedia editors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

3 Forms, genres, media, and styles

The outline of this section contrasts with the material in the linked Wikipedia article The arts and its listing of the different arts in a sequential manner. I have already mentioned that this article on 'art' is strongly oriented toward the visual arts. Should there be a generalization in some form to acknowledge the prominence of other art forms such as sculpture and photography, etc, rather than having a strong orientation from the standpoint of visual art as painted artworks alone? JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This section needs a more extended structure since art includes sculpture (even living sculptures, eg. Klein), painting, photography, ready-mades, installations, collages and many more. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I am assuming you are planning to add these missing sections over the week-end? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

3.1 Skill and craft

This is a single section delineated in a larger section. Usually at least two subsections are expected. If you have an approach to assessing the relevance of the article on The arts which I mentioned above to this article on 'art', then you might consider some further subsections here based on sculpture, photography, etc, and their demands on skill, craft, education, mentorship, technology, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Strong agree. Working on it. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

4 Purpose

The purpose of art to express and represent beauty should not be overlooked. This is part of the larger topic of art and aesthetics which seems underplayed in this article on art in its current form. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Pleasing the eye, serving religion and those who were paying for art was the main purpose of art untill Expressionism - when art's purpose wasn't anymore "to impress" but "to express". Probably a paragraph about this would be welcomed? Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess the question here is whether the article should say more about the experience of the aesthetic and perhaps something about the human perception of beauty and what that means. I think that would be welcomed and useful. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

4.1 Non-motivated functions

These two subsection on motivated and non-motivated functions of art seem a little off-center, the issue of intentionality in art is fairly well addressed in one of the later sections of this article. In fact, these two sections appear to deal more with questions related to the art-for-art's-sake argument facing the art-for-profit and art-for-vocation arguments. All these issues are significant though its unclear why they are called motivated and unmotivated in isolation from all these other discussions of similar themes in art. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd lean towards merging these two sections. There isn't "non-motivated" art since any artwork, according to a lot of thinkers, is the result of a motivation, no matter their nature. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Merge the sections and maybe find a better a title if you think that helps and I will try to support. More on intentionality in the mind of the artist would be nice to see here. Is the artist doing something for the purpose of creating something beautiful, is the artist trying to make a political statement, does the article care about the represented subject matter, etc. It is an extensive topic. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

4.2 Motivated functions

See related discussion points raised above in 4.1. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Noted above. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

5 Public access

Very important issue. Should public museums charge for entrance or not. Are there limits on what art institutions should expect people to pay for access to art? Should exceptions be made for students? See the Walter Benjamin essay on 'Art in the age of mechanical reproduction' which may have some interesting comments along these lines of inquiry of public access. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Walter Benjamin's essay but I'll try to access the resource. Obviously, if we dig into the last two centuries comments about access to art we'll have a wide range of opinions. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a link to a Wikipedia article on this book here: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. It would be nice if you could make some comments on free access museums in the world and non-free private museums in the world. London's museums are often free, but Chicago and New York museums often charge $25-$30 for even student to make a one day visit. Something should be said on this issue here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

6 Controversies

Interesting section with interesting references. Possibly more on this section later. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7 Theory

Interesting section with interesting subsections. Looks fairly strong for now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7.1 Arrival of Modernism

Interesting section with interesting subsections. Looks fairly strong for now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7.2 New Criticism and the "intentional fallacy"

Same comment as above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

7.3 "Linguistic turn" and its debate

Same comment as above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

8 Classification disputes

Duchamp material is appropriate here and might be expanded to include the general discussion of the cultivation of taste which actually dated back to Kant well before Duchamp. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Now, it really depends on how long we want this section to be. We can write hundeds of pages only about this topic and it still wouldn't be enought. Every time something new was created (e.g. Picasso, Mondrian, Malevich...) it was disconsidered. Even Duchamp's first painting (Cubism) was rejected from an exhibition which led him to question the meaning of art. Dadaism ironized art as people were seeing it. Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
My main purpose in citing Duchamp was to the 'What is art' debates which he helped focus in his own time. For example, when I look at a photograph of a urinal, Duchamp asks me if I am looking at a work of art. Should this general topic of 'What is art' be elaborated in this section?

8.1 Value judgment

Value judgment and taste are certainly related. This section also seems to hint at political judgments as also being relevant which might be expanded as an explicit theme here. For example, censorship in art, deprived funding for the arts in general or art projects in particular, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Among the most notable controversies there is Mapplethorpe's art. Hystorically, there are several reliable studies showing that camera obscura and mirrors have been used to create various paintings [1]. I'd add these to this section. What do you think? Robertgombos (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the question of value judgments concerning Mapplethorpe's controversial images, especially of the erotically charged images, needs some commentary. Should they be censored? Should children be allowed to view extreme erotic domination, etc? I'm not sure how you are relating camera obscura and mirrors to the question of 'value judgment' in your comment above, maybe you can clarify? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


That should get things started. You did a nice effort by improving the citations which are now formatted and well-linked. Let me know if any clarifications are needed for my comments above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo:, I will address the highlighted issues. Tomorrow I have my last exam, so the day after tomorrow I'll have time to improve/fix all these details. Cheers! Robertgombos (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: Is there an update on the edits? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@JohnWickTwo:, not yet, still gatherting some data + sources. :) Robertgombos (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: I am in the habit of chicking in every 5 days or so to see if I can be of any usefulness for your gathering information. Is the start of editing planned for this week or next week for this important article? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@JohnWickTwo: working on it right now. Robertgombos (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: Some comments and links have been added above that may be useful. If you have not read the Walter Benjamin I have linked above then it is likely to be worth your time to at least glance at it and make some comment. Let me know when you make your edits on these various sections and when you are ready for the next round of comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Robertgombos: Its been a few more days and I have not heard from you. Is there anything useful I could offer for editing of improvements, etc. The one edit you have tried on Heidegger was flagged by @Diannaa: as being copied from a Martin Heidegger page, and its been nearly two weeks. Let me know of the status. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No response to repeat pings over several days and no progress in article. The article is subject to quickclose at this time as there is no progress and Diannaa has indicated the single edit of size made has been copied without full attribution. This page should not be re-nominated until all of the items discussed in this review have been fully addressed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2018[edit]

Meow calico (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)