Talk:Fine art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 29 April 2013 for a period of one week. WikiProject icon
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.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A bit too broad[edit]

Looking through the list of fine art, it doesn't seem very authoritative, but rather a listing of what various individuals like. I like comics/graphic-novels as much as the next person, but I don't think it should be included in the list. I'm sure there are a few specific examples of comics that are fine-art, but as a category comics are not generally considered fine art. Likewise, while there are instances of fine art that use textiles as a medium, textiles generally are considered more a craft than a fine art.

Perhaps we could clean up the list to include things that are widely considered fine art and then have a separate category that can point out specific examples of cases where a work has transcended its medium and would generally be considered fine art. Simenzo (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think anyone has the energy to tackle this. It's a daunting article.Nlj7b2 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Visual Art vs. Fine Art[edit]

I have just come here from Visual art and find that the two phrases are somewhat confused. In fact this one is a bit of a mess as far as the definition is concerned and does " a teapot that doesn't work is fine art" seriously deserve to stay? I shall attempt to tighten up the definition and clarify the distinction between the two terms.

DavidP 01:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source, or a point of further discussion, for the sentence in the article:
"Today the term is often improperly used to give any artistic discipline an emphasis that implies higher quality." Thanks. A.H. 3 Aug 2005.

--Real Art-- I think we've lost the esscence of what art really is. there is a difference between proffession and art. when fine art was at its finest, they didn't even do photography. You had an easel and some paint and you did what you could! -Flicker —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company:

1. a. Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility.
b. Any of the art forms, such as sculpture, painting, or music, used to create such art. Often used in the plural.
2. Something requiring highly developed techniques and skills: the fine art of teaching.

kos —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

--Evb-wiki 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dance and theatre[edit]

Dance needs to be included. There are a lot of dancers out there that would be very cross if they are not included in the canon of Fine Art.

My Associates of Fine Arts degree was in theatre from here many moons ago. The fine arts include both visual arts and performing arts. --Evb-wiki 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Arts" has been turned into a redirect.[edit]

Please look at the old versions of "Arts" and see if there is anything of value there for this page. I will refrain from tagging it with a "mergefrom". -- Fplay 06:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

== Nursing ==

I would just like to say that NURSING is a fine art. And to show that I will quote Florence Nightingale, the pioneer of nursing!

“Nursing is an art, and if it is to be made an art, it requires as exclusive a devotion, as hard a preparation, as any painter’s or sculptor’s work, for what is having to do with the living body – the temple of God’s spirit? It is one of the fine Arts; I had almost said, the finest of the fine Arts”


The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline. This definition tends to exclude visual art forms that could be considered craftwork or applied art, such as textiles.'

According to that definition, animation could well be considered a fine art - it is neither craftwork nor applied art and has a wide range of movements within it. For some persuasive evidence, I present this (a few clips from My Love, by Aleksandr Petrov). Esn 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Core meaning of the phrase "fine art," in my opinion.[edit]

I think the central, core meaning of "fine art," is as applied to painting and sculpture, as is generally found in museums and art galleries. The various other applications of the phrase "fine art," are I think more figurative, rather than being strictly literal. Also, I think "fine art" refers to paintings and sculptures of past periods in time in addition to those produced in our time. The term "visual art" I think more closely coincides with the term "contemporary art," that is, art produced recently. Along with painting and sculpture would of course go drawing, printmaking, and photography, and perhaps some other art forms I may have left out. Bus stop 02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. As a result, I have clarified the definition of fine art in this article. Also, the introduction had too broad a meaning for fine art, so I have qualified that by emphasizing precisely what you termed the "core meaning" of fine art, instead of trying to please everyone who wants to dump other art forms into the fine art category. It only confuses when someone requests that every other art form be considered "fine". The term "fine" was never meant to be derogatory towards other arts, just an adjective to indicate that the arts in question were refined, or of a purely aesthetic nature, to set them apart from applied art.
Unfortunately, the term "Fine arts" has already been misused and it is too late to go back now.
Skol fir (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree generally, although for example "engraving" in the first para is a loose term meaning all forms of printmaking. We just don't need these little sections on media, whether or not they actually are fine art or not, which imo "illustration" and comics are not. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
"Engraving" was the old term in that reference I used in the Intro., specifically: Elmes, James; "A general and bibliographical dictionary of the fine arts. Containing explanations of the principal terms used in the arts of painting, sculpture, architecture, and engraving, in all their various branches."; London, T. Tegg; 1826.
I would have updated that term as it is certainly very broad, but as I was referring to the historical sense of "fine art" in the early 19th century and before, I needed to be consistent with that time in the history of art.
I agree that "illustration" and comics are not really fine art on their own, since they are used in the field of literature as an embellishment to a story, not created for their own sake. However, as I did not originally set up this article (from the talk here it must have been around for at least 4 years) I cannot take credit for the "media" inserts, nor do I have the authority to simply cut them out. I would add somewhere, though, that other forms of visual arts sometimes cross over into fine art, even if only barely, and we probably have to let them in the door, to keep the peace :)
Skol fir (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[edit] - The site is 100% free and is a great resource for artists and art galleries. It should be included as a valuable reference on Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

WP is not a collection of links. Per the guideline on external links, this seems to fall under several aspects of "links normally to be avoided." These would include:
  • "Links mainly intended to promote a website."
  • "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." (the site in question seems to exist primarily to provide onward links to galleries' and artists' sites)
  • "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content" (moving beyond the homepage to the "request a quotation" link or to partipate in the minimally active discussion forum - which are themselves discouraged - requires registration)
  • "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject." Yes, the site is about businesses and practitioners related to the general concept of "Fine art," but that relationship is at best indirect.
  • In short, the site has a clear promotional purpose ("advertise your artwork, post your events, and more!" exhorts a link at the top of the homepage), not a purely informational one.
I would also caution the IP-account(s) that have been adding this link using language again drawn from the guideline on external links: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain, or represent." The tenacity with which the site has been re-added after reversion by numerous editors makes it hard not to think there is a link between the anonymous adders and the site in question. That the IP in question is equally tenacious in adding a similar directory site to the Automation article only strengthens that likelihood. Robertissimo 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish this article luck: the definition of fine art is debated at my college daily--not aided by the fact that the arts change with the people who make them! Jeni Mc 14:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Garbled text[edit]

The first sentence of the first paragraph is garbled. Perhaps the person who wrote or edited it most recently could correct it. There is also a hanging quotation mark in the sentence. Terryellen 16:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Academic study[edit]

Currently only describes the USA model. UK, French, Russian etc are all different.Research Method (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I imagine I'm not alone in my lack of familiarity with the modes of academic study overseas. I am aware, via anecdote, of traditional academic models that exist in Russia and Italy. Any additional information that broadens the 'worldview' would be beneficial to the article. Currently Art school appears to focus on the US and the UK. JNW (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the aforementioned heading, it would be helpful for the application of the 'worldwide view' tag to be accompanied by explanation of specific instances of imbalance within an article, that contributors can better understand and aid in presenting a more expansive text. JNW (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


If you need examples, no mention is made of Calligraphy. I believe this is a fine art.Peas & Luv (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC) I don't know much about non-western art, but I think that it is fine art, and I can see that it is not covered.Peas & Luv (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

2D WORKS section SUCK!!![edit]

I'm all for including all sorts of graphic design as art. Taking in consideration the cave, mayan and egyptian paintings, sequential art or ilustration comics have always been there, even before regular painting! However, this article provides no justification to put them as "2D work" along with painting, the only "2D work" widely acknoledged as a fine art. You need to find at least a couple of good, reliable and verifiable sources stating that the place of painting has been expanded to include ilustration, printing and the rest. -- (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Printmaking and Drawing[edit]

I've returned the deleted sections. Drawing and printmaking are both considered among the Fine Arts...Let's get a consensus concerning Illustration and Comics, before deleting them..I think they can stay...Modernist (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comics are not fine art[edit]

Comics need to be removed as it can't be defined as fine arts. Fine arts denote art that is representative of "high culture", comics is represntive of low culture. I will remove this section if no one objects.FSAB (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They don't need to be removed. As noted in the article, much of the best comic and cartoon work is rightly considered fine art. JNW (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, by some. Rather than just include them in the list, the ideal solution would be to explain how cases like this are part of the reason why the term is avoided by academics, & becoming increasingly restricted to commercial and popular usage. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Avoided by some academics. There are fine arts bachelors degrees given for comic art studies [1], and museums devoted to the subject [2], [3], as well as exhibitions at museums without affiliation to comic subjects [4]. My take was that strips like Krazy Kat, Terry and the Pirates and Calvin and Hobbes, to name a few, have been accepted as art. And we're not even bringing Daumier and Nast into play yet. JNW (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Art" yes, but "fine art" is avoided in most current scholarship because it's increasingly meaningless for just this sort of reason. It was never much liked or used by art historians anyway, and the singular form has I think always mostly been restricted to the US - in UK English "fine arts", matching or translating "beaux-arts" (which has no singular), is what you normally find . Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like we're moving into broader terrain. If we accept the first sentence of the article Fine art or the fine arts describes an art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than practical application, we're already on ambiguous ground, since so much work accepted as fine or high art began as a practical application, or at least incorporated both commercial and aesthetic considerations. I follow your thinking re: the term, but are you meaning to suggest an expansive re-thinking of this article, with comic strips being the least of it? JNW (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Comics do belong, per the 1990 High And Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture exhibition curated by Kirk Varnedoe at the Museum of Modern Art, and then there was Daumier, Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol...Modernist (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't keep up with the discussion, was busy this pass month. But in response to modernist, Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol were not "comicbook artists" rather artists who used the aesthetic of comic books at some point in their careers. The reason why any of the comic books art not clased as fine art is because the don't engage with any contemporary debates within art theory. To be honest I wonder why comic book fans feel the need to justify themselves by classing comics as art,surely they are valid as a cultural experience on their own terms?FSAB (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not engaging as a 'comic book fan', but as an artist and writer, as well as one with an appreciation for comics. Your last point is well taken: comics are valid without straining for artistic pretension, but from Daumier to R. Crumb, there are cartoons that have crossed the cultural line into a separate aesthetic consideration. This is supported by literature and museum exhibitions. Surely this is not a unanimous appraisal, but it has legs, I think, beyond those of comic book enthusiasts. JNW (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As ever, it's sources, sources and sources. If the relevant significant ones treat something as art, then so does wiki, and vice versa. Such matters are not resolved by editorial debate in isolation. Ty 02:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
To reiterate what I said earlier per the 1990 High And Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture exhibition curated by Kirk Varnedoe at the Museum of Modern Art and this book published at the time by Varnedoe and Adam Gopnik, in1990, Modern Art and Popular Culture: Readings in High & Low. Abrams in association with the Museum of Modern Art. ISBN 0870703560, the premise basically was that art is sourced in the culture through both high aesthetic content and popular kitsch which includes comics. I cited Warhol and Lichtenstein as two successful artists savvy enough to recognize and exploit or source their works or rather some of their works from comics. Dick Tracy anyone...Modernist (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Crumb and other comic creators are exhibited not because their work has now become "Fine Art" but because their work is culturally significant(as I said before). I guess I go along with Umberto Eco's argument that one should not raise popular entertainment (in which he includes comics) to the level of art in order to justify its existence, but to work for forms of popular entertainment that are "honest". Comics shouldn't have false artistic pretentions or else they becomes kitsch, nonart that aspires to artistic status by borrowing devices used by true artworks, devices that cease to be artisic outside their original context. It should remain true to its own devices and be aware of its own limitations, yet can still deal with important issues of everyday life.FSAB (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"level-3 vital article in Art"[edit]

Should this be one? I don't think so. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Photography is not "fine art"[edit]

Photography has no business being mentioned on this page. Photography is not and cannot be 'fine art'. See Roger Scruton's contribution in Aesthetics. PetraioPrime (talk)

I disagree, although WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is your opinion. I would suggest that you read these articles: Fine art photography, Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Steichen, and Ansel Adams [5] and consider that the Museum of Modern Art has the finest collection of Fine art photography in the world...Modernist (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am both a photographer and a philosopher. You 'suggest' I read some Wiki articles? Of all the gall! I know all about Steichen and Adams, and don't need to read those articles. I have been doing photography for 46 years. This has to do with the meaning of 'art'. See Roger Scruton's article "Why Photography is not Art" in "The Aesthetic Understanding". Photographers are morons (and that includes Adams and Steichen). They are not philosophers and have no clue about aesthetics as a field in philosophy. Some ignorant people think that calling something "fine art" is a term of praise. It's not. It's a technical term. They don't know that 'fine' means something different in that expression. There are 'fine-art' brushes and oils, but no 'fine-art' photographs. So, get it OFF of this page!

'Art' is fiction and is not causally related to any subject matter. Photographs are always 'of' something real and causally related to their 'subject'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PetraioPrime (talkcontribs) 17:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

PetraioPrime (talk)

Try learning these principles WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF AND WP:NPA before proceeding...Modernist (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Try learning these principles: know what you're talking about before writing a Wiki article! Quoting or referring to photographers as support for the assertion that photography belongs in the fine arts shows me that the author of this page knows nothing about the subject. What kind of idiot do you take me for? What authority do they have? None! PetraioPrime (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC). (PetraioPrime (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)). --PetraioPrime (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't care for photographers' opinions of photography, then look no further than Thomas Eakins ("considered the finest portrait painter our country has ever produced" - Kirkpatrick, 2). Eakins was an accomplished photographer, who used photography as the basis for many of his oils, as well as taking them for their own sake. Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Using 'photographers are morons' as a rationale is unlikely to sway consensus. They give MFAs for photography. JNW (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So what? That means nothing! Get photography off of this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PetraioPrime (talkcontribs) 13:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Take photography off of this page! NOW!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PetraioPrime (talkcontribs) 21:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Need for more aesthetics in the lede?[edit]

at the moment it just lists some artforms. (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It could use some work, yes. I'm also not a fan of this paragraph:
The term is usually avoided by academic art historians[citation needed], and is much less used in any context in the UK than North America, especially in the singular form.[citation needed]
Along with being uncited, it smacks of one person's opinion, and should likely be removed. Opinions?--Chimino (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm pretty sure I added it, & it is certainly true, but rather hard to cite without an introductory textbook to art history, which I don't have. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Video Games[edit]

I don't think they are fine art, but some do and the section seems balanced. Someone should deal with the recent exhibit at the Smithsonian and the critical response from the Washington Post.FigureArtist (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Fans also overrate the contribution of video games to storytelling as an art form. Video games are complicated and visually arresting forms of make-believe that allow the viewers to jump into the stage and participate in the action. This is regarded by the video-game enthusiast as an earth-shaking advance. In a way, it is less an extension of storytelling art than a regression to its precursors. While the themes and content of the video game may be complex and adult, the logic of viewer participation in the story reverts back to the child's tea party with teddy bears. Dutton, Denis (2009). The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution. New York: Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 1-59691-401-7. . page 133. FigureArtist (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Another reference (if anyone is interested) Are Video Games Art?[6].FigureArtist (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What is art?[edit]

It is interesting to read the heated arguments about what is Fine art when in the real world the distinction between art/not art cannot be decided. I have a source for a definition, The Art Instinct by Denis Dutton (Chapter 3).

His criteria, applied here, might exclude illustration as a category if one thinks of it as having a subordinate, utilitarian purpose, just pictorial examples of graphic design, both of them being applied arts. But again there are specific examples, such as Norman Rockwell illustrations, that later achieved a high art status as paintings.

Video games have many of the criteria for art, but are simple too imitative and cliche-ridden to be "fine", any more than most Hollywood films.

It is interesting that textiles might have been excluded, given the history of tapestry, and Joan Miro's wall hangings.

But the pink elephant in the room is Conceptual Art, which in its purest form needs no physical manifestation at all. They award MFA's for this, and its all words, which do not need to be comprehensible (even better if they aren't). Sometimes there is ephemera that serves as something to put the words next to, but as with Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, they can be thrown out and the idea, which is the real "art" (??!!), remains.

Compared to that, an Ansel Adams photo is the Mona Lisa.

FigureArtist (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Improvement[edit]

I don't know what to think about the back-and-forth about adding the TAFI template to this and several other articles. Fine Art certainly needs improvement, and I would participate if anyone else wants to edit the content. However, I am a working artist with only an autodidact's knowledge of art history and aesthetics, which may be greater than many editors given the general state of articles on Arts topics. To begin with, this article, the one on Art, The Arts and Visual Art do not appear to have a consistent take on what part of the domain they cover compared to the others. For example, if Art is confined to Visual Art, why have two articles? "Fine Art" and "The Arts" also appear to cover the same territory. FigureArtist (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly there's nothing wrong with having an auto didactic knowledge of Art history and aesthetics, its as valid as a contribution from a member of a formal academic institution on the matter. So please don't be shy in contributing, as im sure no one will be shy in removing or editing your contribution if necessary.

Regarding the issue you bring up on the consistency of the domains (Ill only deal with the examples given.) :

The Article on Art is not confined to the Visual Arts. On the art page it does however state that " this article focuses primarily on the visual arts" but as you will see when reading it includes a diverse understanding of art, for example " Until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences, but in modern usage the fine arts, where aesthetic considerations are paramount, are distinguished from acquired skills in general, and the decorative or applied arts.". Despite that the article stating early on that it will focus primarily on visual art it doesn't, although it may have a bias towards seeing art = visual art.

I would be against for example merging the two articles. One is on "art" a very very broad abstract concept, i would argue one of humanities most vaguest, mysterious and complex. The other "visual art" is regarding a particular form of human productivity that is classified as being art. i.e. it is an art form explained on the art page as "An art form is the specific shape, or quality an artistic expression takes.". You could for example merge, in its entirety visual art as a sub section into art, but this would only add to the bulk of the article and accomplish little, it would also open the flood gates to conceptual art, sound art so on and so forth all being crammed into one article.I would be for removing its focus if it exists on visual art and moving what is possible to the visual art section.

Fine Art and The Arts. These have the same territory i.e. art, culture etc. But they are not one and the same. A good example to understand the difference is photography. Photography is a part of "the arts" but as a whole is not necessarily considered a "fine art". Another way to view this gulf between the two continuing with photography is within a university that teaches "the arts" there may well be a course on photography photo-journalism and then fine art or fine art photography.

This is all only a surface explanation however and the real division is a deeper historical and ideological division. This is covered in part on some Wikipedia articles. But for further understanding i would recommend The Invention of ArtRedsaidFred (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC).

I was not thinking of merging, but that related articles should agree upon basic definitions.FigureArtist (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Singular or Plural?[edit]

I just notice that the opening section switches from Fine art to Fine Arts. My preference is for the latter. The "Fine arts" are a sub-group of "the arts", the other being the "applied arts". The 1910 Britannica article which is the first reference uses the plural.FigureArtist (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I should say that the Britannica uses Fine Arts to mean the human activities which result in the creation of Fine art, a collective noun. There appears to be some inconsistency in the usage.

FigureArtist (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As with Art and The arts the plural means stuff other than just visual art, sometimes anyway. Johnbod (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Back to Basics[edit]

The whole article leads off by using EB to define Fine Art (painting, sculpture, architecture, music and poetry). Music and poetry are barely mentioned. I think the article would greatly benefit from a complete restructuring. A basic definition (wherever it may come from) should be drawn out and explained and then the special cases, exceptions, oddities, and modern conventions can be brought up with the discussion focusing on how they relate to or differ from the basic premiss. Copious examples of course should be provided. But the basic premiss in this type of aesthetic discussion is key. Should the article use EB for the first definition? If not, what should that definition be? Should it be one definition or pull from many sources? Once that definition is established, I think it would be much easier to organize the rest of the material that relates to the wide topic of "Fine Arts". B Hastings (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been monkeyed about with, and probably no longer represents what the EB says, which we shouldn't base ourselves on anyway. But note it says "Historically, the five greater fine arts were painting, sculpture, architecture, music and poetry, with minor arts including drama and dancing ..." (my bold) & see sections above re the difference between "art" and "arts". The last sentence says that "fine art" is mostly just used for visual art. Fine arts redirects here and maybe should not - it could go to a section of The arts. It seems to me what we don't want here is yet another long article with poor sections on every type of art - qwe have far too many of those as it is. The term is barely used in art history these days anyway. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • how can anyone hope to edit this, it is long. Here are what i think of it. 1. Comics ain't fine art, it is graphic art, it does not display a sense of culture and style. (anon isp)
Yes, the first step in bringing this under control would be to remove all those sections that are not fine art as defined in the opening section: illustration, calligraphy, graphics, etc. FigureArtist (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but we'd better hammer out a list - Islamic & East Asian calligraphy certainly can be fine art, I'd say. It's basically an old-fashioned term, which art historians don't now touch with a barge pole, but is used with somewhat different meanings by the art trade & colleges offering courses. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
No it won't, but varying usage of the term needs mention. Johnbod (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A standard of measure needs to be established for the qualification of a medium to the Fine Arts. What makes a Fine Art, is it only about how the work is received or is it also about how it is created? There are different levels of skills and mastery within each medium, and it is important that this article address these issues rather than the sad state of arguments being played out over whose art qualifies. This page needs get back to basics and rely on well cited philosophical arguments if it is going to be useful and relevant. It's time to up the ante and get real about what it means to engage in fine art. Mr s.e.mann (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be OK to add Authenticity in art to the "See also" section? Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
What is the argument to add Authenticity in art?
Why not relate the other art classifications in the "See also" section such as: High Art aka High culture associated with technology and the Bourgeoisie, Pop art associated with mass commercialization, and Applied art which is both commercial and functional? Mr s.e.mann (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


With so many changes, I have started a draft version. Removing the list of art forms reduces it to a stub.FigureArtist (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion[edit]

The sections on specific types of art should be deleted unless they address or contribute to the topic of Fine Art. Most do not, but are merely copies of the opening sections of the specific articles. The section on Illustration should certainly be deleted, since by definition it is an art which is used for a purpose that subordinates it to the text being illustrated, an applied art.FigureArtist (talk) 24:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, though of course some illustrations by well-known artists would be counted in. Can we also agree to cut video games, which have been in & out in the last 24 hours? Johnbod (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It goes back to the definition of fine art: works appreciated for their aesthetic qualities. When taken out of their original context as applied art, decorating or elucidating text, an illustration may become fine art as drawings, paintings, prints or photographs. One may argue about the status of found objects as art, but it is the intentions of the artist and their placement in a museum that supporters point to as the defining characteristics. When an Albrecht Durer or Norman Rockwell is recognized on its own and placed in a museum, it is no longer an illustration. The inclusion of architecture has a similar rationale; it is a "mixed art" certainly practical and perhaps beautiful. When appreciated for its beauty alone, it is fine art. This does not mean any building can claim that status.
The "art" in a video game is in the same category as illustration, secondary to the action, and therefore not fine art. However, some video game artists do paintings as concept pieces, which might end up in a museum. (Yes, the Smithsonian had an exhibit on the Art of the Video Game, but they were pandering to the public, and no one called it Fine Art.)
What about all the others? In particular the section on Drawing and painting is a mess, talking about drawing only and giving some odd examples (doodles?!), all without citations.

FigureArtist (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The draft needs more development. I'd like to first suggest the OED over as a reference. Mr s.e.mann (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I would support this proposal if it means deleting each sub-section i.e. from section 4.-to- 11. But it should be replaced with a single section which explains the forms that fine art takes from traditional to more contemporary forms. And explain either in that section or in a new section that what counts as fine art is debatable as it is used subjectively/evaluativly i.e. " Call of Duty took gaming to the level of a Fine art". But it also has an objective dimension , which is evidenced by art theories such as the institutional theory of art. ...If its in an art museum its art & the dimension of a "artworld" which originates from Fine art institutions. - There probably should be a theory section, which i notice is missing RedsaidFred (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Video games[edit]

Shouldn't there be mention of video games as fine art? Whether we believe or disbelieve that video games can be art, isn't relevant. There is a discussion about it that is well sourced. ScienceApe (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Video" is briefly mentioned in a section called Other. Bus stop (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Scope: Art and fine art[edit]

These top-level art articles are somewhat of a disaster. Very little sourcing for articles vital-listed. What is the differentiation, if any, between the scope of this article and that of art? It appears to me that they refer to exactly the same idea (apart from art's broader history as a phrase, a subtopic), and that the umbrella topic is the arts, of which fine art would be a summary-style expansion. I'm not proposing anything just yet, but I wanted to entertain a concise and on point exploratory discussion on how these topics are materially different. czar  20:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are a bit, and don't forget visual arts! They have evolved to cover different angles, but none are great, and there should be a big hatnote explaining the different approaches, all of which are I think valid. Improving them would be a lot of work. Sourcing doesn't worry me especially as they are mostly so high-level that most statements are innocuous, but none are that well-written or cover their subjects that well. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I have spent some time reading and thinking about improving these articles, but have gotten bogged down in an inescapable problem; is there such a thing as a NPOV here? There are a number of academic disciplines involved, including Philosophy, Art History, and specializations in each of the social sciences, none of which coincide. Then there are artists that have written about their own work and that of others. And finally there are the consumers of art either casual or dedicated, who vote with their feet (and money) as to what is art. Each "art world" sees the topic from a slightly different point of view, and I certainly do not know all of them well enough to do justice to all. I could write and interesting essay, but not a good WP article. Add to this the problem of having a valid worldwide view. The Arts, Art, Fine Art all have a Western European/US POV also. Other cultures appear to have a similar concept of art only to the degree that they have become westernized. FriendlyFred (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about approaches outside those of art history, which are essentially peripheral, especially for this article. It is a very large subject, and there is room for a "by medium/genre" treatment as well as a historical summary, and a treatment of basic conceptual issues. We have all of these, but you would find it hard to guess what you will get from the titles alone. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in the scope of the articles, not their current state. How does the topic of "fine art" differ in scope from the topic of "art" (or why should they not be merged)? czar  14:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead and first two sections cover that perfectly well, and are possibly all the article needs. From this and your first comment you don't seem to have read them very carefully. But there are other approaches that can be taken with the article after that, one of which is currently adopted. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If it is so clearly stated, I would appreciate a direct quote or citation instead of a vague wave dismissal, because I don't see how those paragraphs currently answer my question. I see complete overlap of scope when comparing their outlines (or intended outlines) directly. czar  19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
"Fine art" is a subset of art and the visual arts, as explained in the article. It may be a large subset, but it is one. What are your problems understanding what the article says? If you just mean that the subsequent sections giving a very quick summary of the fine art media could equally well be at art, The arts etc, then yes they could, although they could also be rewritten to expand on their "fineness" rather than just giving dicdefs.. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I can see "fine art" as a subset of "the arts", but then I don't see how the "art" article covers anything more than what those two already cover. czar  00:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It takes a more conceptual & also a more global approach. It doesn't have much on the applied arts though it could. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The Arts portal begins by saying that the top level, most general article should be The Arts; which is equivalent to the other top level domains of knowledge: Science, History, Philosophy, and the Humanities. The Arts should be very broad in scope, and mainly be a summary of an link to the existing articles on the individual forms of art and fields of study. Art is assumed to be equivalent to the Visual Arts, which would make it redundant if true. However I think that Art should be a discussion of the concept that ties together (and sometimes differentiates) the individual arts as well as the separate disciplines such as Art History, Art Theory, Psychology of Art, Sociology of Art, etc. The scope of Fine Art is limited, and could easily be a section of The Arts discussing the distinction between certain forms of art as either fine in the sense of being pure (fine vs. applied art) or fine as culturally more valuable (high culture vs. popular culture). Fine Art should not be a catalog of the individual media as it is now. FriendlyFred (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
"Psychology of Art, Sociology of Art" are not separate disciplines, they are just different approaches within art history, along with plenty of others, both traditional (iconography, history of style, economics of art) and more modern (feminist, queer studies, history of collecting). I don't see there is necessarily harm in repeating basic summaries by medium etc here, even if they are duplicated elsewhere - there's no need to send people round too many articles. I don't worry at all about what the Arts portal says. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. I am not talking about individuals within Art History that take a more social science perspective, but members of the distinct disciplines in the social sciences that study art.
  2. Editors should not take Portals and Projects into account when they are planning major revisions?FriendlyFred (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The History Section is Crucial, Lacking[edit]

The history section is lacking, and is vital to the understanding of the term "Fine Art". I'd love for that section to cite solid sources and trace the term through time -- from its inception to contemporary skepticism of its existence due to its use as a subjective and arbitrary designation. As other contributors have objected: it may be merely a marketing term, an obsolete ideal, or a period within art history. "The End of Art" by Donald Kuspit is one example of critique of the term "Fine Art". For what it's worth,'s entry on Art gives a general structure of how "Fine Art" relates. I'd gladly do the legwork, but I'm a newbie. Any ideas? --Usefulskeptic (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Usefulskeptic

Absurdly Lacking[edit]

One mention of poetry in the opening paragraph, and no mention of literature after that. What a ridiculous article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fine art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)