Talk:Art of Europe

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

European art deserves its own article[edit]

If American art has its own article, then European art most definitely should to. This is otherwise giving undue weight to American culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

European art has many articles - see French art, Italian art, Spanish art, Art of the United Kingdom, Irish art, Russian culture, Norwegian art, Swedish art, Danish art, Portuguese art, Icelandic art, Romanian art, Scottish art among others...Modernist (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Still there is article for African art. European history and arts have been more interconnected than in Africa. European art deserves its own article. FonsScientiae (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
This article is 95% about European art and should be moved to European art history. There should be a separate article for Western art. (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Surrealism ≠ an art period/style/movement?[edit]

I see that it says here that Surrealism is not an art movement, and I have seen this elsewhere on Wikipedia, but rathers than saying something to the effect that Surrealists don't consider Surrealism to be an art period, it would be better to cite a specific Surrealist who says Surrealism is not an art period. Theshibboleth 21:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying there was a Surrealist movement that became particularly defined in a certain historic period isn't the same as saying there was a Surrealist art period. After all, nobody would claim that practicing Realism is confined to a certain era in history, even though it refers to a specific development of a "movement" in the late 19th century, just like Symbolism, or Naturalism, which refer to specific movements. So, I don't quite see the point of any objections. Most articles on artistic movements note that there is a more general meaning and more broader history to the specific styles in art. The understanding and appreciation of different styles in art usually is defined by historical movements which gain currency in their time because of intellectual focus, just like Surealism did. Why deny this. Brianshapiro

Two Western Art Navigations[edit]

There are two Western Art navigation boxes, each not with the same articles linked. The Western art history series nav box at the top and then the Western Art Movements at the bottom. Is this just oversight...? They seem to be meaning to achieve the same thing... Bluefruitbowl 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Art history/History of art[edit]

I recommend the move of this page. Its current title Western art history, is not appropriate. Art historians tend to make a definition between Art history and History of art. The former, briefly described, is a study of History through art, using artworks as visual documents. This present page is about the History of Art, its stylistic progression. I recommend that the page be called either History of Western art or Western art. I prefer the latter. I am making the same recommendation with regards every article in the series. --Amandajm 05:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Innaccurate, and Biased[edit]

Reads like a school text book, full of unsubstantiated opinion. (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 18:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

--- European art historyArt of Europe

  • More straightforward and common name FonsScientiae (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request[edit]

Asian art and African art are not called Art of Asia and Art of Africa. To conform it with other articles, I propose that this article be moved to European art. Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 00:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support not to "conform it with other articles" but because it is at least as common a term for it, & less pompous. The move to this title in January slipped under everyone's radar after New Year apparently. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title 'European art' implies that European art is single and unitary, in contrast to the diversity of art of Europe through history and geographic regions. I believe rather the other articles Asian art, and African art should be renamed according to this sample. (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Art of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)