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.
 

Art Renewal Movement[edit]

The Art Renewal Movement is a 21st century reactionary contemporary art movement, which seeks to restore technical skills and craftsmanship to what these artist believe were lost in modernism and post-modernism. It is a return to-the-basics approach, which framed 19th century French academies as the epitome of art education, just as the Renaissance framed ancient Greek and Roman art in the same way. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Art Renewal Movement, think of it as a 21st century contemporary Renaissance. 199.7.157.95 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced nonsense, verges on vandalism...Modernist (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I notice you have been denying the existence of the Art Renewal Movement for years (as far back as 2007 on the Talk:Abstract art. With an account name like "Modernist", I feel it is safe to assume that your preferred art style is one of the modernist ones. Just because you don't like an art movement, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are literally dozens of academies and ateliers around the world which are part of the ever-growing art renewal movement. I personally trained at the Toronto Academy of Realist Art under Fernando Freitas (http://academyofrealistart.com/arawp/), for instance. I also received a scholarship from the Art Renewal Center (https://www.artrenewal.org/).
If you want sources, here are a few: https://books.google.ca/books?id=O_iPAZnpq8QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwittM_dm7LUAhVDdD4KHeTxAtMQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=XbUfMQ4GI8YC&pg=PA17&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwittM_dm7LUAhVDdD4KHeTxAtMQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=art%20renewal%20movement&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=LJl9AAAAMAAJ&q=art+renewal+movement&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwittM_dm7LUAhVDdD4KHeTxAtMQ6AEIMDAC https://books.google.ca/books?id=gMZ7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwittM_dm7LUAhVDdD4KHeTxAtMQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=art%20renewal%20movement&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=GVPwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA136&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwittM_dm7LUAhVDdD4KHeTxAtMQ6AEIPzAF#v=onepage&q=art%20renewal%20movement&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=eIlQAAAAMAAJ&q=art+renewal+movement&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_h7zpm7LUAhXKFj4KHXgYDuY4ChDoAQguMAI https://books.google.ca/books?id=Fi0OahyCRtUC&pg=PA122&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_h7zpm7LUAhXKFj4KHXgYDuY4ChDoAQhRMAg#v=onepage&q=art%20renewal%20movement&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=8QtFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA103&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_h7zpm7LUAhXKFj4KHXgYDuY4ChDoAQhXMAk#v=onepage&q=art%20renewal%20movement&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=DTEOAQAAMAAJ&q=art+renewal+movement&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj498nwm7LUAhWGFj4KHaD6B4Q4FBDoAQg5MAQ https://books.google.ca/books?id=XrozAQAAIAAJ&q=art+renewal+movement&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBw9-EnrLUAhXFaT4KHS8zCHEQ6AEISTAH
Even people who disagree with the Art Renewal Movement's philosophy are not so draconian as to deny its existence, http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpage/2007/08/20/Gifted-artist-Bouguereau-s-work-controversial-more-than-a-century-after-his-death/stories/200708200191. 76.10.168.53 (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Nobody's denying its existence. There's an article on it. It's a website called Art Renewal Center, not an art movement or style. It's as simple as that. By the way, you seem to be having some problems with google: that garbled mess of links up there are the results of you searching for "art", "renewal" and "movement" as separate words and the results have nothing to to with the website or support in any way that there's an art movement called "art renewal movement". freshacconci (✉) 03:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
http://www.dailypaintersguild.com/about.html "This site is the culmination of careful thought and selection, and we believe it represents some of the finest art and artists in the Art Renewal Movement of Representational Art." 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Read WP:RS: the website for some painting group is not a reliable source. Nothing you have shown is a reliable source. Art Renewal Center exists. It's a website. Art renewal movement is a group of words some people use and there is no evidence of notability per WP:RS or WP:NOTE. freshacconci (✉) 03:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Professor Clive Powsey writes: "In recent decades there has been an art renewal movement to bring back traditional drawing (and painting) methods from very early in the 20th Century and the 19th Century, methods used in the so called 'academic' ateliers and schools. These fairly rote and inflexible traditional art educations involved meticulous copying of drawings and plaster casts. Charles Barque was one of the primary artists who developed a widely distributed drawing program based on a technique called 'sight sizing' from plaster casts and portfolios of lithographs of mainly classical sculpture. The sight sizing technique is really a variation of our more casual 'eyeballing'. Using it, your subject, usually a drawing or sculpture or model, is placed beside your paper and from a prescribed distance, using string and plum line, the observer meticulously takes measurements from the subject and plots them on the paper." http://clivepowseyartinstruction.weebly.com/drawing-the-basicsdrawing-and-rendering-for-metal-jewelery-designers.html 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
You really need to read WP:RS. That's someone's personal website. That is not a source. Further, that is clearly written as a phrase, not as any suggestion of an actual movement. Much like your problems with google, you are simply finding matches of those words and claiming they are saying what you want them to say. Four editors have reverted you. That means the information stays out until consensus is reached to warrant inclusion. I have repeatedly discussed this with you and yet you persist in being disruptive. Read WP:BRD and WP:SOAPBOX. And read WP:RS. freshacconci (✉) 04:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's a contemporary atelier in Australia which specifically uses the term "Art Renewal Movement" to describe their educational philosophy. https://www.atelierartclasses.com/aacblog/2011/10/30/a-cast-of-thousands.html This article was written as far back as 2011! There are literally about a hundred academies and ateliers which are part of the Art Renewal Movement. Many artists feel ripped off from their University and College programs, which no longer focus on traditional drawing skills, and instead go the atelier/academy route. Are you suggesting that all of these academies/ateliers, which are part of the Art Renewal Movement, don't exist? Most of them predate the Art Renewal Center. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
If you're not going to bother reading and understanding WP:RS, you're not going to get very far. The mere existence of three words appearing together does not mean anything and a website for an art school is about as far from a reliable source as you can get. As I have said, the onus is on you not me or the other three editors. You are making the claim, it's up to you to refrain from restoring the edit and providing your case here and obtain consensus. You have not done that. I can tell you this: Wikipedia policy and guidelines are on my side. I have no intention of hanging out reverting you. At a later time, another editor or myself will simply remove whatever you put it, based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. So, if not tonight, then tomorrow, if you incorrectly restore your edit, it will be removed. Per guidelines. And just to be clear: mere existence does not mean notable. We go by sources and you have provided none. And you linking to Art Renewal Center with a piping for "art renewal" is just a deceptive runaround notability guidelines. It's a list of art movements and Art Renewal Center is not a movement and there is no evidence of notability for art renewal as a movement. freshacconci (✉) 04:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Author Dylan Horrocks describes the Art Renewal Movement as "a rather eccentric movement dedicated to undoing the modern art revolution of the past 100 years". https://books.google.ca/books?id=gMZ7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwittM_dm7LUAhVDdD4KHeTxAtMQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=art%20renewal&f=false
So, I have now provided sources from College professors, authors, art historians, and even art schools themselves! It is very important for you to understand that the Art Renewal Movement predates the ARC website. It has a massive global following with academies and ateliers around the world! 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's a news article about the Art Renewal Movement, "This movement now has thousands of practicing artists and thousands more studying at ARC Approved schools and academies". https://codecprime.com/partner/content/2250462-one-kind-art-salon-champions-realism The Art Renewal Movement includes several art styles such as: "traditional realism or classical realism, contemporary realism, imaginative realism, photorealism and hyperrealism" http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2250841-a-one-of-a-kind-art-salon-champions-realism/ So, you're right in pointing out that it's not one style, but the Art Renewal Movement is definitely a movement. Think of it like the opposite of post-modernism (which is a movement that includes many styles). It has the exact opposite artistic philosophy. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there a high degree of promotion in this supposed "movement"? Bus stop (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so. The Art Renewal Movement is more of a counter-cultural or reactionary art movement against the tenants of modernism and post-modernism. It would be ignorant to assume that every contemporary artist embraces the ideologies of modernism and post-modernism. It would also be quite shameful to dismiss and belittle opposing visual art perspectives. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
But our article says "The Art Renewal Center (ARC) is a US organization led by New Jersey businessman, and art collector Fred Ross that is dedicated to the promotion of what it terms classical realism in art..." Bus stop (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Classical Realism is more of a style whereas Art Renewal is a movement. Please read the quote I posted above from Professor Clive Powsey about the Art Renewal Movement. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Look, I trained at the Toronto Academy of Realist Art from 2007 to 2010 (http://academyofrealistart.com/arawp/) because I was unsatisfied with my art education from York University. All people talk about at the Academy of Realist Art is the Art Renewal Movement, and there are Art Renewal Movement posters everywhere. Even at York University, students and professors were having debates about the Art Renewal Movement all the time, which is how I heard about the Academy of Realist Art in the first place. It was only until after I started the Academy of Realist Art program that I finally heard about the Art Renewal Center. Believe it or not, the Art Renewal Center website is just one tiny grain of sand in the monstrous desert that is the Art Renewal Movement. You have no idea just how huge this art movement is. There were definitely some minimalist professors at York U who were vehemently against it, but you would be hard pressed to find a York U Fine Arts student or professor who was unfamiliar with the Art Renewal Movement. As I posted above, even in Australia, on the other side of the world, their ateliers use the term Art Renewal Movement. This is a huge massive, global, international art movement. It is certainly more noteworthy that some of the minor fringe movements currently in the article. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

There sources seem fine to me. There are many of them, and they all seem to reach the same conclusion. 11pm (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

What the provided sources show is that the "art renewal movement" is not an "art movement". A disclaimer I should make is that I haven't a clue what an "art movement" is. If anything, I think all so-called "art movements" are illusions. But examine, for a moment, a provided source such as this. I read "Unleash your inner artist." And I read "The Academy of Realist Art (ARA) offers a unique teaching environment where students learn classical drawing and painting skills based on 19th century European atelier techniques. We have achieved international success in helping artists of all levels achieve their goals." How does that source support the idea that the "art renewal movement" is an "art movement"? Whatever an "art movement" is, it comes after the production of art by disparate individuals. According to the source this is a clarion call by an institution for followers. This is a case of putting the cart before the horse. Whatever an "art movement" might be, it is something that is identified by one or more commentators after the artwork has been produced. In other words, the artwork at the outset of an "art movement" is produced without a name attached to that "movement". It is only after a sufficient amount of work is produced by multiple artists containing what a commentator sees as a common thread, that the "movement" comes into existence with the christening of that movement with a name. Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Read this article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpage/2007/08/20/Gifted-artist-Bouguereau-s-work-controversial-more-than-a-century-after-his-death/stories/200708200191). This is a retrospective on how William-Adolphe Bouguereau, and his reputation has been restored due to the Art Renewal Movement. So, not only is the Art Renewal Movement a massive network of current artists, but also a restored appreciation of the 19th century French Academies, and alternate view of the Art History Timeline. This article is even written by a commentator who criticizes the Art Renewal Movement. 76.10.168.53 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Bus Stop, on the Art movement WP page, it reads, "An art movement is a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time". There definitely exists, in the Art Renewal Movement, this shared philosophy and goal by the numerous academies and ateliers around the world. Even as far away as Australia, one of the Australian ateliers (https://www.atelierartclasses.com/aacblog/2011/10/30/a-cast-of-thousands.html) specifically states that the Art Renewal Movement has been active for "a considerable time" in the both North America and Europe, and as of 2011, has now expanded into Australia as well.
I think the read controversy here surrounds the theory that certain post-modern artists, who control the art establishment (museums, universities, government councils for the arts, etc.) have that only post-modern art is considered valid contemporary art. I feel this is a dangerous self-serving philosophy, but thankfully most members of the art community are open-minded enough to respect all forms of art. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:8DCC:6B23:8F72:81AA (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The understanding of "art movements" is that they arise spontaneously without prior coordination. The sources provided indicate an advocacy for a certain type of art. This advocacy disqualifies "art renewal movement" for inclusion among "art movements". Also, do we find this so-called "movement" operating over a "restricted period of time", or is it a movement with no beginning and no end? Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the Art Renewal Movement is certainly a grassroots movement. Most of the academies and ateliers which subscribe to it have existed long before the ARC website. So, there's no possibility of this being an AstroTurf movement. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:8DCC:6B23:8F72:81AA (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
You are not addressing my objection. The crux of the matter is not whether this so-called movement is a "grassroots" movement or an "AstroTurf" movement. That is because even if it were a "grassroots" movement, it still may not be valid for inclusion among "art movements" because true art movements should arise spontaneously without prior planning and should only be identified after the fact. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Before this discussion gets out of hand, here are the facts: there are no reliable sources to establish this movement as notable. There has been a discussion, despite edit summaries claiming otherwise. It would not survive as an article. At least six editors now agree that this should not be listed. The IP and most likely sock accounts are being disruptive and refuse to abide by guidelines, policy and consensus. To be blunt: there is no consensus to include this. There are no reliable sources to establish notability. The IP and socks are being disruptive and can and should be treated as such, including being reported and being reverted on sight. freshacconci (✉) 14:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
How are the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Professor Clive Powsey, the Daily Painters Guild, the Brisbane painting & drawing school, and authors Dylan Horrocks and Juliette Aristides not reliable source? 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:8DCC:6B23:8F72:81AA (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I've explained it all to you before. You need to read WP:RS and stop edit warring. None of those are reliable sources and those that may under other circumstances may be considered a source, such as a newspaper, are not saying what you are claiming they are. Your mess of google links above shows that you don't understand the fundamentals of research (and frankly googling). At least six editors disagree with you. You do not have consensus, you are refusing to listen or read guidelines and are now just being disruptive. freshacconci (✉) 14:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Lets take these sources one at a time, because your blanket dismissal reveals that you have not read all of them, or possibly any of them. The Bisbane Painting and Drawing School in Australia. Why do you not consider an academy, atelier, college, or university to be a scholarly source? 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:F029:D9B1:D555:76E9 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not playing this game. I've read what you posted. You clearly have not read WP:RS or you would not be posting a school website as a source. freshacconci (✉) 14:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I have read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. The latter states "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer". Therefore, academy, atelier, college, and university websites actually count as reliable sources, even if the content is in the form of a weblog. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:F029:D9B1:D555:76E9 (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you evading your block? Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Range now blocked a week. --NeilN talk to me 15:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Contemporary art. 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.

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) 15:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of the 2000s[edit]

Clearly, by the lists of 20th century movements in this article, it article can't be solely about the 21st century, otherwise the title would be "21st century art". Contemporary art is 'contemporary' according to the period it is being produced. I've added "from the viewpoint of the 2000s" to the intro to reflect that. Sionk (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sionk:. Generally speaking, within the art world (public auctions, museums, galleries, art historians, art fairs, salons, etc.) contemporary art spans from the mid-1940s (the end of World War II) to now. It takes over where modern art left off. Some artists, such as Joan Miró, are considered intermediate between the two periods. In this light, the lead sentence of the article is not yet clearly stated. Coldcreation (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The opening sentence should not say "...by artists who are living in the twenty-first century." That does not make sense. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Glad I managed to get people cogitating on it and making sensible improvements. Sionk (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I tried a rewrite that conforms pretty closely to the several definitions in the "Scope" section. "Produced by artists who lived in the 20th century" is too broad and lets in artists like Andreas Achenbach (1815 – 1910) and others of his generation who lived long enough. Ewulp (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with all this, but a weather eye should be kept out for a change in the meaning of the term. Soon, it either needs to become a historical one (as "modern" has become in various contexts), and perhaps acquire a capital, or the start date needs to come forward from say the 1960s (which of course many definitions already do). Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree as well; and who knows what's to come; Post Contemporary; Ultra Contemporary; New New Contemporary; one of these days we'll have to get specific perhaps...Modernist (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the second sentence is just meaningless pablum: "Contemporary art provides an opportunity to reflect on contemporary society and the issues relevant to ourselves, and the world around us." Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)