Talk:Art of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 


Merge of London art scene to here.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I noticed this merge didn't have a discussion section, so here it is.

Discussion on merge[edit]

Merge, the article reads like an excerpt from a larger article. That's what it should become. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a big enough topic to have its own article. Tyrenius (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Stonehenge[edit]

At the risk of sounding too much like an uninformed philistine, what about Stonehenge? How does it figure or does it figure in the Art of the UK? Seems like its influence on modernist sculpture is huge. If only for its scale, - in Henry Moore, Anthony Caro et al. And then there is the mystery and the spirituality. - Modernist (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting point, but it begs the famous question; but is is art? I disagree, it's a monument more than a piece of "art", which it most probably was not designed to be, but I agree that a mention may help somewhat. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Stuckists[edit]

User:Artlondon, First you removed them from the article for not being referenced. Ironically the article had no reference section and nothing is referenced here. I added a reference section and re-added the stuckists with references and I added them to see also.....You removed them from see also saying they are in the article....then you removed them from the article... leave the referenced text alone, or replace it with better references. Please be mindful of WP:OWN....I think the YBA template should be replaced by you as well, but I'll do it...Modernist (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

considering the article is about 5000 years of art history, Stuckists rather irrelevant. The YBA has no place here Artlondon (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In a section that depicts contemporary or 21st century UK art, the Stuckists are highly relevant, because they are a notable contemporary group, as defined in wikipedia terms, namely that there are a large number of verifiable sources that focus on them or reference them, both in national and international media. From a NPOV that is all that concerns us. I don't think the YBA template belongs here, as it is too localised for an overview article. Ty 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree on both both points. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
While I think the YBA template might work here, I defer to consensus..Modernist (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stub-class?[edit]

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous consensus, Or be bold. I changed this article to a start-class; it is not a stub

First Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus achieved or likely to be. Further relisting at this stage seems pointless. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)



Art of the United KingdomBritish art — British art is currently a short disam page. "Art of the United Kingdom" achieves laughably low book ghits of 338, the first 5 pages of which are mostly missing "p" misprints in legislation "directed to i collected, paid, and accounted for when made payable in that art of the United Kingdom into which such Spirits are so moved ....", while "British art" gets 98,000, mostly the early pages having the phrase in the book title. All the links on the "disam" page, and many, many, more are linked from this article, and the page serves no useful purpose. see also the discussion at Talk:British art, where this is supported. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. There is no break in culture at the two political unions. However, "British art" beginning with Stonehenge (!) has some irreparable issues anyway. English art is the usual term for the mainstream tradition, unless particular attention is being drawn to Scottish art. though Wikipedia's article begins "English art is the body of visual arts made in England. British art covers the period from 1707 to today." Compare English architecture, under the rubric Architecture of England. Perhaps a parallel Art of England (now a redirect) would be best. --Wetman (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
As so often in this area, there's no great consistency in academic usage, but I think a switch from English to British at 1707 is most typical. From the refs used, compare:
  • Piper, David, Painting in England, 1500-1880, Penguin, which in fact treats Raeburn, who spent next to no time in England, on equal terms, and
  • Waterhouse, Ellis, Painting in Britain, 1530-1790, 4th Edn, 1978, Penguin Books (now Yale History of Art series), ISBN 0300053193

You don't see much talk of English art by the 19th century when there were great numbers of non-English artists in LOndon, both from the rest of the UK, Europe & sometimes America. For about 180 years after the Union almost all the best Scottish, Irish & Welsh art was produced in London or outside the UK. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose The present title includes Northern Ireland artists. The proposed title does not. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but is not part of either Britain or Great Britain. It's even questionable whether Scottish artists should really be included under British, though I would acknowledge that British is usually used to refer to of Great Britain as well as of Britain. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
This is using a very peculiar definition of "British" indeed. The use of British to cover the whole UK is extremely well established in many contexts. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Johnbod is correct. The term "British" is commonly used to refer to the UK as a whole; it includes Northern Ireland as well as Great Britain. The Celestial City (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. It would be a disastrous move. Skinsmoke makes some fair points; and indeed changing the title this way would open the article to many edit wars. If you want to manage those edit wars ... change the title. On Wikipedia, using United Kingdom instead of British when possible is a valuable rule of thumb. Besides, as a medievalist I'd automatically think that "British art" referred to art produced by the Celtic-speaking Britons, and would exclude Anglo-Saxon art by definition. That's just another complication. If it ain't broke, don't 'fix it'. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it is broke; see above. Neither Anglo-Saxon art nor Ancient British art are in the scope of this article, which after a very brief intro deals only with post-1707 art. In fact you simply never see "British art" used by art historians for art from ancient Britain. British Bronze/Iron Age, Insular La Tene, and so on, but never just British. The case here is exactly the same as British Army, British people and plenty of other articles that are perfectly stable. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately here the world is not just populated by art historians; besides, art historians can understand the term "art of the United Kingdom" as much as "British art". There are multiple obvious disadvantages to a move—, creating ambiguity, confusion and edit warring—and no plus sides as far as I can see. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given by Skinsmoke and Deacon. I should also add that the article (currently) is about the many kinds of art made in the UK. It's not about a distinct style called "British art" (if such a thing exists). ~Asarlaí 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Well it is actually! Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as British is equated with the United Kingdom. Thus NI is also British. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    But it's also 'United Kingdom', so what's the point of causing northern Irish based fights when we don't need to? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    Let them snarl. Nothern Ireland is within the UK & that's simply the way it is. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    So what's wrong with 'Art of the United Kingdom' then? Why cause snarling? If there is no semantic difference as you say, why bother causing trouble? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    'British Art' is a shorter form. Those who have probs with it for Irish nationalist reasons, would be reasons that are irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    @Everyone else, GoodDay's hardline ideological stance should be reason enough to oppose this move (no offence intended to you GoodDay). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    You and Smokeskins are fine ones to talk. The reason to change is WP:COMMONNAME; all the literature on the subject uses "British art" and none of it "Art of the UK". We also have Irish art of course, which legitimately also covers NI art, though in fact you will find there is very little, if any, NI art mentioned in either article. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    We are fine ones to talk? What do you mean? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    No probs, ya'll are free to choose as ya'll wish. I won't dispute the result of this AfD. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Coming from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration where this was raised I really couldn't care less. I think British is fine and am happy for it to include Northern Irish art particularly where the person identifies as British. I see British as more of an identity rather than as a country so I guess it is better for describing art which is more of an identity thing though of course there's no real problem including some African art if it is produced by someone who has moved to teh UK. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support There are two issues here. One issue is to acknowledge that there are three different aspects to a persons identity. Place of Birth, Current Citizenship, and Nationality. Using the example of Liam Neeson, he is British, US, Irish. For most people, all three aspects remain the same so no problems, but for our little corner of the planet, we have ... complications. (Perhaps it's time we changed the infobox of people to reflect this.) On the subject of Art - we should ask ourselves what it is this article is trying to describe. Is it art that is *produced* in the UK? Would this article discuss a Chinese artist living in Liverpool producing works of a Chinese nature and culture as British? Or what about a prominent British artist living in France - are those works now French? I don't think so. I believe that art is aligned to nationality, and the article title should change to reflect this. --HighKing (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The article covers art produced and exhibited etc in the UK, so forming part of the British art scene. These days this will include many artists from other cultures who reference and use those cultures. Some British-born artists who worked almost entirely abroad are also mentioned - Gwen John for example. Many foreign artists who never took British nationality are also covered. There is an element of having it both ways in this, but it is the standard way of doing things in academic art history and journalistic art criticism. See below also. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given above by both Skinsmoke and Deacon. Also the comments made by GoodDay make me oppose it also as this kind of attitude is going to cause trouble down the line when at present we have none, the example given by HK about Liam Neeson who identifies as Irish is a good one IMO to oppose, if he were an artist would his work be Irish or British? Can of worms opening. Mo ainm~Talk 14:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This is all bullshit; "Neeson" should be included in both. There is no can of worms. No one has been able to point to a single specific artist where there is some "problem". We have articles on Irish art, Scottish art and Welsh art though local editors take very little interest in them, and the first two are pretty pathetic (I had to write Welsh art myself). It is a feature of this period, until the late 19th century, that significant artists invariably left for London or further afield at an early stage in their careers, as the article discusses at various points. In the case of Ireland, Jack Yeats (in fact born in London) is I think the single artist mentioned in the article who was based in Ireland (North or South) for the whole of his significant career, though Scotland is rather different. Feel free to suggest others. People like Maclise, Orpen, Lavery and Bacon were based in London and, like several Americans and Europeans, would be included in an article like this whether it is called Art of the UK, British art, English art or Art in London. In terms of exhibiting & general career development, it is arguably still the case that a significant artist needs to be based in a major international centre like London, though of course with modern technology they can live where they like. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Not wanting to be pointy but I can see citation tags being added when it is claimed X is British. Also will the articles on Scotish and Welsh art now belong in this bigger British art article? And if not why not?Mo ainm~Talk 17:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you are being pointy! I need examples of who "X" might be. As I say above, several artists who were not British in any way but were based in London and significantly contributed to the British art scene are covered, and are identified as American, German, Dutch etc, just as many Irish and Scottish artists are (and Richard Wilson as Welsh). No of course the Scottish and Welsh articles are not now somehow subsumed here - why on earth should they be? Any more than Art of Birmingham? Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - United Kingdom and British are synonymous with each other, and if it creates uniformity between articles, for example British literature, why not. On NI, its part of the UK, its British, somebody will always be offended but you can never keep everyone happy. Also in regards to Liam Neeson, he can easily be put into both British art and Irish art if he were an artist - why must he mutally exclusive to one Mo ainm? Mabuska (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mabuska, let me take issue with your claim that "United Kingdom and British are synonymous with each other", which is incorrect. While it is true that 'United Kingdom' always means 'British', it is not true that 'British' always means 'United Kingdom'. - For example British history prior to 1707 it not 'United Kingdom' history! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That may be true but is not relevant here as the subject of the article is specifically art from 1707 onwards. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The relevance of my comment is that it appears that it was on the basis of that point that Mabuska decided that he supported the requested move. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Well as far as the issue here is concerned he is correct. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly Johnbod. Mabuska (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, Mabuska is only correct in his claim for as long as the article starts "The Art of the United Kingdom refers to all forms of visual art in or associated with the United Kingdom since its formation in 1707." If the article were to be re-named as is being proposed, how long would it be until some editor decided that this initial sentence should be changed since that article did not have 'United Kingdom' in its title? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
That won't change. Who would change it and why? The contents of the article cover just that period. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Mo ainm and Deacon . 76.24.221.190 (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: ISP's only edit so far. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, although perhaps the difficulties of naming should be foregrounded more in the lede? Something like British art refers to all forms of visual art in or associated with Britain. [NB: this can be be interpreted however you like, as "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom"] The term is primarily used to refer to art created after the formation of the United Kingdom in 1707 [ideally a citation here] and rarely for art of an earlier date; for further information see English art, Scottish art, Welsh art, Irish art and other articles. This would hopefully address Fishiehelper2's issue with the opening sentence. Ham 22:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It probably can be expanded a bit. I was thinking of specifying that post-Independence Ireland (ROI) is not covered. The subject of the article is entirely post-1707, but there is necessary brief coverage of the background. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This RM has been opened for a month. What's the decision? GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not untypical at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning[edit]

Classifying these guys, both born in Ireland, both well known and living in the USA: Brian O'Doherty an art historian, sculptor, and conceptual artist who is based in New York City, and Sean Scully an abstract painter who lives and works in New York...Modernist (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of these are born in the South after Irish Independence & never as far as I can see worked in the UK. So they are not included. I see Scully was actually raised & trained in England before leaving for a graduate fellowship at Harvard, but all his significant career has been NY-based. But maybe Louis le Brocquy should be included, not so much because he was technically born in the UK (Dublin 1916), but because he lived in London from ?1947 to some point after 1960 (arguably his strongest period) and seems to have been a significant presence in the London art scene in this period, while (in notable contrast to Francis Bacon) keeping strong links with Ireland. He can clearly be identified as "Irish" as the article does with many artists already. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

To work in[edit]

Please add suggestions.

Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

back story[edit]

Why not include Stonehenge and prior to the 18th century as an intro to the main article? We had it in earlier versions [1] and here[2]...Modernist (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For one thing there's now no space to do it anything like properly. Stonehenge falls more under architecture really, and I think you'd have a job referencing "predicts large Modernist stone sculpture and earthworks by thousands of years"! In fact there is now reasonable clarity among experts on what it looked like as built and how it was used. Anything before 1707 should be at English art.

Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Referencing large Modernist sculpture and earthworks might not be too hard: [3]...:-)...Modernist (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Second requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, again. As pointed out in the previous close, it is difficult to see how to get consensus. Rather then another relisting I'd suggest a discussion to try and find a solution to the issues raised. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Art of the United KingdomBritish art – This move was suggested five months ago and the discussion ended without consensus. The two main objections to the move were the suggestions that the move would lead to confusion and edit-warring. I do not find either of these arguments convincing; the British cuisine and British literature articles have not been subject to such confusion or edit-warring. I am recommending that the move be reexamined because there are two points that were not raised at the previous discussion. Firstly, the British art title has a large number of incoming links, the vast majority of which refer to the art of the United Kingdom. Secondly, literally all of the other articles about national art follow the "Adjectival art" format. There is also one important point that was raised in the previous discussion that was not commented on or countered in that discussion: namely, that "British art" is by far the more common name. A Google Books search reveals only 317 hits for "Art of the United Kingdom", whereas "British art" receives 84,200. As such, this article should be moved to British art. Neelix (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons I opposed just a short while ago. The United Kingdom is a state with clear boundaries and a clear starting date, "British" is ideological and fluffy ... and so on. Far too soon to repeat an identical request anyway when absolutely nothing has changed since. Incidentally British literature is problematic article too, but its existence is arguably necessary because of confusions between "literature in the English language" and "literature from England". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment that's not the same. It's not Art of the Britons (Celtic peoples of the British Isles). 184.144.163.181 (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"Britons" may be used of this period, but Celtic art, Pictish art etc are for art. "British art" always mneans the modern period - this was raised and discussed before. Johnbod (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, that's another problem. In historical context "British" means "Welsh", and as a medieval historian I myself would instinctively understand it that way. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Even medieval historians don't use "British" for Welsh! You must find listening to the news very puzzling. Are you saying there is no adjectival form for "of the United Kingdom"? Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Haha. Yes they certainly do, John. I watched an awful documentary on the Laxdaela saga a few nights ago, andthe presenter (an art historian) used the word "British" to refer to Scottish, Irish and English people. That usage is ignorant anachronism. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. See my request below. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as last last time. Five months is certainly long enough to revisit. Neelix sums up the compelling arguments well. The Deacon's arguments were dealt with last time, as were those of other opposers. There is absolutely no reason why the title should not use the COMMONNAME for the subject and join the great number of other "British" articles. The objections are simply not coherent or logical. Johnbod (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring something is not the same as having "dealt with" something. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The reasons why they do not apply were given, without response. The arguments simply don't stand up, or amount to reasons for not using our usiual naming policies. It was the opposers above who consistently ignored the arguments. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC) -
I would certainly hope that you had high opinions of the merit your own arguments. The point is that these opinions aren't shared by myself and other opposers. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The arguments amounted to a claim that there would be "endless edit-warring" which the experience of other articles shows is not the case. No points on which these supposed edit-wars would revolve were suggested. The other point that various individuals would give problems, but they simply won't. The article covers art produced in Britain/the UK since 1707, regardless of where the artist was born or brought up, with some artists who moved abroad from the UK also mentioned. Many of the artists came from various places outside the British Isles. It is not necessary in an article like this to define or describe the nationality of individuals, which is what causes problems, as at Francis Bacon (artist). Here you can simply say he was born in Ireland and worked in London, though in fact the text now just mentions him as a leading member of the post-war London School. If this sort of thing actually was an issue here, there would already have been edit-wars, but in fact there have been none whatsoever. The ancient Britons argument is complete nonsense - "British art" is carefully avoided by all art historians writing on the period (as I should know) and that thought would simply not occur to the general reader. Note that the disam page now at British art correctly does not mention Celtic art, Pictish art etc., only Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English art, plus this. Please produce any book or article titles that use "British art" for pre-modern periods. There aren't any. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have already responded to the "no edit-warring yet" argument on the last RM. Re British, as a random example of this usage, see this; but the point about "British art" is not so much that art "historians" go around using it in contrast with Anglo-Saxon art or Pictish art, it's that if you use the term "British" at all in a pre-modern era you are either talking about the Welsh or you have run into anachronism through ignorance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is not about a "pre-modern era". That book does not use the term "British art" at all, nor is it art history. I am well aware of the usages in various types of work, as are authors and pupblishers, which is why they have no hesitation in using "British art" in titles on the post 1707 period. Must I produce examples? What is your point exactly? Are you seriously claiming that "British" should never be used so as not to confuse early medieval buffs? The world doesn't work like that. I can't see any "response" above on the "no edit-warring" matter. You say you think it will cause edit-wars, then you say it again. That's it. I asked for examples of things in the article that might cause edit-wars. I ask for that again. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, you're becoming too aggressive and I got other things to do on Wiki than go around in circles with ya. But, yes, the book does use "British art" (several times): "British culture and society became more warrior-dominated, and eventually the Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity. Anglo-Saxon art influenced British art and Anglo-Saxon objects have been found in British graves ....". That you don't consider it art history is irrelevant, since practitioners of that subject have no extra status for shaping historical terminology. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my previous oppose. Mo ainm~Talk 12:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for all of my previous reasons...Modernist (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this article is currently about all the kinds of art that is made in the United Kingdom. If you want an article about a distinctiv artform calld "British art" then you should make it. ~Asarlaí 14:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Why? That is not how the term is used. Compare German art etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Likewize, that page should probably be moved to "Art of Germany" unless it's about one distinctiv artform. ~Asarlaí 17:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Why? It is the normal term, and German art has its own styles, just like British art. The vastly larger number of google hits for "British art" compared to "Art of the United Kingdom" show how the term is used, and that is what we should follow per WP:COMMONNAME. Should Irish art, Scottish art etc be renamed too? These are also the terms normally in use. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Asarlai is correct. I could imagine "German art" being used in contrast with, say, "Livonia art", when referencing Germans outside Germany in the Middle Ages. Just because the titles elsewhere are not well thought through doesn't mean we should make other articles worse by replacing solid state-based terms with confusing pseudo-ethnic terms which are derived from the names of modern states anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
And how on earth would a move to "Art of Germany" help with that rather hypothetical issue? Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator - No one seems to be dealing with the two reasons I started this second move discussion: Firstly, the British art title has a large number of incoming links, the vast majority of which refer to the art of the United Kingdom. Secondly, literally all of the other articles about national art follow the "Adjectival art" format. Nothing I am reading in this discussion is dealing with these important issues. Instead, the issues that are being raised to argue against the move are issues common to other articles (either other articles on British subjects or other articles about art in a particular country) and consistency with those other articles would result in this article's title being "British art". If these arguments are accepted, they should be applied uniformly in those other articles as well. Instead of moving all the other articles, however, I recommend only moving this one; it is the simpler solution and also the solution that is most consistent with guidelines. Neelix (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Note to closing Admin - Neelix is the Nominator of the Requested move. Nominators don't get to "Support" their own nomination. That is a given. Nominators can of course comment to their hearts' content. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
"Support as nominator" is a common phrase to use in talk page discussions. I do not see anything in the guidelines that suggests that there is anything wrong with this practice. If you know of a guideline that prohibits nominators from starting the first of their independent comments with the bolded phrase "Support as nominator", I would be grateful if you would point it out to me. Neelix (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per comprehensive Mo ainm and Deacon arguments during the First Requested move. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The comments made by Mo ainm and Deacon during the first discussion were not comprehensive because they did not take the two issues I mention above into account: the overwhelming consensus among the incoming links and the complete uniformity of other "art by country" articles' titles apart from this article. These are important issues that no one opposing the move has yet addressed. Neelix (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Art of the United Kingdom. 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}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Art of the United Kingdom. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Victorian Art[edit]

This is almost entirely concerned with painting, and ignores the vast amount of public art, particularly sculptures, including the New Sculpture and popular art such as pottery. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sculpture is a gap, yes, but some people find Victorian sculpture a rather depressing area. The famous Victorian sculptors are ....? Apart from Landseer that is. Ok and Gilbert. There is a para on the decorative arts. Really what we need is sub-articles like Victorian painting, that can be summarized here. Our coverage of sculpture in general is pretty terrible - almost entirely focused on, yes, individual 19th-century sculptures! Feel free to add. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Angel of the North image by Freshacconci[edit]

I suggest you research Wikipedia Commons and copyright. The fact that you say that a shark isn't copyrighted shows you both miss the point and don't really understand art. Both the Gormley and Hirst works are copyrighted by those artists. Photographs of the works are not the works themselves. The works in the photographs are the art works and are copyrighted. Being in the Commons does not mean they were uploaded correctly. Just being in the Commons means nothing in and of itself. As for what is "obviously needed", that is open for debate. Articles cannot contain an indiscriminate number of images and the images in an article must follow policy, including being necessary, being discussed in the text, and having proper fair use rationales. If you want to make a case for these images, discuss them on the talk page. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy before attempting to add more images. freshacconci (✉) 14:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


I suggest you read it yourself. Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#Photographs_of_buildings where it says "See also the list of panorama freedom legislation around the world at the Commons." We now go to look at this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom where you can read:

"Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of buildings, and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public) without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way."

Angel of the North is "permanently situated in a public place" and therefore photographs of it may be freely used without copyright restriction. Here, if you want to know, is how to visit the sculpture: https://www.gateshead.gov.uk/article/5020/Visit-the-Angel-of-the-North

In case you missed it, this is the mention of it already present in the text: "Antony Gormley produces sculptures, mostly in metal and based on the human figure, which include the 20 metres (66 ft) high Angel of the North near Gateshead, one of the first of a number of very large public sculptures produced in the 2000s".

I await your reinstatement of the image or a good reason why it should not be in the article.

Thank you.

X219kk (I could not use my first name of X219k because the password didn't work. I am not trying to deceive you, which is quite obvious by the closeness of the two names.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by X219kk (talkcontribs) 02:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)