Talk:Contemporary art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

Lede and WP:OWN[edit]

I see that you have already reverted someone's changes to the lede in January, but nowhere did you reply to that person's statement concerning the article's assertion that “A similar term to Contemporary art is Modern art.” where Undesignated points out that Contemporary art is not an analogous term, it is not equivalent, they are different. which is correct, and for which I added a reference specifically proving that they are different (Modern vs Contemporary), and that Post-Modern and Contemporay are analogous.
Also, I don't know who you are or who the we you use in your replies are, but be aware that WP is a collaborative project and no-one person, or group of editors, owns an article. Following the principles of Bold, Revert, Delete you are now required to discuss the matter as I made a BOLD change, you reverted it to an unsourced, and factually incorrect, IMO, version, which I have now replaced with a sourced, thus factually correct, in my opinion, version. If you disagree, please discuss it here, giving your reasons, and with sources to back up your claim. Thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean Bold, Revert, Discuss (instead of "Delete")? czar · · 21:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Consensus will determine which lede remains. For what its worth - your source is not very reliable, or accurate; in addition there is no requirement for the lede to be sourced; please deal with the material in question and not the editors. As you say - this is a collaborative project, thank you...Modernist (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I shall do as I see fit, especially if I perceive editors' behvaiour to be problematic. FWIW, back up your claims with references or more reliable sources, before you denigrate the source that I supplied and its accuracy, for the moment all I'm getting is hot air and unsubstantiated claims. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there are perfectly clear delineations between periods in art referred to by the terms "contemporary", "postmodern", and "modern". I prefer this version which seems to be supported by Modernist and Johnbod. These aren't terms that a logical body of commentators have arrived at. This is not comparable to the recent defining of Pluto as dwarf planet. Commentators say what they wish to say and they may not be in accord with one another. I don't think it would be productive to attempt to scour the material that has been written using the terms contemporary, postmodern, or modern art. I don't think the purpose is to clearly define these terms, especially in the lede. Each of the terms seem to have implications but these are not terms with strict definitions. This article's scope is clearly delimited by the present, but the point in time at which this article's scope begins is much less clearly defined. We have a chart in this article which tries to nail down with a degree of specificity certain art movements. But these are fairly well defined relative to the more vague definitions of contemporary, postmodern, and modern. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I am too late to the discussion to carefully read all, but scanned for a sense of it. I then googled ("contemporary art" define with NYU as the first result: contemporary art is produced by living artists. Makes perfect sense, but not helpful, I think, when people live for a while and don't want to rename the art they called contemporary when they were younger. Born in 1949, I have lived though a bit of art history myself, beginning when contemporary was identical to modern which was abstraction which was avant-garde. Such simple times. Modern and contemporary have the same problem, being moving targets. The modern began in the Renaissance because the middle ages were over, no it began in the Enlightenment, after WWI, after WWII... Wait, this has to stop so we must now be in the Post-Modern (after the present? the future? meaningless?). Stop trying to match apple and oranges; one vague concept with another. Contemporary = living artists, a term meaningful to the art worlds producing, selling, viewing in NYC or Miami at any moment. But it does not refer to any particular art objects, so what can really be said about it in an encyclopedia? FigureArtist (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


The article is written from a neutral standpoint, which is good. However, for contemporary art it could of have included the history behind it. As contemporary art involves from art. This is something the article can improve on by adding in another section that explains how contemporary art become so big now. The article does contain a good amount of information that if someone where to look at the article and read about contemporary art they would learn enough about it. In the beginning where the word contemporary art is define there is not enough information to describe it so readers can get a quick summary. This is the portion where people read to get that quick summary and there is not enough content. It can explain more about contemporary art then to what the word means. Also the article could contain more graphics as contemporary art is all about the visuals. And so having more graphics and examples could better explain the definition of it. An example of a famous contemporary art piece or any would give readers a better understanding. For something that is trying to explain art visuals would be more helpful than words. You can read the article but still not know what contemporary art is because no pictures were added to this article. When reading a wiki article you are trying to obtain information on a topic you want to know about. The article should be informative. And this article does not contain more information than it should. There could be more added to this article. It is under research. Also maybe because this article does not contain much information but there is not enough sources or other sites used to give this article more content. The article is organize well though and the history part where it talked about the different arts in the different times really tell you how art is changing, and contemporary art is one it. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)