Talk:Visual culture

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: LindseyRenk, Djack21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

from the article:

Visual culture is related to visual sociology. There is debate over how art history and visual culture are distinct from one another.

Visual Studies, an interdisciplinary field, aims to integrate and expand the already existing disciplines of art history, film and media studies, critical theory, cultural studies, and others. Though often engaging objects or artifacts included within these fields, it can often incorporate those overlooked or excluded by more traditional fields of study. Often criticized for its lack of historical rigor, this is not necessarily intrinsic to the field, and many of its practitioners remain rigorous in their historical foundations and object analysis. Because visual studies aims not just to fill in gaps to challenge disciplinary boundaries, it can also be said to have political implications. In fact, Visual Studies is often quite closely linked to engagements with Critical Theory. Scholarship in Visual Studies tends to be more thematically, rather than artist-, style-, or filmmaker-based, partly due to its engagement with questions concerning biography and the author function (Barthes, Foucault), but also due to its comparable openness toward broader questions concerning theory and technology. Scholars working in Visual Studies engage with far-reaching questions from temporality and cinema to biopower and feminism to nationalist cinema to video games and new media -- the list goes on. Most importantly, with widespread changes taking place throughout the Humanities, Visual Studies appears to be a growing program of study, rather than discipline persay.

removed it because I cannot understand what the writer was trying to say and it contained spelling mistakes such as persay--Jahsonic 19:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't John Berger indebted to Walter Benjamin far more than Lacan? As such, it's probably more appropriate to suggest a connection with British media and cultural studies (or just cultural studies) rather than with Lacan. Also, what about Gombrich? Comments, anyone?? Kris Erickson (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Gombrich, there must needs be mention of Hal Foster, Jonathan Crary, Martin Jay, Erwin Panofsky, and perhaps also David Levin and Mieke Bal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.252.53 (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where to study section

I've removed this section as Wikipedia is not a directory, the list can never be complete and this sort of thing is prone to abuse. We need to stick to describing what visual culture is and let people find programs themselves. If there is a decent directory out there listing university programs, we should link to that instead. freshacconci talktalk 13:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions on how to expand article

When first bringing up the Wikipedia article’s web page visually I can see some areas for improvement. First, the lead section is only one sentence, which is extremely short. The lead section should be a summary of the article's key points that are discussed throughout the web page. Looking at the article as a whole it is hard to expand in the lead section because all the other subheading sections have not been expanded on enough yet. The starting sentence of the lead section is great because you started out with a definition of the topic. Another quick fix could be to add an image by the lead section of your article in order to make the article look more appealing to readers. Also, brilliant for including a content box because it makes it easier on the readers to pick out the information they are looking for. The whole article presents a neutral view without mentioning opinions or interpretations, which is good because that is one of Wikipedia's pillars. The article includes many references and external links from many different sources including books, websites, and scholarly articles. The only thing that could be improved is the organization of it by providing more reference tags, so readers and other contributors can access the reliable source more efficiently. I found myself wondering that there were so many informative reliable sources, but had no clue where they all were linked in your body paragraphs. Here is an additional link to a video on how to reference tag or cite anything, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2HFdEtYDyc. Lastly, expanding on your subheadings I think would greatly improve this article. Some ideas for expanding could be how people in history viewed art and how it has changed throughout time or what kind of art people can interpret (cadavers, paintings, images, etc.) Also, you could explain on how the thought process for interpreting works mechanically in your head. There is definitely a lot of exciting ways to expand this article. Good luck!

--LindseyRenk (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on Sections and Organization

The opening section of the article that defines visual culture should be expanded on since i only gives a basic, minimal definition of the topic. Also, the section on visualism should be expanded on because there is not much information given on what visualism is about. Another thing is that this article could possibly be more cohesive and flow better if some of the sections are rearranged. -Djack21 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]