Talk:Art/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Essays

www.centrebouddhisteparis.org/En_Anglais/FWBO/The_Arts/the_arts.html Art and the spiritual life

It should be pointed out that the above essay is by the leader of the FWBO, a group considered by some to be a cult. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Western_Buddhist_Order There may be a hidden agenda behind the inclusion of the link to this essay, or IOW it could be seen as an example of Art as 'guile' or 'cunning'. EmmDee 03:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

samvak.tripod.com/artist.html Art as a private language
www.
www.smdblue.com

Let's bring back the essays. Resources (websites) for artists belongs somewhere else, if anywhere. >>sparkit|TALK<< 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Roger Ebert and Hideo Kojima ==[www.cherado.co.uk] Recently, Rogert Ebert has stated that he believes video-games are not art. Hideo Kojima in turn responded, to my surprise, by agreeing with Roger Ebert (this interview could easilly be found by googling "hideo kojima games not art"). Should these recent discussions of gaming as an art form be noted or referenced in the article?

Yet another attempt at opening paragraphs

Persuant to TheNugga's critique, I have changed the format of my entry to better conform to the standards of Widipedia, and he has now approved the format (if not the content) I've eliminated all the forms of art because art can take any form -- it is not limited to any list of any forms. However, we might consider making a separate section that would begin to assemble an exhustive list of the thousands of art forms current and past. Regarding the content --- I am sure that sooner or later (probably sooner) my entry will be dumped in favor of something else. But if you are going to do the dumping -- please replace it with something that does not have the following text : "Art (or the creative arts) commonly refers to the act and process of making material works (or artworks)" (because this excludes conceptual art) " which, from concept to creation, hold a fidelity to the creative impulse" (because this excludes all the work in art museums which done, on demand, by artisans fulfilling specific requirements) "excluding (in art-purist contexts).... any undisciplined pursuit of recreation." (because this excludes many things that "hold a fidelity to the creative impulse")Mountshang 15:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I want to crack this one, because I can see you're trying hard to get this one right Mountshang, but I'm still unsure about this opening paragraph. To help see what I mean, compare the opening paragraphs from two other articles on similarly broad subjects.

The opening paragraph for Science is as follows:

"Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism – aimed at finding out the truth. The basic unit of knowledge is the theory, which is a hypothesis that is predictive. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research."

And for Philosophy:

"The term philosophy comes from the Greek word "Φιλοσοφία" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom". In the present-day context, it is used to refer to debates concerning topics such as what exists, what knowledge is (and whether it is possible), and how one should live. Philosophical literature is typically characterized by its use of reasoning in order to advance cogent arguments about these topics. Typically, these arguments involve consideration of competing views and their perceived inadequacies."

While I accept that art by its nature is broader and more ambiguous a subject than the two examples I have used, comparisons can still be made. Both are excellent examples of how an opening paragraph should be: concise, informative, and relatively simple - so that a reader looking for a quick definition would be immediately satisfied. Note also the length of the examples. The word count of Philosophy's OP is 76, for Science 60. Art's current opening paragraph has 136 words and, unlike my examples, a satisfactory definition is not provided, even after this wordiness.

I acknowledge the problematic nature of this; Art by definiton is near-impossible to define, but I'm afraid this is Wikipedia, and everything here must be defined - in a clear and concise way that most readers will understand. I'm not going make any of my own changes just yet, but I will leave you to read Wikipedia's specific guidelines on the Lead section, where it says this:

"The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

As far as I can see, the current version of the lead section does not meet this sufficiently enough.Thenugga | talk 15:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

interesting point Thenugga... reminded me of a conversation that I had with a fairly eminent psychologist a while ago about why Art doesn't follow a method in the same way as Science (or for that matter Philosophy) does. It made me wonder, if the reason that all of the arts based entries are having such big problems with definition, is because; unlike Science or Philosophy which are reductive in seeking to find an answer by ordering chaos into discreet questions. Art based subjects tend toward an expansive exploration of the diversity of possible questions, often without even seeking an answer. This alone doesn't cause the problem, It only arises when we try to fit the emotive, necessarily point of view subject of art into the reductive, essentially scientific nature of an encyclopedia, especially one that seeks to avoid opinion. I would also suggest that this is why it only comes close to being possible, when art is treated as history, in other words has already been smoothed to fit an hypothesis. still its always worth a try eh... DavidP

NPOV

This article has many POV remarks and personal opinions, and the tone sounds more flowery than encyclopedic. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comment. Would you please identify those remarks which you consider POV and those phrases which you feel are flowery rather than encyclopedic. (thanks to Wikipedia, I recently read the entry on art in an 1852 American encyclopedia. Now THAT was flowery) Mountshang 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Art is a superior way..." The term "superior" is subjective, and that's the lead. Then again, can art be described non-subjectively? >>sparkit|TALK<< 08:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "a superior way" instead of "THE superior way" to allow for a variety of opinions and a variety of arts that attempt to accomplish similar goals (for example: the multiple arts that attempt to restore human health) Wouldn't this get me off the POV hook ? I've also considered adding the word 'demonstrably' in front of superior -- because I think that anyone who claims to be practicing an art is claiming that their art can be used to be produce demonstratably positive results.(so it's not just a matter of faith) Mountshang 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand. The essence, to me, is the quality or elegance of the product or process. Though those terms are also subjective and don't leave room for what some call "bad" art -- Kitsch and the like. If quality, elegance or a superior way were essential to art, then what is called "bad art" couldn't even be called art. >>sparkit|TALK<< 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Art...hmm

Has it occured to anyone that an article on art should have pictures? Seriously...come on... KI 04:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures might have been appropriate for an article written 150 years ago -- but that would suggest that there is now some visual characteristic that items called 'art' might have in common -- and there isn't. Art can look like anything -- even an empty picture frame. Mountshang 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

creative writing is an art. there are no pictures in writing

Quick note

I think that one good way to define art is as the product of mental aberration.

In which case. I would have to say that you must be an artist. If I agreed with you, my unsigned friend.

I prefer to see it as a sign of mental permissiveness - after all today's aberration is often tomorrow's truth. DavidP 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Defining Art Redux

There are those who believe video games could not be called art (Roger Ebert); but what about pornography? Could that be, if intended to be, art? What is the difference between erotic art and traditional pornography? Where do you draw the line?

Case Against Art

What happened to all the external links / resources; like the essay, "The Case Against Art"? Why did those not belong in the article?

See "External Links" above on this discussion page. >>sparkit|TALK<< 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the following Wikipedia policy would apply:

"On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view."

A topic as diverse as 'art' must allow for multiple Points of View - some of which can best be articulated outside Wikipedia, in a space where others cannot edit them. According to the above policy, a 'detailed explanation' is required -- so it looks like Sparkit should provide this explanation for any essays which he thinks should be kept -- giving Brenneman the opportunity to refute those arguments. I happen to think that the essay "Case against Art" presented a very weak case - but I'd leave it in until a better one was presented to replace it. Mountshang 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the essays. The above quote from Wikipedia policy explains why -- mulitiple points of view. >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for reversion

I've reverted back to my last version, since no response was forthcoming to any of the problems noted in the version which replaced it. Those problems included:

'"Art (or the creative arts) commonly refers to the act and process of making material works (or artworks)"'

( excludes conceptual art)

'" which, from concept to creation, hold a fidelity to the creative impulse"'

(excludes all the work in art museums which was done, on demand, by artisans fulfilling specific requirements)

Patronage, and it's effects on art and artist, seems to me a huge aspect that is not addressed (that I've found) in Wikipedia. I'm considering starting an article. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

'"excluding (in art-purist contexts).... any undisciplined pursuit of recreation."'

(excludes many things that "hold a fidelity to the creative impulse")

'"Art, in its broadest meaning, is the physical expression of creativity or imagination"'

(Creativity and imagination may questionably be necessary for a practice to be called art, but they are definately not sufficient )

'"The word art derives from the Latin ars, which, loosely translated, means "arrangement" or "to arrange".'

(what is the source of this derivation ? It seems different from the Latin that I've read -- and - it can't be found elsewhere on the internet. I think this derivation should be put on hold until someone can verify its source)

Please fix the section, with sources since there might be contention. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

'"Art is commonly understood as .."'

(how many other encyclopedic entries are concerned with common understandings ? Aren't we more concerned with an understanding based on knowledge ?)

Regarding the version which I've been presenting, it does seem that "effective" is the better word than "superior" in the first sentance, and I've made this change hoping that it will satisfy those who felt that this presented a POV problem. Regarding the POV problem, I realize that several readers have sounded this alarm, but no one has yet identified the POV issue that is present. Can anyone do this ?

It seems to me to be an inherently subjective topic, and the challenge is in satisfying many points of view. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize that my opening paragraphs do not define art as it is understood by several of you --- but I don't think that it is our job to determine what is the most popular understanding of the word 'art' --- it's to look for an understanding that best accounts for how art is distinguished from non-art by institutions that specialize in this topic, institutions like galleries, public museums, art schools, and universities.

Interesting. I wonder if there is consensus among those institutions as to what is or is not art? >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the picture, I've removed it for reasons given earlier - i.e. it is incorrect to assume that something is art because it looks a certain way -- so the presentation of pictures is not relevant to an article about art. The picture that was presented -- the Venus of Samothrace -- would have been the perfect illustration for an encyclopedia written in 1800 -- but the notion of art used today is very different. Mountshang 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the work you are doing on this article, Mountshag.

The lead sentence neglects the "product" aspect of art, so I suggest;

Art is the product or process of the effective application of a body of knowledge and a set of skills. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rv back, the article was better after the line of changes, and you are back to the version that needs a cleanup. All the other articles either have some picture of a Mona Lisa or something, so I think the Winged VIctory of Samothrace should stay, and Mountshang has had little experience here, so it is time for another person to grab the ball - you can't try to slam dunk by yourself. Wikipedia is a team effort.

The first introduction which Mountshang supports does not meet the manual of style, it is not wikified and does not meet quality standards that should be found on a article featuring art. I feel that it is ridiculous that Mountshang, being an unexperienced user, has become an "overseer" over the article - you need to make compromises. The Winged Victory of Samothrace will stay here if I have anything to do with it, take a look at other language articles and there are plenty of images of art, so the English version should be no different - after all, most people want to see pictures when they think of this ingenious concept known as "art" - we are not interested in your and only your opinion about images or some generalization that pictures are old fashioned. Great, it may be old fashioned BUT it IS art...like it or not. Now I kept you old introduction, but the one from the portal simply is better. I would be more than happy to add in Sparkit's new sentence - and if I am outvoted I'll back down, but I think the article is generally better now. I am sorry, but that revision of yours showed definite mediocrity - someone actually added a a few hours- not days- after I added a {{Cleanup}} tag here, clearly improvement to the article is needed. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let we clarify something as well, I don't want to say that you or your writing skills are mediocre - but I think your unwillingness to accept change makes the article suffer, the French, Portuguese, and Spanish versions have images (not necessarily one). I think that those sentences about cultural concepts of art that you added were excellent, but the bad spelling and non Wikification make them look poor - and the article does need other editors. I am sorry to have to get nasty above, but this edit you made to my page accusing me of vandalism made crap hit the fan. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For example I think the following is excellent:

As cultural expression, art may be defined as a category of distinction that seeks diversity and requires narratives of liberation and exploration (i.e. art history, art criticism, and art theory) to mediate its boundaries. This distinction may be applied to objects or performances, current or historical, and its prestige extends to those who made, found, exhibit, or own them. There are no necessary or sufficient criteria for the items chosen other than the necessity of originality. It's purpose may be political (such as art for palaces or propoganda) or liturgical (art for cathedrals or temples) or unknowable (prehistoric cave markings) or nothing other than the purpose of being validated as art (contemporary art).

As self-expression, art has no boundaries, other than to be free from all other requirements. It's purpose is to develop the self-awareness and self-confidence of the practitioner and sometimes also to share that with others.

That's why I kept it - I have to get off my computer as there has been a major storm all day. I am risking being electrocuted! (bet you wouldn't mind the idea :-) ) ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to the above No, I certainly don't wish Encyclopediast to be zapped by lightning -- and I apologize for connecting this serious, multi-lingual scholar with 'vandalism' -- which, I've since learned, has a lengthy definition on Wikipedia and is a very serious charge in this community. I guess being a newbie to Wikipedia, I'm still not comfortable with how things are currently done. Assuming that we would behave like a gathering of serious scholars -- when one person makes an assertion (like "Art is XXXX"), someone who disagrees would attempt to present a convincing argument to explain that disagreement --- something more convincing than "Everybody else thinks that Art is YYYYY" or "I think that art is YYYY" or "Who are you to tell us that Art is XXXX ?" or "Wikipedia in other languages says that art is YYYY" Believe me, I'm not especially sold on the passages which I've contributed -- I've changed my mind in the past and I expect to change it again -- but I don't think that, other than for for benevolence of intention, an un-explained reversion is effectively any better than vandalism -- and in one sense, it's worse, because the actions of a vandal can be casually dismissed and instantly reverted -- while anything done with good intentions deserves a thoughtful and diplomatic reply. Let's face it --- the chances are very slim that the Wikipedia article on 'Art' in ten years will still have anything that you, me, or anyone else now reading this has contributed. But we can contribute towards the discussion -- and more importantly, towards an attitude of disciplined discourse that hopefully will develop as the project matures. That's why I reject the strategy of compromise that attempts to cobble together an article to say "Art is XXXX and Art is YYYY" --- in order to placate everyone who wants to make a contribution. Maybe the arguments used to justify XXXX will never satisfy those who favor YYYY --- eventually requiring someone to present ZZZZ that makes sense to everyone. But first --- we need to see just what those arguments are. I've presented mine ---- Encyclopediast, it's time for you to present yours.Mountshang 17:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I am no multi-lingual scholar: the only argument to the above is that I find someone else should take the ball for a while, you know it is SuperBowl Sunday today. Teams have alternate players, right? I don't see why this article cannot. I want to apologize for sounding arrogant above, but the bottom line is that the article was misspelled and not even wikified. I was only trying to do something for the article, and I did not expect to be dragged in some political forum in the process. XXXX YYYY and ZZZZ is great, but just let someone else have a chance. I am not arguing anymore, and I won't even make changes here anymore. I really don't feel like pulling teeth today, and that is what this argument is like. Bye. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, about it being my turn to argue back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth with you: You HAVE NOT presented one counter argument against the article revision of yours needing a cleanup/POV check. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall that specifics have yet been offered for either POV,spelling, or Wikification issues -- all of which would be appreciated. The original copy is as follows:

[[1]]

Thankyou all for your participation. Mountshang 21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you just don't get it. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Article is Disputed

I would like to help out, before I get involved, can someone please summarize (50 words max) the issues in regards to neutrality: --FR Soliloquy 15:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on a cursory scan, I think the disagreement lies with Mountshang's view that the article states what art is too definitively -- in other words he would like it to use more wishy-washy and artsy-fartsy language. That's just a quick read of the dispute here, as prompted by my displeasure at seeing the unartful use of the neutrality tag. -Ste|vertigo 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. - On second thought, maybe it's Encyclopedist, not Mountshang, who's all into the artsy-fartsy language thing. -Ste|vertigo 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How am I in the artsy-fancy language thing - I took the introduction off the art portal. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We have two vague complaints here: first, that something here is POV -- and since the person(s) who complained have not yet explained themselves, maybe it's time to drop that issue. Concerning the problem of being "artsy fartsy" -- to which passages do you refer ? My problem is with the passages that follow "creative impulse" and "creative arts" -- where the language is vague/careless/inaccurate. 'Creativity' is an artsy-fartsy word Mountshang 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

being that "artsy fartsy" presumably IS applicable to a page on 'art' I have no objection to the subject being treated in an appropriate language. the very mention of it as a problem suggests that art itself, or at least its perceived language is viewed with some prejudice. would an engineering page be disputed because it was too sciency fiency? :DavidP

Origin of art

Essay on The Origins of Visual Art What distinguishes the Homo sapiens sapiens from other living creatures? The knowledge and awareness of being FINITE, and the ensuing question as to the hereafter. It was clear to early man where human life emerged from – from the womb of woman, and therefore it appeared that it is woman who holds the power over life. This and other events still inexplicable today led to the conviction that supernatural forces exist, particularly in view of the fact that the human being was apparently not yet conscious of the connection between conception and birth. Man then attempted to locate those forces in order to influence them, i.e. to dispose them favourably towards himself. And because human life came from woman, it was obvious that the forces had to be feminine. The first deities to be worshipped were goddesses! (In certain parts of the world female deities are still worshipped today, e.g. Pacha Mama in South America and to some extent the Virgin Mary in Catholicism.) Initially, in order to have these goddesses visually present, statuettes of female figures were made and worshipped. But how could the forces be depicted in pure form? The IDEOGRAM was born. In her various books, Marija Gimbutas claims that the rhombus symbolizes goddesses, a view Anne Bancroft seems to confirm in her book Origin of the Sacred. And the earliest symbol known to us today consists of rhombi. They are estimated to be at least seventy thousand years old. The find was made in the Blombos Cave in South Africa along with the discovery of the oldest skeletal remains of the Home sapiens sapiens. Other symbols of deities and/or supernatural forces – e.g. zigzags, concentric circles and squares, rows of small triangles, parallel lines, spirals, etc – are found throughout the world, irregardless of periods and cultures. They can therefore be referred to as archetypes; they usually appear in connection with graves, temples and other cult sites. (see: www.georgesbornet.ch/afirst.html) Ideograms turn up again in numerous epochs. The second-to-last occurrence exhibiting a relationship to transcendent forces was in/on Romanesque churches. The most recent occurrence was in the Bauhaus. But with Gropius’s maxim that “the artist is a craftsman of heightened awareness,” the connection to spirituality was severed, although the same symbols were still used. Ten thousands of years after the age of the first ideograms, shamans used realistic, later stylized, PICTOGRAMS in an attempt to depict their influence, even power, over man’s most important source of sustenance at the time – meat, and the animals of greatest danger to man. In this way, man hoped to exercise control over the physical aspect of life as well. The first ideograms and pictograms which served as visual depictions of the foundations of human existence are the origins of that which today is called art. Georges Bornet 24.3.06 I had this Essay already published on the german language Wikipedia Art Talk. Response was rather meagre. So i try now in English. Any comment/critics are welcome.

Isn't "modern use" of term "art" 18th century, not Renaissance?

A comment on this line, in first paragraph: "However, in the modern use of the word, which rose to prominence during the Renaissance..." I study early modern literature in English, French, and Latin, and don't believe I have seen the term used with specific reference to the concept "creative art" (as explained here) before the 18th century; a quick look at dictionaries with extensive quotes (OED, Petit Robert) seems to confirm my impression. The classical (ancient and early modern) division within the "arts" is between the "liberal" and "mechanical" ones; rhetoric (as directed especially toward judicial and political speeches) is the foremost "liberal art," whereas painting and sculpture are generally classed as either illiberal or in an intermediate category.

Good

This is a preety good sized article. General E isenhower

Response to Further Reading

This article is much better than the article I encountered several years ago. It is wonderful to see that it has been "discovered" again by some serious scholars who believe rightfully that Art and its students and admirers deserve "a definition" if not necessarily "the definition". It now makes lucid in me ideas that are useful to my own Art and perhaps the art of others. I would like to point out I originally added the references to Aristotle, Carl Jung, Peter Magyar, and Plato. It should be noted at the time there were no further reading suggestions posted. I agree that books of Aristotle later collectively called Metaphysics are not about Art. But an understanding of Ontology may be essential to understanding the root of any Definition of Art, therefore I included Metaphysics as a reference. Dr Magyar in his stunningly beautiful and austere book Thought Palaces defined one aspect of Art as "a poetic ontology containing the mythic representation of itself". Consider for a moment a definition such as this. It is broadly applicable across history and across all form. Art as an approach to ontology appears to be evident and obvious. I agree that Plato was in appropriate. But Aristotle may be a very valuable key to a student delving into this subject even if Aristotle at the time did not know it. As a published, juried, patroned, successful, award winning "Artist" and forever student of Art, I can only hope "someone who knows something about art" will put something more relevant in the Further Reading Section. Consider that not all who came before you were irrelevant. Regards AIA1

this page is full of smut and nudity!

are you sure wikipedia allows such a thing?--~~~~ 02:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored... Tyrenius 02:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't beleive it's notyet featured. eisenhower

U T C E Q 23:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is art, not porn. Venus de Milo was made like almost 2000 years ago. Sure the ancient Greeks were all pervs, but I don't think real porn was existant all the way back then. And the Sistine Chapel mural depicts man in his most natural condition because he is in the presence of God. Sil, penises, breasts, and vulvas are not smut, they're natural. It just depends on how they're used.

drivel

this list is really dubious, or rather its intro is.

"However, since the advent of modernism and the technological revolution, new forms have emerged. These include:

dance,

photography,

film,

animation,

video art,

installation art,

conceptual art,

performance art,

community arts,

land art,

fashion,

comics,

computer art,

art intervention,

video games (most recent)"

fashion and dance aren't post modernism (or post modern) and as for 'the technological revolution' what is that? surely not the industrial revolution. film, animation and photography both predate modernism (except perhaps in literature). installation, conceptual, performance, community & land art have been around for literally ages (in the case of land art, at least 4000 years if you count Stonehenge) but were not termed as such - but then neither did DaVinci use the term art. I just couldn't decide whether to delete the list or the sentence preceding it. Also I hate to upset any younger readers but comics and video games may well be really nifty, but they aren't yet art in themselves. Bon Dessine, characature, illustration even graphic art may be, bookbinding maybe, but comics are publications. as for video games, same thing applies there are art forms that cover the imagery, and there is a fine tradition building up of computer art, video art and screen art (of which there is a well argued difference) - I'm sure that one or two games have been stated as art but as of yet games aren't an 'art form'. Now graffiti, that's a different matter, it made the leap into art a few decades ago - long after we were batting virtual tennis balls around. well sometimes this page just makes me want to rant, so I have to. DavidP

Best thing is to - be bold! Have a go at editing it along the lines of your ideas. That's what Wiki is all about. Tyrenius 10:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes!! //// Pacific PanDeist 05:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair point Tyrenius, Pacific PanDeist. to be honest I haven't got the motivation right now - I have worked on this page before and find that it is too often subject to complete 're-assesment' for my liking. (I have no problem when a subject gets improved with inputs, but Art seems to be one of those subjects that suffers from ground up re-writing). Having said that, I shall have another go, soon - first of all I'll gather some content & try to come up with a schema that is inclusive to all interests. DavidP

Video games as art?

I think video games are art, and furthermore that they are not the most recent form (both interactive fiction and role-playing games seem like more recent art forms to me), I think adding either to the list which clearly isn't intended to be exhaustive would be NPOV, but I am going to take the (most recent) tag off of video game, which I think is POV. Bmorton3 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that it is annoying when something that you really value, and consider to be a fantastic paradigm isn't recognised by other disciplines as being something they too should do. But sad to say that video games as such are as much an art-form as any other kind of game. Thats not to say that games haven't figured in the arts, I'm sure that at some time they have, but that doesn't make gaming itself an art-form, whether video based or bat and ball based. Except perhaps in as much as that kung-fu is an art form, a martial art form - However this page seems to be trying to define some notion of highish art. Maybe there are grounds to be much more inclusive in the way we define art here - but every attempt that is made to do that, seems to come unstuck when someone visits with an equally passionate view of, say, figure sculpture in 15th century Bavaria. So it seems we are stuck with a page that attempts to define the common conception of the profession 'Art'.

Regarding interactive fiction and role playing - yep literature is pretty well represented as an art form,The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman written in 1760 by Laurence Sterne is often cited as the first interactive or non-linear fiction. Role play IS the dramatic arts, which has also been around for some time. The fact that these things have made the transition to digital technology hasn't given birth to a new form, any more than the invention of the proscenium arch gave birth to a different drama, it simply got called theatre and now lives happily with both names.

Having said all that - I do agree with you, I just think that sources and good arguments with secondary source references are needed before we go re-defining the world (which in itself is pov). otherwise this page will remain in chaos as succsesive 'teddy bear' makers and pressed flower craftspeople add their 'art'. Find some authoritative reference to video gaming as an art-form and cite your sources. DavidP

I have removed video games as POV, having checked in sources on contemporary art and not found video games to be included. If anyone wants to include them, please provide verifiable reference. The wiki article on video games doesn't even describe them as art. Tyrenius 01:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The relation between art and play and art and games is a complex theory issue, Computer Games as Art is POV, but leaving computer games off seems POV too. There was an exhibit on Video Games as Art in the Stedelijk Museum of Amsterdam, see http://research.techkwondo.com/blog/julian/225, here is a CBS news report on games as art

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/23/tech/gamecore/main1434480_page2.shtml As this talk page has showed already there are experts on both sides of this one, both on the art side and the video game side. Gamesareart.com has a list of books in print on the games are art side. Half Real by Jasper Juul, and The Art of Interactive Design by Chris Crawford are examples. 122 schools in the US list "Game Design" as a program of study under art degrees according to ArtSchools.com, and many more teach it as a component of a computer art program of some kind. I think video games are already considered art in the US by broad segements of the population, even in this kind of institutional sense, despite entrenched resistence from experts. I can site secondary sources that computer games are art, or that games in general are art, but the question is if they are authoritative. In fact, I'll cite you Stephen Davies- Definitions of Art, 1991, David Novitz -Disputes About Art, 1996, Novitz The Bounderies of Art 1992, (and I could list others) that Nobody counts as authoritative on this issue. Half of the damn page is POV because there simply is no way of talking about art without being POV. Oh and "(traditionally they are the seven arts, each with a muse directing it)" is just false, you'd need a cite for the seven arts part, but of the 9 muses their jobs are quite different and there is no muse of printmaking, drawing, painting, sculpture, or architecture. There isn't really even a muse of "literature" because its divved into 7 different tasks by the muses. If you don't want flower arranging and teddybear makers on the list why include printmaking? Perhaps because its taught in art schools? But then ... I can't see any way to make a list of art forms that isn't mired deep in POV. Any ideas? Bmorton3 16:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

These issues are covered in WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. If verifiable sources exist then any viewpoint can be put. Viewpoints should be put to give a balanced representation of historical/current attitudes. Thus a minority viewpoint should not be represented in such a way to make it appear a majority viewpoint. There is no need to arrive at our own definitions - that is original research. We just need to find what other people have said/are saying and show that. Where there are differing attitudes, then they should be represented. Tyrenius 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Article overhaul

I'm sorry I'm so new I have trouble understanding these basics. But for any putative list of art forms, I'm reasonably confident that I can find verifiable 3rd party sources having published the opinion that a given item on the list is and isn't art. I'm sure I can find video games are art, video games are not art, conceptual art is art, conceptual art doesn't really exist, printmaking is art, printmaking isn't art, and probably even teddybear making and flower arranging are and aren't art. I can cite Crawford and Kojima for the computer games are and aren't art now. Does every item on every list get footnoted for the many disputes? Surely that isn't encyclopedic. I think I understand how to do NPOV and how to do "encyclopedic," and on some topics it's easy to do both at once, but on art especially art forms, I just don't see how to live up to WP:Verify and WP:NPOV on a topic like this while still being encyclopedic. Likewise this page sure looks like it needs a whole overhaul, it repeats the etymology stuff twice in close succession, it has both a "Defining art" and a "Differences in defining art" section, which cover an odd grab bag of the topics (both Plato and Aristotle, and also the Institutionalist line, but none of the functionalist or historicist definitional approaches), attempts to discuss common features of art are lumped under the heading of "art forms," 7 "generally accepted characteristics of art" with no attempt at a reference, in fact where are the citations for the verifiability for any of this? Occasional examples are given, but the only cites I can find are the 3 "for further readings" and even the footnotes seem to be broken links. I don't want to clutter up a ultra-basic page like "art" with arcana about disputes about whether computer games are art, unless maybe as an example of the broader problem of defining art. Maybe I'll try to kloodge up something next week and see if I can do any better. Bmorton3 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're making good points, and, if I may say so, bringing an intelligent angle to bear on this. It does indeed need an overhaul. Wiki advice is—be bold! Have a go at a complete rewrite, bringing the whole thing into a good shape, and let's see what happens. However, please bear in mind Wiki does not seek to form a single point of view on a subject, but, as I mentioned before, to give a representation of existing external viewpoints. I have listed some useful guides to Wiki article writing on my user page and I suggest you have a look through these. Don't worry about making mistakes, as that is what collaborative editing is about. Others can correct them. Tyrenius 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bmorton, I am 100% in agreement with you regarding the difficulty of presenting this complex subject in an "ultra-basic" manner. and also agree with Tyrenius that you have brought an intelligence to bear here. I am sure that part of the problem with this subject (as with many others) is its tendency to feel that it has to identify and represent every sub-category that can possibly be seen to have a claim to inclusion.

Personally I think it all starts to go wrong when the page is forced to address the periphery in detail - this usually ends up in a series of lists, each item of which has tampered in some way with the main definition to give them more status. Perhaps a good way to proceed is to write this as a very general, very inclusive overview of what art can encompass, and the many ways that it (art) is envisaged, without getting caught up on specific instances of practise (disciplines) let alone instances of actual works - the printmakers, sculptors, and teddybear makers should ideally be represtented in thier own articles, and specific works under specific practitioners sub linked from them. I suppose that what I am implying is that art, for the purposes of a usefull wiki definition only really exists as a synthesis of forms, the moment it becomes about a specific practise it is more relevant to that practise than it is to the wiki overview. Good luck with your intended rewrite and power to your elbow for giving it a go. DavidP 11:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems a good way forward—an overview which directs to other specific articles. Tyrenius 15:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

art is good

art is good220.85.56.228 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC) - Yes I have to agree, art is good! And there is alot of good art on Art.Net. --lile 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

art art and more art.

I have been reading the articles definition of art for some weeks now - and keep thinking that it is almost there, but it seems to get more confused the more you read... well it just occured to me what might be wrong - we are trying to define something that is applied to different things by different people.

Art here is treated as a single thing, covering making, studying and being art - then we dive into subcategories of this amorphous thing.

If you stop and consider when the word is used, it soon becomes clear that almost everyone would agree that it can used at least three ways

the art work - the thing itself, the mona lisa, thats a nice bit of art you've got there.
art as an activity - an artists process, practise and perhaps body of work.
art as a discipline of study - arts as a cultural measure, liberal arts, comparative arts.

Dont get me wrong, the definition in the article does a very good job of reconciling these different senses (perhaps too good) but as the article progresses the application of the term shifts from one meaning to another increasingly wildly, until in the end facts that my be true in one sense make no sense in another. So we end up with issues of skill being applied to genres and 'isms' being applied to objects. This random sentence is an example:

There is often confusion about the meaning of the term art because multiple meanings of the word are used interchangeably. Individuals use the word art to identify painting, as well as singing.

I suggest that Individuals use the word art to identify a painting - painting as an activity" and the body of knowledge regarding the history of the making and crticism of painting, as well as a song, singing and musicology.

Another:

The creative arts are a collection of disciplines whose principal purpose is in the output of material that is compelled by a personal drive and echoes or reflects a message, mood, or symbolism for the viewer to interpret.

again I suggest that: The creative arts (art as discipline) are a collection of disciplines (arts) whose principal purpose is in the output of material (art as objects) that is compelled by a personal drive (art as activity) and echoes or reflects a message, mood, or symbolism for the viewer to interpret (art as study).

I think that If we disentangled these differing domains and set them under distinct headings we would have a much clearer scheme. DavidP 00:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide viewpoint in images

I'm just looking at the images the article has; they're all from Western countries. For something as general as "art", shouldn't we have some more global stuff? I don't know what to add though. How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kamakura_Budda_Daibutsu_front_1885.jpg? Or something from the Terracotta Army? -Kinst 19:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul

Well, here's that overhaul I promised, I hope I wasn't too bold. It's getting almost too long, and further cut suggestions are welcome. Even though it says we have a A on the 1.0 at the top of the discussion page, the core topics editorial page says we are at B, as of May 27, and asked for a brief discussion of history and styles, so I did what I could. I re-worked the art forms/genre stuff a lot, but it still isn't quite right. I added a LOT of art from other Wikipedia pages, and tried to balance the selection. Bmorton3 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done. It's not too long yet - check out some featured articles. If a particular section does get very long, you could consider putting it into a separate article, and leaving behind a summary, at the top of which put:

Tyrenius 17:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning in other languages

It would be good if someone familiar with other languages would add the word used by different languages, the original meaning of the word and maybe the way it is used today. We know that the romance languages use a word coming from "ars" meaning "craft", "skill", and that English took this as well. But there seems to be a different germanic root, and I imagine the same goes for all language groups. I am not knowledgeable in languages, but I'm sure someone knows of an elegant way to present this. --A Sunshade Lust 03:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Video Games and RPGs

OK I got dragged into editing this page because I wanted some recognition of video games and RPGs as art. On the other hand, the forms list was NEVER meant to be exhaustive, and will fill with cruft instantly, if we let it. I can see 2 solutions, 1) move these to the See also's, we could have video games and RPGs back on the See alsos. 2)Create a boundary disputes about art page, link it in the defining art part, put the Novitz arguments and such there, and put some of the video games are art, video games are not art, role playing games are art, rpg's are not art, Hirst and Emin's stuff is art, Hirst and Emin's stuff isn't art, etc. stuff over there. Bmorton3 13:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The current mention of video games in the article is enough. Calling video games "art" is a POV as it is not commonly referred to as so, we don't want to cover the entire to topic of "Are video games art or not?" here. It would be better on the video game page.

Actually I created a page for it classificatory disputes about art, and I put a little of that in the definitions of art section. Is it OK or does in need trimming on the main page? Bmorton3 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If we mention video games, role playing games, then we should mention all other forms which are as uncommonly referred to as "art", and the developers as "artists" (not in the same sense as "martial artists". I agree that video games can be art, such as movies, but because the primary purpose is superifical entertainment (more so than for movies), it rarely accomplishes what a movie does, and is not of the same depth as the more classical forms. Including video games gives merit to games in general, as at best it is like watching a movie/reading a book while playing a game. The fact that they are games is their only trait that makes it seperate from movies. Should we call football an art if we put music and pretty pictures in the background? I wonder if more people have wept watching football than video games ;).

add others to the classificatory disputes about art page if you can verify disputants on both sides. If you can find people arguing about whether or not sports should be counted as art, then its relevant and add it! Games often aim at more than superficial entertainment, and I disagree about depth, further there are a lot of differences between the kinds of narrativity which movies can have and the kinds that games can have. These are the debates about art that are going on in our times, so they are relevant. As I mentioned earlier there are Art Museum exhibitions on video games, and art schools grant degrees in game design all the time. The question is where and how to approach it. Bmorton3 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the main purpose of video games is not the same as art. You would not seriously call Pong and Pac-Man art, would you?

Fie, video games have lots of purposes, as do most form of art. What is the main purpose of a painting? decoration? making money? Paintings have lots of purposes, as do movies, novels, and yes games! I do seriously call Pong and Pac-Man "art" - fairly primative art (in the sense in which a child's doodles are primative, not in the sense in which a hunter-gatherer culture's art is sometimes called primative), but art. Whether something is good art, is a seperate question from whether it is art at all. Pong and Pac-Man barely began to explore the key techniques of interactivity. Moreover, video games have come a long way from Pong and Pac-man. Games like Myst, Torment, Grand Theft Auto, Grim Fandango, or Nordic Arthaus LARPs aren't even primative art. Bmorton3 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are not ready to add other controversial mediums here, we are not ready to add video games. So I ask, are we ready? --A Sunshade Lust 18:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Move the controversy to a related page, and only vaguely indicate it here, but allow it. The web if frinkin' crawling with arguments on both sides here, the issue isn't going to go away soon. You'll be deleting video games from the article over and over again forever if we can't find a graceful way to acknowledge the debate and move the bulk of it elsewhere. Bmorton3 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Art, so it should be an overview of all that is related to that. If verifiable sources can be cited for e.g. video games, then they should be included, but, as the article is the big picture, and video games are recent and not necessarily widely acknowledged or displayed as art, then they should have a correspondingly small space in this article. I like the Classificatory disputes about art page! Tyrenius 05:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I had not visited the classification page, it's great. By the way, please don't respond (even if it's long) to my post like that, in a forum this works but this makes it weird to read since it seems like chunks of text are without signatures. Best wishes, --A Sunshade Lust 19:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Architecture

Personally I find that whether or not this is art is contestable, but is this just me? To me it's an art in the technical sense, but not as we see art in paintings. Would anyone object if I removed it from the list of mediums which suggests these are the well accepted forms, such as cinema, music and such? Generally speaking, I don't think it is art as the main purpose is (rarely) to be beautiful, and even then, I think art is more than beauty but this is a POV. --A Sunshade Lust 19:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

This is a really tough article to write, and I give the editors lots of credit for coming this far. I don't think it's quite ready for GA status yet, but so far so good. What you have really done well is keeping a NPOV, as that is probably the hardest obstacle in writing this. Here's some things to work on:

Expand lead. Perhaps provide a general overview of the history of art, and its various mediums. The lead should introduce us to the topics covered in the article.

What's with the Britannica Online sentence? You have a ref that doesn't do anything (and it should be directly after the period).

You definitely need more references, and should probably use inline citations. For example, "Many have argued that it is a mistake to even try to define art or beauty, that they have no essence, and so can have no definition. Often, it is said that art is a cluster of related concepts rather than a single concept. Examples of this approach include Morris Weitz and Berys Gaut". Who have argued this? Can you quote them and cite it? Who are Morris Weitz and Berys Gaut? There aren't even wikilinks to these guys, how will the reader know who they are?
Give the article a heavy copyedit. There are numerous, easily correctable mistakes. I found this in "Art History":"In Byzantine and Gothic art of the Western Middle Ages, art focused on the expression of Biblical and not material truths, and emphasized. methods which would show the higher unseen glory of a heavenly world, such as the use of gold in paintings, or glass in mosaics or windows, which also presented figures in idealised, patterned (i.e. "flat" forms)". Don't need to tell you what's wrong there.
What is a functionalist?
The "Forms, genres..." section could be edited a bit for clarity. Also, it should be much, much expanded upon, and should talk about all the possible mediums of art, from painting to video games. If you're going to include a debate about whether video games are art, you could browse Roger Ebert's answer man database for a good debate on video games.
The Art History section definitely needs some hard editing, as most of the time I had no idea where the section was going.
The list in Characteristics of Art should be dropped.
Images should be used to illustrate a point, not just to show an art form. The urinal photo is the best and it's used perfectly, but don't only include sculptures and painting as pictures; find something from all mediums.

Good job for now, and good luck in the future. --Dark Kubrick 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed feedback! Bmorton3 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Truth

Just my two pence worth, but it's always been my understanding that art, as it has come to mean, concerns itself with the revelation, on some level, of truth that is otherwise inexpressible. Ros Power 00:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good enough, but it needs a reference; otherwise it is OR Tyrenius 01:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nudity

Someone removed the Venus DeMilo picture which included nudity, and replaced it with a picture that does not feature nudity. The picture certainly seems appropriate and non-pluggy, but there was some controversy in the past about removal of nudity. How do we feel about this switch? There is still the Venus of Willendorf and the nude Adam on the page, is this a big deal? Bmorton3 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Artistic patrimony

I propose to create a paragraph about the artistic patrimony. 84.222.8.168 08:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but you need to find a verifiable source to back the statement. See WP:VERIFY. Ask for help if you need it to put a reference in the article itself. Tyrenius 08:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1st reference source. In the site of Art Book Festival of Bologna (Italy), whose scientific committee is composed by:
Cristina Acidini Luchinat

Opificio delle Pietre Dure in Florence, Director

Renato Barilli

Visual Arts Department Bologna University Director

Jadranka Bentini

Faenza International Ceramics Museum Director

Carlo Bertelli

Mendrisio University Professor

Rosaria Campioni

Emilia-Romagna IBACN Library and Documentary Assets Curator

Marco Carminati

Art Historian and journalist Il Sole 24 Ore Domenica

Marzia Corraini

Cultural Manager

Philippe Daverio

Art Historian

Cesare De Seta

Federico II Naples University Professor

Andrea Emiliani

Clementina Academy President

Giovanna Furlanetto

FURLA Managing Director

Professor Angelo Guglielmi

Bologna Municipality Culture Councillor

Pietro Giovanni Guzzo

Pompei Archeological Curator

Anna Maria Matteucci

Bologna University Professor

Anna Ottani Cavina

Bologna University Professor

Marco Vallora

Art Historian and journalist La Stampa is said that "regulations and tariffs for the utilization of art images, also in view of the fact that Italy, although the holder of 70% of the world’s art heritage, is not predominant in the world circuit of cultural heritage rights." (http://www.artelibro.it/eng/WHO_WE_ARE_2005.php) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.222.8.168 (talk • contribs) .

2nd: Thursday 11 November 2004: 340th assembly of the Italian Senate. The 7th Senate Commission (Public Instruction and Cultural Heritage) is called to speak. The Commission invite some representatives of the Italian Editors Association and call to speak the director, dr. Cecchini. He says: "Do inizio alla mia esposizione sottolineando che parlare di leggi, normative e tariffe in materia di uso delle immagini d’arte significa in primo luogo ragionare sul perche´ il nostro Paese, che pure possiede tra il 60 ed il 75 per cento del patrimonio artistico mondiale, ricopra poi una posizione del tutto marginale all’interno dei circuiti mondiali del rights management dei beni culturali ed artistici." (http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/commissioni/stenografici/14/comm07/07a_20041111_IC_1330.pdf)

Translation: "I give beginning to my exposure emphasizing that to speak about laws, norms and rates in matter of use of the art images, it in the first instance means to reason on why our Country, than also possesses between the 60 and the 75 % of world artistic patrimony, cover a completely marginal position inside of the world-wide circuits of the rights management of the cultural and artistic heritage." 84.222.8.168 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As all countries like to stake claims for their own prowess, I don't find this acceptable unless there are sources from other countries that back it up. It doesn't seem feasible, when you consider the art of India, China, Africa etc for a start. It depends also on what they mean by "artistic patrimony". Don't forget the art article should aim for a world view, not just Euro-centric. Tyrenius 09:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seem strange when you think at big Countries with a long history. But how much of the history of China we can touch? Is often said that the Eastern culture still has to be completely discovered, but how much of that there really is? The history of China, for example, is long, but how is dense? In Italy, for every decade of its history, we have trace and documents of tens of discoveries, tens of inventions, tens of artistic vanguards, tens of new doctrines etc. And this, in an only small Nation! The ONU establishes World Heritage Sites, giving to all the Countries of the world the same possibilities, and Italy has the largest number of Sites (41), while China has 33 (even if a bigger State). Every Government can propose a list of Sites in its territory: for Italy there are 71 proposals, for China only 59. And this is only an example. Codice1000.en 12:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC) And than, Italy has a more various culture than China, whatever it's said. Codice1000.en 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC) It's not true that in every Country is said "my country is the best". At least not with this type of data! Countries like French, Spain, England or Germany often, too often, celebrate themself, but they never, thanks God, said an affirmation like this. If it's been said, there is a reason. Codice1000.en 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Can I say a thing? In your userpage (Tyrenius), I think unwanting, you have write the world Manifesto: this word is Italian. And the word Concordia, isn't it Latin? Your nickname isn't a transcription in Latin of a Greek word related to an Italian sea? Even if you don't think, in your page, most of the word that you have used are of Latin origin, and Latin is an old Italian-originated language. Watch the world around you, and say how much of that isn't Italian. Codice1000.en 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC) And how much is American or Finnish?

Wikipedia is very clear on how this works at Wikipedia: NPOV, the main goal is to avoid bias, and "nationalistic bias: favoring the interests of view of a particular nation" is explicitly a prime example. On the other hand, biased statements can be rendered NPOV by careful attribution and substantiating. You can verify that on 2 occasions committees of Italians claimed that Italy held 70% of the world's artistic patrimony (both in the context of wranggling over legal rights BTW). What did they mean by "patrimony" there? If they meant "patrimonio mundial," in the sense of UNESCO World Heritage Sites then this is substantiatable (but false, Italy has a lot, but not 60%, Europe doesn't even have 60%, look at the tables). But if so it's not clear what that has to do with the ART page. UNESCO recognizes 10 categories, but none are artistic per se. This point should go under culture, or on the UNESCO World Heritage site page or something. You'd need to do some very careful substantiating or attributing before this would be appropriate for the art page. Bmorton3 14:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. On this page Codice1000.en, we don't settle things by persuasive arguments. We need verifiable sources. If what you say is true, then it should be in books or reputable web sites in other countries too, not just Italians saying it. See WP:VERIFY. Tyrenius 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Italian Senate isn't a "someone". I don't know from which Country do you come from, but Italian Senate is a reliable source. However, per sé is a phraseology of Italian language. In any case, if I find a foreign reliable source, the data of 70% must be inserted, because - I say beginning right now - my data isn't a nationalistic bias, but a data, volenti o nolenti. Codice1000.en 20:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In your quote above the Italian Senate did not say anything, the director of one of its commissions, dr. Cecchini did. Are you claiming that every speech made before the Italian Senate is reliable? Please look at the following policies "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident." "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one." All of these are from Wikipedia: Reliable Sources. Per se is a phrase from LATIN, and probably entered English via Latin not Italian. Should I start marking the Greek or Anglo-Saxon roots I use? (Roots! Anglo-Saxon, not Latinate!). Your claim is surprising and exceptional. I am not saying it is false, but I am saying that I will block it if possible, unless you come up with EXCEPTIONAL evidence for it, as per Wikipedia policy. Bmorton3 21:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. I don't think the statistic can be sustained, but if substantiation can be found from established authorities (not just Italian ones) then it can be included. Until then, it can't. Tyrenius 15:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Games, Challenges, Puzzles, Toys, and Playthings

I just want to note for now, that the word game is used for a number of things which aren't really qualifiably games. Tic-Tac-Toe is cited as a game, though like checkers, it is more accurately a puzzle challenge. Pac Man, and Pong are the usual targets in arguements against games being an art form, and this is somewhat deceptive in discussion. Pac Man and Pong are not examples of games, they are examples of challenges. Elders Scrolls IV: Oblivion, would be an example of a game. It has all the elements of a game. Games as a discipline, is certainly new, but inherets it's primary attributes from older forms of art. That is being a game implies being an art. The Sims is an example of a toy, though it boarders on the definition of a game. Tomogachi, and Digipets are examples of playthings. I would differ to Scott McCloud for the definition of art. All art, in his apparent view has six distinct traits.

Content/Idea/Purpose/Premise
Form/Shape
Idiom/Genre
Structure/Composition
Craft/Technique
Surface/Colour

Also, it is quite clear to me, that Comics are infact art. I would highly suggest reading through Understanding Comics should you ever get a chance. (KickAssClown 12:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

Graffiti as Art

I think the paragraph about graffiti needs some tweaking. "Graffiti, a kind of art considered by some to be vandalism..." Actually, graffiti IS vandalism, by definition. Most graffiti is writing, tagging or simple, derivative, messages. Yes, some beautiful and thoughtful work has been created by graffiti artists, but let's not pretend that it is not the destruction of someone else's property, similar to theft, or arson. Also, the second two sentences make no sense... The "use" of art from the artist’s standpoint could be as a means of expression. It allows one to symbolize complex ideas and emotions in an arbitrary language subject only to the interpretation of the self and peers. Are we saying that the vandal chose painting as a creative outlet to be expressive? Or that the artist is making a statement by being creative with vandalism? Are graffiti artists symbolizing more complex ideas than other artists? Let's just tone this paragraph down a bit, shall we?--Knulclunk 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to disagree. According to Dictionary.com Graffiti is:

graf‧fi‧ti /grəˈfiti/ [gruh-fee-tee]

–noun

1. pl. of graffito.

2. (used with a plural verb) markings, as initials, slogans, or drawings, written, spray-painted, or sketched :on a sidewalk, wall of a building or public restroom, or the like These graffiti are evidence of the neighborhood's decline.

3. (used with a singular verb) such markings as a whole or as constituting a particular group: Not much graffiti appears around here these days.

The act of graffiti need not be an act of vandalism, though often enough it is admittedly.

Are graffiti artists symbolizing more complex ideas than other artists?

You miss the point of the sentence in this case, also. Artist use expression as their main tool. The way you present art, affects the expression, as much as the technique with which you develop the piece itself with does, and in some case it can be more effectual to present it a certain way, than another.

In short I would say your arguement is questionable in the sense of Neutral Point of View. In fact you arguement would seem to me to be one of rhetoric. For instance you assertion that Graffiti is defined as vandalism. I see no citations to back that assertion up, and as I understand graffiti, it is not an act of vandalism in and of itself. Very similar to how throwing a baseball is not an act of vandalism in and of itself.

Courteously (KickAssClown 04:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

My argument is certainly not Neutral Point of View! Which is why I bring it to the discussion forum. As far as citations:

Also from Dictionary.com:

graffiti-- a rude decoration inscribed on rocks or walls

Oxford:

graffiti • plural noun (sing. graffito /grfeeto/) treated as sing. or pl.

unauthorized writing or drawings on a surface in a public place.

Cambridge:

graffiti -- words or drawings, especially humorous, rude or political, on walls, doors, etc. in public places:

Wiktionary:

graffiti --

(archaeology, countable) Informal inscriptions, figure drawings, etc., as opposed to official inscriptions.

(generally uncountable) A form of vandalism involving painted text or images in public places.

(generally uncountable) Graffiti art

Britannica concise:

graffiti --

Form of visual communication, usually illegal, involving the unauthorized marking of public space by an individual or group. Technically the term applies to designs scratched through a layer of paint or plaster, but its meaning has been extended to other markings. Graffiti is widely considered a form of antisocial behavior performed in order to gain attention or simply for thrills. But it also can be understood as an expressive art form.

Also from Wikipedia:

Graffiti is the application of media on publicly viewable surfaces. It is defined as being "a drawing or writing scratched on a wall or other surface; a scribbling on an ancient wall, as those at Pompeii and Rome".[1] When done without the property owner's consent, graffiti is a form of vandalism and is punishable by law in most countries.

The Dictionary.com definition of vandalism is:

Deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property: vandalism of public buildings.

Both the Dictionary.com definitions that you cited use examples with vandalism connotations. The example would not be the same saying: “This art is evidence of the neighborhood's decline” If the majority of graffiti is done without the owner’s consent, then by all the definitions cited, the majority of graffiti is indeed vandalism. If an artist paints in a graffiti style in a legal, public space, is it still considered graffiti? Now, I don’t mean to say that some graffiti can’t be considered art or creative. We still need a paragraph here. We just need to rewrite the first sentence so that we don’t imply that graffiti is art that everyone but a few consider vandalism. Or, we need to expand the definition of art to say "All marks made by humans are by nature creative and therefore art." But I think that's a bad idea. As for the other two sentences, they are just gobbledygook. We can do better. Thanks for picking up this discussion.

--Knulclunk 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also some other notes. One I am arguing that graffiti though it has connotations of vandalism, is not defined by vandalism. In my own home town there are multipul works of genuine art, which are graffiti. They were placed there with the consent and support of the owners of the property.

Graffiti and tag are two different things. I would argue that graffiti is art, that tags are not. When one tags it is to note one's current or former presence, and would no more be art then a stop sign is.

For example the images presented here would be graffiti digischool, where as most of the images here would be tag. [2]. The distiction is subtle but very important.

Our difference maybe one of cultural understanding. As a youth, I have grown up in and learned the important distictions made by the graffiti culture, and as a citizen I have learned how it is that the culture outside of the graffiti culture views graffiti. It is colloquially correct to say rap is music, but rap is not music in the formal sense. It is a form of poetry that is often used in hip hop.

In this case, I would differ to using the distictions made because otherwise would be to push an agenda, either for or against the graffiti counter-culture. Which would put the NPOV in to question. I am just saying that Graffiti is not defined by the act of vandalism. Also that Graffiti is a valid form of expression of ideas, every bit as much as painting, music, literature and sculpture. There by making some graffiti art.

In the context of talking about graffiti and it's relation to art, I would think it prudent to talk about the art aspect of graffiti, and leave it to the Graffiti page to make clear the distinction between graffiti as an art form, act of vandalism, and a meaningless mark.

Humblely (KickAssClown 11:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

It seems to me that whether or not graffiti is a valid form of expresion, is an oppinion and as such has no place in this article. The phrasing 'Graffiti, a kind of art considered by some to be vandalism,' implies that graffiti isn't vandalism and the entire paragraph is very POV and does little to objectively describe graffiti (which is, it would seem, it's purpose). It would be valuable to pin down, perhaps via an OED, whether or not graffiti is by definition vandalism. In the mean time I'm going to excercise the Bold, revert cycle, and replace the paragraph with another that describes graffiti more specifically, without even mensioning vandalism. Olleicua 02:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In looking at the chang I have just made, I'm beginning to think it might make more sence as a caption to the image above it. I didn't want to do this yet because it would be unclear for discussion purposes and I wanted to give it all a chance to be looked at. Olleicua 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, shouln't this paragraph be under controvercial art?

So it's been a couple weeks and I'm gonna go ahead and put it in as a caption. Olleicua 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I think that graffiti should go back to its own paragraph, and its location in Utility of Art is good. The new paragraph is much better for NPOV, though the word "unconventional" is a bit clunky. Also, to address the concerns of separating art other forms of graffiti, can't we just use the term "graffiti art"?

Graffiti Art, the application of graphics on publicly viewable surfaces, usually without permission, is known for being painted on buildings, buses, trains, bridges etc. It is often a personal creative statement or used to express political ideas.

This would acknowledge the artistic aspect of some graffiti, and allow the other points to be covered in the main graffiti article (which is quite good) Let’s also add a link in the “See Also” section. --Knulclunk 13:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been a month so I gave graffiti its little paragraph back. I hope everyone is cool with this! I chose to only use the term "graffiti art" and linked down to the more arty section of the graffiti page. Next I'm off to NPOV Aerosol paint. See you there!

--Knulclunk 05:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC) I enjoy Graffiti art a great deal just driving through Memphis looking at both illegal and legal murals and cannot really do it myself (I'm an academic sort) so I appreciate it being there Knulclunk. Naomichanart 22:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Theories of art

This section is entirely POV and as this article is fairly long at this point, I would suggest eliminating it entirely as it seems unnecessary. It may be a good beginning of an article on the meaning of art, but I think that this topic is far to speculative to be completely NPOV. At any rate, I do not believe that it belongs here. Is there a lot of opposition to eliminating this section? Olleicua 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Oppose. Art is totally based in theory. There is no universal "meaning" of Art. Without some examples of theories, there isn't much to be said about art. As long as the theories are referenced, this article is as good of a place as any to talk about the various theories of art. Oicumayberight 07:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Problems w/ Introduction

The introduction of the article is really poor. It does not provide an accessible overview. Its lenght is very short. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 15:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems: 18th c. Art History

Excerpt: "The western Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century, saw artistic depictions of physical and rational certainties of the clockwork universe, as well as politically revolutionary visions of a post-monarchist world, such as Blake’s portrayal of Newton as a divine geometer, or David’s propagandistic paintings. But this led to Romantic rejections of this in favor of pictures of the emotional side and individuality of humans, exemplified in the novels of Goethe. The late 19th century then saw a host of artistic movements, such as academic art, symbolism, impressionism and fauvism among others. By the 20th century these pictures were falling apart, shattered not only by new discoveries of relativity by Einstein Does time fly? - Peter Galison's Empires of Time, a historical survey of Einstein and Poincare, intrigues Jon Turney and of unseen psychology by Freud," This whole section sounds really jumbled and does not convey clearly the ideas of art from that time period. I had a difficult time understanding it, even though I have read a number of books on this time period. It skips from obscure name to recognizable name with no real summary given of the special meaning each artist or scientist represented to the world of art. It also does not feel cohesive...it jumps from Newton to a painter named David (sorry I've never heard of him). I think this would be less confusing if ideas instead of name dropping was done. Better yet, perhaps the names expanded upon to showcase some of the big names at the end of the 1900's. The head of Le Academie Julienne, for instance, Sargent is very noteworthy as well, since he was in fact rejected by the Impressionists, yet is now classified as an Impressionist in some places! I don't want to make waves with such an important article so I thought I'd discuss the difficulty I was having here in talk before attempting such an edit. Naomichanart 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Modernism definition?

"Modernism, the idealistic search for truth, gave way in the latter half of the 20th century to a realization of its unattainability" I'm confused by this Art History bit about Modernism. It doesn't seem to agree with the Wikipedia definition for Modernism and I've actually never heard of this definition given for Modernism. "Idealistic search for truth". I'm not saying it's incorrect, just that it seems that it should be made so that Wikipedia and the article agree or at least sound like they agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naomichanart (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

heya, just lending a helping hand. we had to define art, so this is what i have. cowamooners@hotmail.com - contact

Historical Critical study - Homework 1. ART! What is it? Art is not something that can be so easily defined, there is no such definition that can sum up all the elements of it. It is a way of expressing ones self (usually visually), using medium(s) of some sort. It is using ones skill and/or creative imagination to produce an aesthetic objects(s), or it can simply be created by accident (not, on purpose). Artworks differ from other similar objects because they exhibit greater than normal significance; they are considered of higher status. An artwork is not usually something that is used practically, but rather to is to serve as an ornament, to act as an ascetically pleasing (or displeasing) object to viewers. It is not something that has dated over time or is relatively new; it has existed for centuries and millenniums. It has even been dated back to the initial stages of the human race, beginning with cave men drawings of the roofs and walls of their caves. Though art has developed, been questioned and collected some very well known artists over time. More styles, forms and types are now available to categorize artworks. Artists such as Marcel Duchamp and Chris Ofili, differed from the usual artwork and medium(s) (e.g. paintings, sculptures, statues, drawings, buildings, - paint, pencil, clay, marble, wood), by using such items as telegrams and labeling it a portrait, and portraying well-known icons in a very different way. They forced the question to the general public of ‘what is art?’. When creating an artwork the artist will always have an objective, whether it is to shock, please or question viewers, the artist will always have a goal. By using the elements of design and symbolism, the artist will be able to achieve this. Art. It isn’t so simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.138.238 (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

"An artwork is not usually something that is used practically, but rather to is to serve as an ornament, to act as an ascetically pleasing (or displeasing) object to viewers."

Many type of art that are considered such are used practically as well. This is a Western Definition--though many types of art in the west are also used practically, such as pottery. (millennia)is the plural. The artist does not always have a goal in mind either.

Art is according to my design AND cultural anthropology teacher is first and foremost culturally-based. This is because, as my design teacher said, you must know the context to know if it's art (This is at a College level, BTW). Is it in a museum? Art also tends to be according to my cultural anthropology teacher things that you cannot express within normal cultural bounds. (Not saying it's a form of expression). She also read this article and said that most of it expresses a Western view of art, except for the short line about cultural anthropology. Which if worded correctly would be her definition of art. Given this, art is both contextually based and also a means to break the bounds of your culture in an acceptable way. (And I can give supporting art forms I've studied inside and outside of the Western Sphere to support this.) --Hitsuji Kinno 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldview?

Someone just dropped a worldview tag on the article. Would you like to tell us why?--Knulclunk 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Digital Art and Collaborative Art?

Should these topics be included? Onesimplehuman 02:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Article's POV

This article has a POV bias towards human art. Please see the article on Tillamook Cheddar (dog). This should be taken into account with many of the terms used in this article. Vodak 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to feel about this. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to say that only humans are capable of creating art, and there have been interesting examples of animals making art. However, should this be a separate article that can be linked through this? Yes, this article is POV, but I'm also wondering if the appropriate tag is "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject" found at WP:BIAS. Freshacconci 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about human art. If we want to add a note in the "other topics" linking to an article about non-human art, that will be fine, as long as such an article exists. --Knulclunk 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Completely agree --Andersmusician $ 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Art

Isn't MUSIC, dance, cinema, literature, etc also an ART? then why I dont see them on this article??, pretty biased --Andersmusician $ 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

what I'm seeying is Visual arts only --Andersmusician $ 23:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, i'm adding --Andersmusician $ 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many paintings to represent art

The article is filled with images of paintings. Is it really the dominant way art is perceived among people? I don't think so. What about some variety?--Svetovid 12:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Agreed. Visually, I'm not seeing the late 20th century or contemporary Art very well represented here at all. There isn’t much else to represent the Renaissance apart from the Mona Lisa either. Even in the short section regarding 'Classification disputes... ' there is a Lascaux cave painting which very few people would contend not to be a form of art. I have read arguments over whether it is 'design' or not, but this should be a general lay introduction to art, I think its presence there would just confuse people. A key image here may be the Fountain (Duchamp) or his Bicycle Wheel perhaps, which in contemporary terms, is the point most people associate with as being the focal point for current disputes. If one was to visit this page in order to seek “what art is” the lack of visual diversity could lead a person to happily conclude that Art is “more or less” grounded in the area of painting. For the first images in the page I’d ask the editors, what are the most famous examples of Art they would first think of, to me, it would typically be a Monet or the Mona Lisa or Michelangelo's David. For a layperson, The Bath, by Mary Cassatt is not an obvious example that someone seeking an introduction to art would think of even in spite of the influence of a more well-known painter like Degas. Shouldn't there be a famous example of each noted genre that sequentially follows the other in history? Say the Mona Lisa to a (missing a huge chunk out there) Monet to Picasso to Duchamp to Modernism and so on. Some conceptual sculpture perhaps, maybe Sol Lewitt or Donald Judd? to someone like Damien Hirst or Jeff Koons right up to today etc, difficult choices, but the that's what editing is about I suppose. Casset to Picasso to Duchamp then to Mona Lisa and Graffiti Art seems a bit disorientating in repect to the sections they are incorporated and where they are placed. I don’t envy people dedicated to this page, I’d find it really hard to edit such an expansive topic like this that has already been developed so much, I wouldn’t know where to begin, with respect. Regards, Mr Magic Nasty Man. 195.92.168.164 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Communicating emotion

I removed this [3] section mainly because the material was unsupported and sounded like original research WP:OR. These statements

"One owner put the painting up for auction on eBay because it so frightened her children."
"It is known as the eBay Haunted Painting."
"Although the story behind the painting is less sensational than Internet lore indicates, the emotional impact the painting and the story have had on people around the world is undeniable."
"Stoneham has received an outpouring of emotional correspondence since the eBay auction, that ranges from healthy self-examination to demented rantings."

are all unsupported claims. Where is the proof in all this? How is "the emotional impact the painting and the story have had on people around the world" "undeniable"? How could that even be accurately measured? As this is an encyclopedia, only neutral and verifiable facts should be included. Any thoughts? Freshacconci 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

orphan

Many months ago I created the article titled Foundation for the Advancement of Art. I know of it only because it became a topic in a philosophy-discussion forum that I sometimes read. The article is a near-orphan. I don't know my way around Wikipedia arts articles. If there are others that should link to it (including, but certainly not limited to, lists that it should be on), perhaps some readers of this talk page will know what they are and can add the links. Michael Hardy 04:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

orphaned art organizations articles

Look at [:Category:Art organizations]. My impression is that many of the article listed there have very few other articles linking to them. Is that correct? Is it a problem that should be remedied? Michael Hardy 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at Category:Arts organizations. Clubmarx 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

protecting this page

Has there been a discussion about protecting this page from unregistered users? Most changes on this page are vandalism and reverting vandalism. Clubmarx 05:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and asked for semi-protection of this page twice. Right after the protection expires, a flurry of vandalism occurs. Hopefully this pattern will allow this page to be indefinitely semi-protected eventually. Clubmarx (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection is against the open spirit of Wiki. Sadly it is sometimes needed; but I still hope that eventually no page is semi(or fully)-protected. For this specific article I don't think it is a big issue as it is edited in average less then once a day; the "flurry" is (IMHO) a bit overstated Arnoutf (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of the word "art"

I see a problem cropping up a couple of times in the definition of "art". A contributor at Wikipedia has persistently introduced the erroneous concept that the Indo-European root "ar-" means arrangement or to arrange and that this has something to do with the word "art". This is most definitely false. In fact, if you consult "The American heritage dictionary of Indo-European roots", By Calvert Watkins, you will see under

ar- To fit together. 1. Suffixed form ar-mo-. a. ARM, from Old English earm, arm b. ARMY, ... 2. Suffixed form ar-smo-. HARMONY, from Greek harmos, joint, shoulder 3. Suffixed form ar-ti-. a. ART, ARTISAN, ARTIST, etc., from Latin ars (stem art-), art, skill craft; b. further suffixed form ar-ti-o-. ARTIODACTYL, from Greek artios, fitting, even. ...

I do accept that "to fit together" is a meaning associated with the Indo-European root ar-, but since the word art comes from a suffixed form (ar-ti-), it derives from the Latin. This means that "to fit together" refers to a general concept for all words starting with ar-, but not specific to the word "art". I hope that is clear. Skol fir (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Art Valuation

Suggest add some fact related to the financial gravity of the art industry in sales anually and relative performance to the S&P 500 (The Mei Moses index). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.242.50 (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality of art

The passage on 'quality of art' at the beginning of the article is arguable, suggesting as it does that this is determined largely by 'stimulation' and impact upon a number of people and their 'degree of appreciation'; in short, that art's quality is based upon public reaction. This might be removed, in favor of a passage on art's more intrinsic qualities. JNW 12:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, replaced with brief reference from Gombrich on art. JNW 14:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you're talking to yourself there, so I'll jump in. I agree with the changes: reads much better, less clichéd. Freshacconci 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It would not be the first time I've talked to myself. I appreciate the positive feedback. Thanks, JNW 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'stimulation' passage has, alas, been re-introduced. I have tagged it, because it really does need a cite from a solid scholarly source. Not strong as a definition of art, and ripe for reversion. 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)JNW

I don't agree. Where is art without it's public? what kind of "intrinsic qualities" does it really have? Art is a concept, made up by people. So without people considering it (in the form of a public, be it museum visitors or art critics) art is nothing more than a piece of material, at best. I think this aspect has to be re-introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.201.185 (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A Definition of Art

Art is a manifestation of the artist’s experience. Art is the material expression of the artist’s emotional, spiritual, and intellectual response to life, everything else is craft, performance, literature, music, etc. The definition of art is independent of the purpose or responses provoked by creative works. Art is not defined by aesthetic value; whether viewers find something beautiful or are repulsed is immaterial. An artistic statement can often be taken as literally as if the artist were instead a writer. As I often say, whoever said, a picture is worth a thousand words, must have met the artist. In no way is this definition intended to lesson the importance of any other form of creative expression, we simply need to define art as opposed to say music or crafts. While many creative works or crafts do indeed provoke similar responses (music, ballet, poetry, music videos, pottery, basket weaving, etc.) this alone does not make these works art. By this definition commissioned work that does not allow the artist self expression are generally not to be considered art, advertising copy or propaganda posters are but two easy examples. Though these types of creative output can require the skill, creativity, and knowledge of artists and may at times be art, not everything artists produce is art. Picasso was endlessly amused by which every little lump of clay, or splatter of paint or ink he produced was greeted as a valuable piece of art. However, artists such as Duchamp, Dali, or Warhol do create important and influential art from advertising copy or found objects. These examples illustrate that art is the free expression in material form of the artist. So, whether it is Rembrandt’s self-portraits, Malevich’s Black Square, Rothko’s multi-forms, Pollack’s murals, Calder’s mobiles, Michelangelo’s Pieta, Henry Moore’s sculptures, or a urinal turned on its back by Duchamp, if the work gives an artist’s thoughts or emotions physical presence, which can then be experienced independently of the artist, the work is art, public opinion is immaterial. --Mindchow 18:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

By tying art to the artist's experience, this may raise issues with New Media Arts. For example, Harold Cohen creates a program AARON, which creates works of art. By your definition, the program AARON is art (Cohen's experience), while the drawings created by AARON are not. There is also the issue of Algorithmic Arts, such as Sol Lewitt, in which the artist's experience plays a minor role. Here the focus is not so much on experience as process. Finally, I think your arguments about music, ballet, poetry, music videos, pottery, and basket weaving not being art are not very strong. Perhaps you are attempting to define Visual arts, as opposed to Aural art (music), Performative arts (dance), or Literary arts (poetry). Why is a music video, or pottery, not art? What if its pottery created by Picasso? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchoetzlein (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

An artist is someone who can stroll into your garden, pick your roses, gather them in a bundle and hand them to you, and demands to be paid for them. And you are grateful, because you'd forgotten roses had a scent and you smell the bouquet for the first time. They call him an artist if you pay him, and they call him a good artist if, after he leaves, you still don't think your rosebush has a scent. Because then some day you might pay him again.

What I mean to say by this is that art is a natural resource inherent in the infinite rich history of every material speck of earth, from which some can refine a much lesser bit of purer stuff. The quality of the song is in the note, its range and control, and the quality of the note is in the quality of wood, string, metal; their quality comes from the life and death of the tree. But listen to the tree, singing softly in the gentle wind with a thousand voices, and the art of the song is already there to hear for anyone who listens. It is of course easier to see how this is true of the pigments and scenes of a painting, but the same principle. Wnt (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Art in Wiki Brazil

Look: ARTE --200.171.181.99 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It is in more wikis Arnoutf (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

definition

art is basically the ability of thinking partially independent of going on reality and to set compositions by using different communication ways. (and) its a multipurpose activity can be used for any intention like to give ideas, to relax, to provocate, to stimulate, to set comments about new developments, to reflect or share lifestyles or emotions and any purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.224.184 (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

== Do you know that you are creating a contradiction you are saying that man invented art and then you givining way that art can not exist due to your perception meaning. Sorry your argument for me seems to me totally ignorant. It would make more sense to make the assuption that man not by force exist and does senses show illusion to make your argument valuble and logical.The point remain that art should be free for the reson that a true artist due that there are many imitations is that an artist is not a man with skill but with a free intelect and great passions. To UTC

Why Hirst and Emin's names are repeated so many times all over the different sections of the page Art with the same arguments?

It seems that the endless repeating of Emin and Hirst in this page is not only redundant but voluntary. Can some experienced editor look over this and balance the picture? From first reading this looks very problematic. Contemplating21 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC). The reason it looks problematic is that each time in fact the names come with exactly the same argument and exactly the same example. In a page where there are hardly any names mentionned this looks disturbing: it's not as if we have some more examples of artists around here from the same period; they are the only ones that appear, as if there are no more interesting artists in the contemporary period. I took few of the repetitions out, and left few repetitions in, though. I added three theorists after Greenberg, about whom I believe that there is a concensus.Contemplating21 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because most wikipedians think contemporary art is not notable. Christian

Characteristics

I've reverted a long passage on the evolution of academic training in the U.S. since WWII for several reasons: It has little to do with the 'characteristics' heading it was placed under, and represents too narrow a scope for the article. It's all about the direction of academia. Though featuring some citation, it also seemed rather POV. It happens that I agree with much of it; it just reads as too editorial and off-track for this article. Having said that, the current edition of this and other passages would benefit from citation of sources. JNW (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the content would be more appropriate under Art school or Art education. But I see my edit has been reverted. Not feeling like an edit war, I will consult with other arts editors, which is what I would advise others do before reverting without so much as an edit summary or talk page explanation. JNW (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Art education is probably a more apropos place for the essay. It seems an obvious violation of WP:NPOV as well. Modernist (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. IMHO there are 3 reasons to delete that section. First two conceptual on POV

1) Only deals with post WWII art (this is not the history section, so should be generic for the whole history of art); which excludes artists like Rembrandt, Michelangelo, da Vinci.

2) Deals only with the USA. While the US is very important in post WWII art, it was not before, the academy of Paris for example was prominent in the 19th century and should have at least as much attention. (after all the refused works of art for the academy were the origin of modern art)

3) The lengthy section is very weakly sourced and reads like an opinion article / original research.

I reverted the added section and hope the editor who went through the extensive effort creating it will consider our reasons to do so seriously. Arnoutf (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with these - I suspect anything goes at Art school, so try there! Though written only about the US, I think the phenomenon described is West-wide. Needs cleaning-up though. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the section but understand why it does not fit. I moved it under art education. (When I moved it I also fixed its US focus and tried to remove POV) I wrote it because the current characteristics section seems to represent a late Eighteenth century ideal of art with no citations and I wanted to fix this. I still think this is a problem. I will try again and put it up for your review. Sorry I reverted it at first without reading or understanding. New to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.32.169 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and no harm done. I recall my early contributions were often made without cites, and the editors who oversaw articles on art were remarkably patient. When I get a chance I will look over this later, and I hope that other contributors will, as well. Incidentally, as I suggested earlier, I have deep misgivings about art education as it exists in academia, though I liked what Modernist had to say, that somehow good art gets created anyway, even if in spite of systematic approaches. 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)JNW (talk)

We could always go back to the South Kensington system (forthcoming attraction)! Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No harm done indeed, I wish all new editors were as serious in their first efforts, mine was pretty naive.... Hope to see you around. By the way, if you decide to stay on wiki, making an account with user name has many advantadges not the least that you tend to be taken more seriously by other editors (should not, but is the case) Arnoutf (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Its all thought provoking, the academic PHD-ing of art making...The problem of an elitist, investment oriented society with an attention span of 45 minutes. Modernist (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. My compliments to Arnoutf, Modernist, Johnbod, Tyrenius, and 128.206.32.169 for working together. The passage has found its place in Art education. Oh, but I have so much to say about the university system, and the impending PhD business. But not here, not now. 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)JNW (talk)

Burden's and his gallery's commercial publicity

In a major essay that hardly cite any contemporary artists, it is shocking to see few detailed lines on a sole artist, Burden, going even into such details as the commercial price of works and his gallery publicity. I took this last line off, and if someone objects, I would like to discuss the objection. Even as it is, it still looks unjustfied to me to find such detailed explanations on one artist's work, when most artists, at least as important and probably also much more important, from all different periods, are not even mentionedContemplating21 (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good edit to me. It would seem that an article of such broad scope need not spend so much verbiage on any one person. JNW (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove all mention of him. It seems out of place and he's not exactly the biggest contemporary name. Tyrenius (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are enough problems of century and race balance already without having to pick through this minuate. Ceoil (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, this article is called art and covers a broad territory; Da Vinci, Picasso, Michelangelo he ain't. Modernist (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the mention altogether. Tyrenius (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

took out a repetition from Adorno's sentence given exactly in the preceding sentence

I took a repetition from Adorno's sentence, given exactly in the preceding sentence to the one taken off, but referred to some unknown name (in the second repetition). This was redundant and strange. I tried to find the name of the person I took off and who repeated Adorno's sentence, but couldn't find. I hope you agree with me. Trying to make the page better. Contemplating21 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a nice catch. Modernist (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Skill

I am thinking how to ameliorate the "Skill" section. The section gives examples of what is art that does not demand skill. But, if the idea is to show that there is a debate on that, perhaps we should show the other side of the debate: for example, that the paintings of Raphael, Rembrandt, and also today's some painters or sculptures, need and insist on skills, while others, like the ones quoted already, are on the opposite side of the debate. Especially that the Modern and postmodern time have excellent artists of both "skill" and "no skill" tendencies. Lets think in a civilized manner what (very few) examples of "skilled" painters or sculptures of the present and past periods can represent the sense of the debate up until today. We can propose names in this page of discussion, for discussing, and try to reach concensus, and then (and not before) someone among the very experienced editors, can perhaps add a line, if consensus is reached. What do you say? Contemplating21 (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Your suggestion speaks to a topic that engages me, and I'd like to find some good references for this--I suspect Gombrich or Clark will be helpful, but I know there are quotes by masters re: the importance of basic skills, esp. drawing. Over the next few days I will try to find something (though I will be painting this afternoon, and my books are scattered all over the place, etc.), but if you or another contributor find something first, go for it. JNW (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, it is good idea to base ourselves on Gombrich, Pollock, Clark, Krauss, and the other very significant art historians upon whom we all agree with regards to their having grand knowledge, serious research and dedication to the field; so we do not get into losing energy on conflicts between galleries, nations, art journals, artist's ego, etc. I will start to look too, and will discuss in this page, with references. My priority is to find artists who undoubtedly have notablity and whose painting or sculpture are object for intensive research by art historians and other artists alike. Contemplating21 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have sources in order, but I am thinking of brief mention of skill as it was perceived by contemporary commentators in works of classical art, during the Renaissance, in the academy system under the Carracci and Poussin, and at the dawn of modernism, when Picasso was thoroughly versed in the academic tradition, the understanding of which enabled him to experiment as freely as he did. Those are some possible points, but I think brevity is important: a few examples and out. JNW (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that, but art education is so far purely about the modern US - that could do with an expanded version also. Or a new article - we don't have an artist's workshop or similar article, which we should. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe some background re: workshop and apprentice systems, the academies and reaction to them, will find a place under Art education, where all this can be included at greater length. And, as Johnbod suggests, a new article on the workshop system sounds valuable. My good intentions notwithstanding, if someone else can get good information together on these topics before I do, please have at it. JNW (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

so far sounds good. I would want to think of few examples of modern and contemporary artists who believe in skill, but very carefully, few names only, backed by serious art history chapters or philosophy chapters as references. I will come up later today with the examples and the references, for example Bacon or Ernest, and perhaps 3-5 names up to today. I like the idea to discuss this list first here, and come up into the article itself after concensus among us has been reached. We don't want a "who's who" list with commercial involvmentsContemplating21 (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC).

If the contributions are sourced and include artists of real standing, there is no problem with adding the passage to the article itself. If anything doesn't pass the smell test, it will be discussed or deleted anyway. JNW (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just added a few lines; it's late and I have not yet sourced them, but the Leonardo stuff is via Gombrich, the Rembrandt from a recent publication (Rembrandt/Caravaggio), and the Sargent and Picasso references are easy to supply. The real question is whether it fits well here, serves the purpose. If there are substantive questions, feel free to make changes. Buenas noches, JNW (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

hi JNW and others. Here is how I see this: the whole Skill section needs attention. It doesn't make histoical or theoretical or artistic sense to have Emin and Hirst already in a pervious section and then in this one for some 10 lines, as if they have invented the Duchamp's road. I think that I would try to rewrite the sesction, putting on the one hand a serious line and aquotes, starting with Duchamps (quoting nesbit and krauss), Warhal, perhaps Calle, and mention at the end of this line also Emin and Hirst, not in so many details, and present the argument, and on the other hand a line that goes from Rembrandt, Michelangelo, going into 20 century with Klee and Ernest, Cezanne, and Khalo, and moving until Rothko and then until today with Richter and Ettinger who seems, according to Lyotard and Pollock and even Obrist, to be the only painter in some of the most important contemporary contexts, while all the other artists are doing video and performance and 'bricolage" etc. I want to lean on that "skill"/ non-skill lines on analysis (and references) of Krauss, Clark, Deluze, Deleuze-Guattari, Lyotard, and Pollock (who is interesting when she shows how with Ettinger the situation is again revolutionized because FROM art comes concepts, and not the opposite. But I clain that already from Klee, Bacon and Cezanne comes concepts, while Ettinger's new step is that she articulates the concepts herself so that again the role of the art changes. I want to show through quotes, that painting itself in its most skilled way, is not for the artists themselves a question of skill but of becoming the source for new concepts and insights. The quotes will range from Delueze (for Bacon), Deleuze-Guattari (for Klee), Rothko's quotes, Richter's quotes, Lyotard and Pollock (for Ettinger) as well as quotes from the artists' notebooks themselves. This takes me some time and some research, and I will put references to all but it will also be short. it is important in my view to well argument, and, again, not to put names that come and go but those who have reached notability and are of influence on the world and creation of the present generation of research and art. My attempt will be to try to put all this in 10 lines only. and references. It will probably take me few days to do the first draft in the Article page, and corrections of style will be welcomed. Contemplating21 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) to Contemplating21, Sounds a solid project. I would suggest that you add Beuys on one lane, and Cassat on the other lane. If you feel you can put them, I will add the references later. Artethical (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really sound very much like WP:NPOV. It sounds more like - I'll write a section about my point of view...and for me and my friends. - I'd rather see less then more in that section. JNW (talk) did a good job in his additions to the beginning of that section, and I agree that some more input can be added, perhaps covering the history of art made by hand (both abstraction and imagery) by painting, drawing and constructing sculpture; - to the idea of digital printing, computers, the media, the school of trace and appropriation...art produced by other means. Modernist (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not particularly attached to what I added recently, but I do agree with Modernist as to keeping it brief, and more general in tone (again, the framework Modernist suggests makes sense) as opposed to citing numerous artists; that's where the whole POV concern began here. JNW (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain some half of the section on Emin and Hirst? I copy from "POV": The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. Shortcut: WP:YESPOV As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". My point of view is to include the feminist art historians perspective and to add masters. Contemplating21 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, my interest in certain artists and certain feminist art historian is no secret: it is reflected in my contributions. it will not be respectful to take me for one of them. I am too young, I share the same school as "Contemplating"', but my research is serious.Artethical (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me that Contemplating21 (talk) objects to Hirst and Emin, - I agree that neither makes much sense in the context of the section or the notion of skill, except perhaps to demonstrate how the basic definition of the skill of a work of art has changed and expanded to encompass an artist producing works that others have created in his/her name. Artethical (talk) I meant nothing personal, I have observed your edits, and please continue doing careful and thoughtful work as you have been doing. Modernist (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Adorno: Impossibility?

How is a 1970 Adorno quote possible if, according to his page, he died in 1969? --24.250.126.240 (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

either publication date, or a mistake. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe another way. Tyrenius (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been published posthumously. Arnoutf (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine arts - Aristotle

The article says: "The ultimate derivation of fine in fine art comes from the philosophy of Aristotle, who proposed four causes or explanations of a thing. The final cause of a thing is the purpose for its existence, and the term fine art is derived from this notion." Is it really true? I think, this idea needs some proof: quotation?..

77.244.212.104 (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This seem to be crackpot theory and quoting a dubious source would not improve it. More probably 'fine' is a translation of the french 'beau' as the expression 'beaux arts' (eg Batteux) gained currency in the XVIIIc. The adjective was adopted as it made clear the modern idea that arts are striving after beauty. When this is clarified the etymological 'explanation' would probably have to be discarded.al (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

fine arts. J. D. Redding 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, according to the OED 'fine arts' was a translation of 'beaux-arts'. Their first citation is from 1767.----beamish son

Can somebody change the false etymology on 'fine art.' I can't do it, and it's just wrong as it currently stands. The OED etymology entry for 'fine art' is: "Orig. in pl. as transl. of F. beaux-arts"----beamish son

This statement was added to the article by User:Marcusscotus1 back in 2006; see this revision and this revision(on Fine art). I think it's utter nonsense. The words fine and final do come from the same root; something that is fine has been pushed to it's supreme degree, its finis. Fine in this sense dates to middle english, however, fine art does only date to 1767. Aristotle uses the word telos, and did not apply it to art at all; being a student of Plato he would not have been very amenable to the idea of art for art's sake. I'll remove the etymology. Lithoderm (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

and JD, it's not valid to provide statements in one article as verification for the same statements in another when they were inserted by the same person Lithoderm (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Spelling errors

The word tropes is not spelled correctly. (appears as "troupes") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.36.4 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Done. You are welcome to make changes yourself. Ty 23:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Art Therapy

The reference to the Rorschach Inkblot test is somewhat misleading- Art therapy entails the making of art by the patient as a form of catharsis, while the Rorschach is used only as a projective test, an ambiguous stimulus, and is randomly generated... the DDS is a better example. Article is semi-protected, or I would change it. 216.54.198.18 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Another note, Hirst under classification disputes leads to a disambig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.198.18 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Art and Beauty

The first sentence in the whole article mentions that art appeals to the senses and emotion "espescially beauty", however art may seek the opposite (ugliness,rough aesthetic,horror films, etc.) and additionally may not even address beauty at all (conceptual art, theories, etc.) The intro needs to be changed or reworked in addition to the intro to the 4th paragraph and its contents as a whole. The American Heratige Dictionary definition(citation #3) is not valid and the opinions of random philosophers and thier possible bias is questionable in thier effectiveness to define art. AnimalArt (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible Functions ?

The section "Possible Functions", which I believe used to be called "Utility" or "Purpose" of art, now starts with: "It is virtually impossible to pin down why art is made and why it is valuable." Yet, the same section provides at least 10 concrete functions, with supporting quotations. It would be nice if the modifier of this would comment (or anyone else). Why is there such a tendency to say that art has such a "mysterious function"? Its functions in society are quite concrete and well studied in both art history and the philosophy of art, which the list clearly outlines with quotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.90.205 (talk • contribs)

See WP:BOLD. Ty 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Art, The arts, Visual arts

We need to make a clear difference between these three articles. "The arts" encompasses all of the arts, while "Visual arts" obviously only pertains to visual art, but what about "Art"? It says on the article it mainly refers to Visual arts, so what's the point in having both pages? Voyaging^(talk) 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is the distinction between art and visual art. Art is a broader subject than visual art, even if the art article is unbalanced with examples of visual art. The problem isn't redundancy. The problem is, not enough examples of the other non-visual arts in the article. The art is to visual art what design is to graphic design. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Then what is the difference between "The arts" and "Art"? Voyaging^(talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Semantics? The word "the" perhaps? Maybe a merge or a split may be in order here, but I'm reluctant to say. Even if the "art" article is truly a narrower scope than "the arts" there is still plenty of contrast between the way the articles are presented. The visual art article is more about techniques, whereas the art article is more about appreciation. Maybe a simple title change of either article would suffice. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Either way, The arts article needs to be expanded similar to the way the design article is expanded if it should remain a separate article. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you both contribute valid referenced subject matter to the articles that you think need improving...Modernist (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to, but fine art is not my discipline. Commercial art is. And I got my hands full because I'm one of the few artists who are standing up to the overwhelming bias against art in general on wikipedia. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is calling art a process but says very little about the process for producing art. The visual art article says more about the process but little about the product. One article should focus exclusively on product while the other should focus exclusively on process to avoid future conflicts. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Since "The arts" is just a listing of the various forms of art, it should be included in this article, or else otherwise turned into a list. Voyaging^(talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm in favour of the articles staying as they are. "The Arts" is a grouping of disciplines that has a meaning in and of itself - it's certainly not simply a list of topics related to art. "Art" is an abstract concept, and is very well dealt with in the article. For example, saying "I am interested in The Arts" is very different from saying "I am interested in art". Merging them makes no sense to me. Bobathon (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how they are completely different. "The arts" includes visual art within its scope, and "Art" usually refers to visual art. What is the difference? I think that "Art" needs to include all of the arts, not just visual arts, since there is already an article for that. Voyaging^(talk) 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that "art" usually refers to visual art. Often, but certainly not usually. I'm suggesting that "The Arts" and "art" are not comparable categories at all. If you study "The Arts", then part of what you study will be "art", in the abstract, and also in history and in practice. If you are philosophically concerned with "art" as a whole, then "The Arts" will fall within that, as the broad set of disciplines that have been developed for the purposes of encouraging and furthering art in all its forms. I don't believe one is part of the other in the way you're proposing. - Bobathon (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Art doesn't usually refer to visual art. The article says it does. That's the problem. "Art" and "visual art" shouldn't refer to the same things, which the articles do in their current state. Voyaging^(talk) 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The article on art doesn't say any such thing. It's far broader. Many of the examples are from visual arts, as are many the images (unsurprisingly), but the article covers much more than that - surely that's evident? - Bobathon (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"In its narrow sense, the word art most often refers specifically to the visual arts, including media such as painting, sculpture, and printmaking. However, "the arts" may also encompass a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature." Voyaging^(talk) 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Visual art is a vast, historical, worldwide subject. It's scope are all the continents, all of history. The other arts are just as vast, just as historic and each deserve and demand their own separate study. In the context of this article art is used here referencing visual art - as in painting and related forms of art. And it is generally common usage to refer to visual art that way. Modernist (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree with me. What are you opposing? I'm saying we shouldn't have the page "Art" as well as "Visual art" both refer to visual art. In their current state there is no difference. "Art" should contain all the arts, not just visual arts. Voyaging^(talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am opposing everything that you suggest. I am absolutely opposed to any merger..Modernist (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You said that this article references visual art. We already have a page for visual art. We don't need this page, it's just the same as the visual art page. We need to change what this article covers. Voyaging^(talk) 03:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is important and needed. Speak for yourself - you do not represent a we in fact you sound like this -WP:IDON'TLIKEIT - well others have worked long and hard on this article...and it looks like the consensus so far is in agreement...Modernist (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding. I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself. I thought the correct process to follow was to have discussion on the issue and come to a consensus. I am voicing my individual opinion on what should be done. I have not made any changes to the articles themselves and don't plan to with the great opposition I've had. I understand that you disagree, but there's no need for any misunderstanding. I am speaking for myself and don't claim to be doing anything otherwise. Voyaging^(talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Voyaging, I don't see much redundancy of subject matter between the art article and the visual art article. And the title "Art" serves as an umbrella term for visual art. This is not a problem with the definition of words, but with the structure of an encyclopedia. It's not a dictionary. The conflict is over the titles. The "The arts" article is just a bigger umbrella. It could use a little more expansion and perhaps a name change to The various arts or Art disciplines to make the contrast. Keep in mind that name changes will automatically redirect the old name to the same article, so search and links of the old titles will not be effected. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider the phrase "the arts and sciences": this common phrase defines a broad category of many fields of interest. "The arts" part of the phrase, as used and defined in the arts, defines and explicates that array of fields of cultural concern. "Art" is an enormous subset of "the arts", and unless mega-child art can miraculously birth categorical mother Arts, it would be illogical to merge the two, not to mention confusing and onerous to readers. Analogously, one could try merging a recipe for bran muffins with the category bread in a cookbook. -- Sctechlaw (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. The subject matter of the three articles are slightly different, see previous section. I think a renaming of any or all three of the articles may be a less controversial solution. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This article could be renamed Art works and it would solve the conflict. The name "art" would still be directed to it. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We need an article on art. Art works is much narrower than art. - Bobathon (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, This article is calling art a process but says very little about the process for producing art. The visual art article says more about the process but little about the product. One article should focus exclusively on product while the other should focus exclusively on process to avoid future conflicts. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merging The arts with either art or Visual arts. Neither of the later is perfect, especially Visual arts, but a merge would not help. One takes an aesthetic, theoretical approach, the other deals more with types of art. That seems reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganize?

Although I'm against a complete merge, a split and reorganization may be in order here. Voyaging may not have the solution, but he has identified a real problem that will most likely resurface until resolve. Note how we handled a similar conflict on the Talk:3D computer graphics page. We split the article and created a template for showing how all the articles are related. A template could serve to contrast the articles if we did nothing else. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to realize that a merge probably isn't the best choice. However, something obviously needs to be done. We need to make a clear scope that each of the articles should cover. "Art" should cover art as a concept, art theory, history, etc., and "The arts" should cover the different disciplines themselves, which is fairly close to what they are now. My main problem is that "Art" currently is almost entirely made up of visual art, while it should encompass all of the disciplines covered in "The arts". Voyaging^(talk) 04:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouln't entirely agree with that. Many sections do cover all the arts, and many others have text that does, or could, but the examples are all from the visual arts (eg:Controversial art). Adding more literary or musical examples would go quite a long way to solving the problem, though things like the History section need rewriting. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Although this "art" article should expand to include a wider variety of examples, it probably won't happen because it's focused on art works, and most of the other products of art outside the visual arts are not usually called "art works." For instance, the product of literature is a book, lyric, or poem. The product of performing arts is a performance, play, concert, or recording. The product of culinary arts is a dish, sauce, or dessert. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Expansion is a sound option, and supportable...Modernist (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an invite of participation should be put in the related wikiprojects and article talk pages. I would do it myself, but I think it would be better coming from a more active editor of this article or the Visual arts wikiproject. I wonder why there isn't a wikiproject for "art" or "the arts". I'm already a member of the Graphic design wikiproject which has more than a share of it's own problems. But I don't mind helping other art-related articles every now and then. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I put a notice there [4] a few hours ago...why don't you join the project...Visual arts wikiproject, there is always a need for good editors about art...we can use a few more hands. Modernist (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The "art" article is already very large. Perhaps, rather than adding in more non-visual art to balance it, a good option structurally would be to take explicit discussions of visual arts from that page and merge those into the visual arts page. The "art" page can then focus on "art as a concept, art theory, history, etc." (Voyaging) and "aesthetic, theoretical approach" (Johnbod). This would clarify things immensely, and make for a more intuitive structure overall. And probably take less work. - Bobathon (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. This is definitely the best option I've heard. Voyaging^(talk) 16:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That might work, but will be rather difficult to do - much of the content here is fairly good, I think (compared to the other articles), & the issues covered are the right ones, it's just the examples often only refer to visual art. By the way the lead from last June [5] seems much better to me - I don't know when all these changes were made. It would be a start just to revert to that. Aesthetics is also not bad, & covers the philosophical side more thoroughly - "what is art" etc. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I see this was cut by Ceoil just on Jan 18th - not an improvementr as far as the lead is concerned, i think. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod the old lead here: [6] is preferred to the new lead by Ceoil...I think we should return there and then proceed...but we need consensus..Modernist (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry....Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries - we've agreed below some of the stuff should go elsewhere than the lead. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The first and last sentence of the first paragraph of the June lead are definitely superior. However, I don't think it should say that it usually refers to visual art. That is the reason why I started this discussion in the first place. It should just say something along the lines of "it can refer to visual arts, such as painting and sculpture, performing arts, such as music, as well as any other medium." Just a rough example of what I think would be best, definitely should be changed though. Voyaging^(talk) 04:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Voyaging that the opening sentence was better in the June version, but wouldn't say overall that the lead was better then. The paragraph on the problem of evaluating what is and isn't art isn't really appropriate for a lead – it's better suited as part of the discussion later on – so I can see why that was cut. Also agree that first paragraph should be split in two as per the original. Re visual art, I think the offending sentence is "Visual art is defined as...", particularly as it's opening a paragraph, which does makes it feel as if the subject is visual art. I'd be happy to see that sentence removed. I've no objection to "It is most often used to refer specifically to the visual arts", because I think that's straightforwardly true, and doesn't (to me) imply "usually". Perhaps removing the "most" would help prevent the focus shifting to visual art. But I certainly wouldn't object to Voyaging's rewrite for that sentence. - Bobathon (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with those points I think - we seem to have concensus to restore along those lines. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds okay...Modernist (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the changes to the lead section mentioned so far. I still think that it could only help to have a template showing the relationship between articles. It could be at the bottom of the page if we didn't want it to distract from the images at the top. The related articles would benefit from having such a template even more than this one. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Down the bottom is best. We have some under/unused ones at Category:Arts and culture templates that might be cannibalizable. Why not do a draft? Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking me to make the template, I don't feel qualified as I'm not that much of a fine artist. I'm more of a commercial artist. I'm only sure of the relationship between the three articles, and I got my hands full in a dispute over a wiki style guide, which I will be burned out from once it's resolved for quite awhile.

Also sounds okay...I like the idea of an interconnectness between The arts and Art; (keeping the articles separate), but which might eventually and hopefully interconnect the two projects better...Modernist (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a 'see also' header...Modernist (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you saw there was a template explaining the differences between "Art" and "The arts" right underneath where you put the See Also header. Fine if you still think it's necessary, just making sure you know. Voyaging^(talk) 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, first of all they are not the same - and I added Visual art for your benefit; but if you prefer I can delete it.... Modernist (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to add both "The arts" and "Visual arts" in the same template. What do you think? Voyaging^(talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made changes to the lead paragraph, as per above. Please revert and discuss further if you disagree. Bobathon (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC) (NB I've changed a lot less than the difference-viewer suggests: splitting a paragraph obviously confuses the poor thing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobathon71 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Animal Art

It says that man is the only species that makes art, but this is a controversial position as other species paint, such as orangutans, chimapanzees and elephants, and Tillamook Cheddar is a well-known canine painter. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not really a "controversial" position; it could be considered a "debatable" position, but even that debate doesn't stand up very well. While chimpanzees and orangutans show many "human" characteristics and traits, (some theorize that they may be capable of "symbolic" thought) there is no evidence that they are capable of cognizant creative thought. The act of applying paint to a surface does not make it "art". Finwailin (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But how do you make the distinction? If it is made by a human, it might be art, but if it's made by another form of life it's not art? I don't think that in 100% of the cases you could tell whether a painting, for instance, was made by a human or a non-human. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It comes down to intent. The inclusion of animal art to this article would probably be original research. We can't know what animals are doing when they paint. We are simply projecting our own emotions and ideas onto what they create. I'm perfectly willing to give apes and elephants the benefit of the doubt and that what they are doing is a creative act. But for the purposes of Wikipedia an article on Animal Art, if sourced, would be acceptable, and a link to that page from here would be fine. But to include animal art in an article on human activity would be too much of an editorial leap. freshacconci talktalk 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Formalism posits that all that one needs to know about a work of art is contained in the work of art itself. "Intent," I think, would be external to the artwork. Therefore from a formalistic perspective, can we really say that a painting that we would consider art, is no longer art, once we discover that it was not made by a human, calling its "intent" into doubt? It would be a violation of WP:SYNTH to put together the formalism definition with the known fact of some animals making something that appears to be image making, so I don't think there is a way that we could put this into the article. Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This article discusses various functions of art. Under "non-motivated" functions it is stated that making art is part of the "basic human instinct for harmony, balance, rhythm". But why is this so? What are the origins of art? According to evolutionary phsycologist Geoffrey Miller, art evolved as a result of sexual selection as a way of displaying overall fitness. This is why traditional art is costly and difficult to make, making it a reliable fitness indicator so that female preference for such traits can evolve. This does not imply that the act of making art is directly motivated by the artists desire to get laid; it explains why our desire to make art is in our instinct. If you ask the artist why he makes art he may well give one of the other "non-motivated" explanations listed as the answer. This is not inconsistent with the above evolutionary explanation based on sexual selection, however. So, yes, I strongly agree that "animal art" should be part of the article as well as the above hypothesis about the evolutionary origins of art. One classical example is Bowerbirds, discussed by Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Jt68 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

High/Traditional/Popular

It seems to me that most arts have some sort of distinction between high art, traditional art, and popular art. I use these in the sense of the Art/Traditional/Popular distinction represented on the Music genre page. Some arts may not currently use all these categories, but I think they're useful enough that they could be applied to nearly all arts. Is this a useful distinction to put in the article?

-- TimNelson (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea which also shows how much the established order looks down on new forms of an art. Interestingly a lot of the "classical" music of today (Strauss and Mendelsohn, etc.) were considered light, pop music in their day. Also note that in painting this distinction has all but disappeared after the pop-art period (and even earlier Dada, e.g. Duchamp) when people like Andy Warhol and Roy Liechtenstein declared mundane objects and picture to be high art.

So all in all, some kind of discussion of the High art-Pop art topic maybe in place. BUT we should carefully avoid original research on the topic and need to take highly acceptable secondary sources. Preferably by well established art-historians. Arnoutf (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

All those of you watching this page, please come and have a look at linguistics. There is a gross misrepresentation and censorship taking place there. Post-structural linguistics has been deleted and censored by the community there, and I urge you to participate in the discussion to restore a balanced view for the article. Supriya 07:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetic question regarding the image from Pompeii

The colors in the painting from Pompeii strike me as unusual; and if you click on the image and look at the other version, you'll see a palette that seems quite different. One of these, probably the one with this and a few other articles (shown at left), has been digitally goosed. I don't necessarily object to that, because you can argue about what the colors originally looked like; however, particularly in an article daring to call itself "Art", there ought to be some kind of "digitally enhanced" note, or recognition of the question. The one at right looks more like what we're used to seeing from Pompeii, but that doesn't mean the one on the left is "wrong." For all I know, it's more faithful to what the original colors should have been. Unfortunately, there's no note at the image file either way. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The one on the right is a crappy Yorck Project file scanned from a book whose copyright had expired (at least in Germany), so from about the 1950s or even earlier. The washed out look, shared by so many many art images on WP, is more to do with 1950s printing technology & durability than the appearance of the original. Have you been to Pompeii, or the Naples museums? The left one may or may not have been tweaked, or nor, but the colours, at full file size, don't seem implausible. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Link Error

There is a link to 3rd of May, where it ought to be The Third of May 1808, as it is referring to the painting of that name, not to the date.DanzaBarr (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Clutter

Would anyone mind if I rearrange the images a little, distributing them more evenly and based more on relevance to the topic being discussed? It seems unfortunate that our Art article would be aesthetically unpleasing. :) -Silence (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I made the changes; feel free to discuss here if there are any objections. In addition to clearing away the clutter, I opted to add some gaping holes in our coverage: We had zero images from Africa or the Americas, and zero examples of still lifes, functional art (e.g., pottery), textiles, etc. Based on our previous selection, you'd have assumed that half of the world's art consisted of Italian and French paintings. -Silence (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. I like that big round piece of pottery anchoring the beginning of the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Simplicity is next to divinity. The text is already visually complex enough, I wanted to balance the lead with something less detailed. -Silence (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

High contrast between the spherical container and the text. Nice. Bus stop (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Art & Craft - Ceramic Bottle as Art?

There will always be debate as what qualifies as "Art" or "Craft", but it seems somewhat inappropriate to me to have the very first photo in an article titled "Art" be an image of an object that can arguably be defined as contemporary "Craft". I am not trying to engage the debate of the distinctions between the two terms, but that photo hardly seems to be a fitting, general example of "Art", at least not enough to be the foremost image in the article. Of course what would be the fitting image? Maybe an image of a cave painting or one of some ancient statue? Finwailin (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just any bottle. Visually it rises above most other similar items that could be considered its type. That is purely opinion, and I understand your argument that its type is either that of craft or that which straddles the gap between art and craft, if such a gap even exists. But perhaps that is an argument for it being the topmost image in the article. The problem that you point out — the distinction between art and craft — is a real one. It might not be a bad idea to start out the article with a question, as that one that I think you correctly point out is contained in that choice of image. This is random rambling on my part. But it is my response. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not passing judgment on that prior image being one of "just any bottle". I believe the new "foremost" image better exemplifies the content of the article. I didn't realize my comment would lead to this long thread and numerous changes in the image. I'm not sure if it's best to start an article with a question. Finwailin (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Finwailin (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the bottle with something more visually appealing and appropiate: a collage of portraits of different times and styles.

Husky ^{(talk page)} 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, what's that anime stuff doing there? I think that anything can be art if you want it to be, but only some things can be good art, and anime (especially that type) is not good art. If you have to put anime, put Miyazaki, not that hentai looking crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.243.39 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

:). In my opinion, art like the manga portrait is art as well. Also, it's quite difficult to find a good-looking piece of modern art because almost everything is copyrighted, such as Miyazaki's works (which of course, i'd love to include).

Husky ^{(talk page)} 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are infinitely better things that could be uploaded instead of that manga character. Have we really sunken so low culturally that in the four images we chose to represent pictorial art as a whole, that is one of them? 99.232.87.157 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The manga image needs to be changed. The other pieces are classical works of widely agreed upon aesthetic value. The manga character is just a generic piece of bad manga. It needs to be replaced. 24.199.65.167 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely we can throw Spider-man in there! --ItsWalky! (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Spider-man is copyrighted, David. JeffreyAtW (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have an image of the Green Goblin on my hard drive that we can use. --ItsWalky! (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, it seems overdoing it to include two Japanese examples. This collage makes Wikipedia look like it's run by obsessive Japan-ophiles. Let's change it, please. 24.199.65.167 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest other example, i'll happily include them in the original image. However, i do think it should be something really modern, because all the other pieces are already quite old.

Husky ^{(talk page)} 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be thought provoking. How about an Andy Warhol Campbell's Soup Can painting, a ~~Jackson Pollack~~ Jackson Pollock drip painting, a Marcel Duchamp urinal, and a Claude Monet painting such as Haystacks?

Might I suggest it be changed to include something famous, such as the Campbell's Soup Can mentioned above, Sandro Botticelli's The Birth of Venus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.214.149 (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese lion is clearly not a portrait as it it described. That is hardly the right term for the anime still either. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I can accept The Birth of Venus by Botticelli. Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Warhol, Duchamp and Pollock are unavoidable. The only question is who should be the fourth? Of course we are only talking about the works of art, not the people. Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for the replacement. --Mehmanmeh (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That anime picture is really inapropriate, please remove it.74.57.149.157 (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, that anime has no right being there.173.23.63.22 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not bent out of shape over the anime image (though I personally think, should it be included, it be something more recognizable and definitive of its genre - I doubt one in ten people could tell me who that girl is). I think the Shisa lion should be changed. Though definitely art, all three other components are portraits of humans, and it only seems logical and consistent the fourth image should follow this pattern. Also, a new image would provide an opportunity for more regional variation: we have Western Europe, Central Africa, and East Asia; do we need another from East Asia? I personally suggest something from the American or Australian aboriginals, but I'm interested in discussion on this topic. --69.196.187.41 (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should only concern ourselves with art of the USA. I think Bruce Springsteen art should be used if any exists. Born in the U.S.A. would be best. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was alerted to this thanks to many internet forums, and now I am pretty happy. I think I might just replace it though, it is reallly ... iffy at best, as much as I love anime.--Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Duchamp, Warhol and Pollock are all copyrighted, we can only use images that are not fair use because the image should be uploaded to Commons. Furthermore, my original idea was to have two 2d portraits (Van Gogh and the Manga portrait) and two 3d portraits (the lion and the African mask), so if we want to replace the lion and the manga picture we should have one 2d and one 3d portrait, prefarably one modern and one from around the renaissance. I guess Boticelli would be a good replacement indeed. But then we still need a modern piece of sculpture. Husky ^{(talk page)} 08:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Duchamp's urinal is apparently availble for use on Wikipedia, as is Warhol's Campbell's Soup Can, as is an example of a ~~Pollack~~ Pollock drip painting. The fourth article should be a Kazimir Malevich painting. I would suggest "Black Square," found here. Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, because this is Modern art of the West right? I never quite know when you are joking. It's Pollock btw. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the spherical ceramic jug from Rwanda was fine. Now we are considering 4 objects. I guess you make a valid point that this article isn't only about modern art. And my misspelling of Pollock is something I must have a mental block against, and thank you for pointing that misspelling out. I have a hard time thinking of 4 images that can possibly satisfy the requirements for this placement. The field is too vast. Opinions are all over the place. I am just expressing my best conception of what could work. I am obviously doing so from my vantage point, which I think is definitively from the beginning of the twenty-first century. I find looking back more than 100 years to be tiresome. ( <-- joke ) The present day reader brings present day concerns to looking at art. I don't think the depiction of recent art is an endorsement of it. It is merely the most convenient grip that the contemporary reader has on art, and it serves as a welcoming doorway to what will follow. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to have 4 images in a block, which I don't mind, they have to be diverse and reflect a worldwide and broad historical view, whatever the prejudices of individual editors. If the choice were left to me alone they might well be nothing from later than 1800, though I would look widely geographically; but obviously that would not be right either. The applied/decorative arts should also be represented - a piece of Chinese porcelain perhaps? Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what criteria can be brought to bear. I almost think it would be easier to decide on just one image. Why four, anyway? I find these picture boxes ugly. The juxtaposition of images rarely results in a pleasing whole. The result is too often too "busy." I find a single image to be more elegant. A single well chosen image has the capacity to "punctuate" the page as a composite of four images is unlikely to accomplish. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind a single image either, but 4 allows precisely for diversity - more than that & they get too small. I didn't mind the bottle either - it did challenge assumptions from the start, as we can see from above here. Maybe we should rotate the lead image monthly - an effect the current discussion seems close to achieving anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I've removed the quadruple image. The anime is not appropriate as a significant image in the context of the whole history of art; it's not even mentioned in the article text. There are plenty of classic images from West and/or East. Ty 14:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We should have something in the lead, so I've gone back to the bottle for now. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a panorama from the 12th century China (actually an 18th century copy) below...Modernist (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Version 2 of the portrait collage

Based on the comments in the discussion i've replaced the manga figure with a detail of Botticelli's Birth of Venus, although i would still opt for at least one modern image. The motivation for using this image instead of the Rwanda bottle:

'Art' is a heavily-visited article, it needs an eye-grabbing image that sums up the article
A single bottle doesn't quite do that, so a collage springs to mind
The collage should have a large selection of art from different periods and styles
Because of the small space in a thumbnail details from portraits are a good subject: portraits have been made since the dawn of man, you can take them from any period, many good examples exists and you can take both 2d and 3d images.

In my opinion, 'art' is a very wide term that could include amateur art, manga, photography, performance art, etc, so that's why i included the manga image: it is both a modern image and an example of 'low culture'. But if so many people disagree with using the manga, i'm fine with that. Husky ^{(talk page)} 19:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend changing the collage again so a more diverse range of targets is included instead of just 4 faces. Tyro (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, as Western painted portraiture gets half the space. Maybe something from an Indian miniature painting. Ty 01:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Only one of these images is a portrait. Let's get the terms right. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A portrait of Venus... Ty 22:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Did she do sittings or send a photo? Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably sent a vision, Venus, after all, tending to be in the mind of the beholder. Ty 01:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Duchamp's urinal and Malevich's "Black Square" deserve a place in the four-picture composite image. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, Black Square will just look like a file error in this context. If we're sticking with faces a Pre-Columbian one might work, although we would then have 3 sculptures vs 1 painting - a refreshing reversal of the usual ratio perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It would look like an error in most contexts. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't have Malevich and Duchamp, as they are both part of a very recent mode of art, Modern Art. The images should encompass the greatest range and diversity possible in terms of style, period and geography. Maybe start with Lascaux caves, end with Duchamp's Fountain, and in between represent China/Japan, Africa, India, Renaissance, with a mixture of sculpture/painting. 6 images should be OK with 300 px size. Ty 22:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lascaux is already in the next section. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Malevich could be a pretty interesting replacement for Botticelli because he is a modern artist but his works are still in the public domain, he's not European as well (Russian), although, keeping the same theme, one of his portraits would be better than the black square. What about this self-portrait?

Husky ^{(talk page)} 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian is European. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A key image for Art should show world classics. This portrait doesn't come into that category. Ty 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Nighthawks by Edward Hopper has such powerful resonance with a wide swathe of people that it deserves a place illustrating this article. I think it could be considered a "world classic." Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Marcel Duchamp's Fountain should go in the anti-art section...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is apparently "the most influential modern art work of all time".[7] Ty 23:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Portrait possibilities

Chardin pastel self portrait
Egyptian death mask from the 18th dynasty. Louvre, Paris
The Bust of Nefertiti, by the sculptor Thutmose, is one of the most famous masterpieces of ancient Egyptian art.
The Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt
Probable self-portrait by Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1512-1515
Probable self-portrait by El Greco, 1604.
Two Lovers by Reza Abbasi, 1630
William Blake, Nebuchadnezzar, The Minneapolis Institute of Arts impression. Printed 1795.
Marie-Denise Villers, Young Woman Drawing, 1801, thought to be her self-portrait, and her most famous and finest painting. Originally attributed to Jacques-Louis David.^[1]

There should be no restriction as to genre in the selection, as the article is the whole of "Art". Ty 23:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is a worldwide, genre wide scope to the article, I only added these images as potential inclusions as particularly widely known works...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps sources might help. Here's one critic's choice of the 50 best artworks,[8] and a handy link to wiki articles on them.[9] Ty 00:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty good list. I differ somewhat with a few of his choices but he's got some great stuff there. It's interesting what or who is not there though: Raphael, El Greco, Manet, Cezanne, Rodin, Gauguin, Kandinsky, Mondrian, David Smith, de Kooning, Rothko and a lot of great art...Modernist (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We left out Johannes Vermeer, Caravaggio, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin, Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, Albrecht Dürer, Martin Schongauer, Edward Hopper, William Harnett, and Wassily Kandinsky. I just noticed, this is supposed to be pertaining to "Portrait possibilities," oops. Bus stop (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's actually supposed to be discussing a selection of four pictures for a lead image that represents the whole of world art from cave paintings to now. Ty 07:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wassily Kandinsky could represent abstraction in painting. I think it is only realistic to pander to the proclivities of the present day audience. No matter how much we may like the existence of the cave paintings of Lascaux, I don't think we relate to them as we relate to Edward Hopper's Nighthawks. Heck, they probably didn't even have all-night-diners back in 14,000 BC. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Both Kandinsky and Hopper are not in the public domain yet, and hence, can't be used. From Ty's list, i think the Egyptian statues and El Greco could be good candidates, although we still need a good portrait from South America or Asia (if we don't want to keep the lion).

Husky ^{(talk page)} 17:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is used in the article Nighthawks. Doesn't that mean it can be used in other articles? And a painting such as this is on Wikipedia. I don't really understand the rules of fair use. I just figured if an image is used in one article, it can be used in another, as long as the reason is similarly justified, or justifiable. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Read up on what's this fair use thing is all about. Also, remember that this policy is only valid for the English Wikipedia, which means that every other project needs a different image.

Husky ^{(talk page)} 16:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's complicated. But if a picture is used in one article, and its use can be justified for use in another article (both on the English Wikipedia), what else is involved? Can't other Wikipedias (in other languages) find pictures to suit their particular legal environment?

But, thanks for that link. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are all these pictures Western? WP:BIAS says we should create a balanced image. Can we find anything in Islamic_art#Painting_gallery? Shii (tock) 02:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

They are not. I suggest you do some further research: you will find that Africa and Japan are not Western. Please discuss here before making unilateral changes against consensus. Ty 08:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the removal of the Rwandan pottery from the lead, especially considering that it's been replaced by such a misleading, unrepresentative, and fragmentary collage. If the justification for removing it was that pottery is a 'craft,' it matters not, since nobody said otherwise. The idea that an object cannot be a product both of art and of craft is manifestly absurd, indeed impossible; there is a genuine distinction between arts and crafts, but there is no possibility of denying that certain crafted items are also artistic. Indeed, most art in human history has served some sort of practical function, not necessarily by virtue of its artistic or decorative features (indeed, art is in a sense defined by its nonutilitarian character—but not by its spatiotemporal distance from utilitarian objects), but simply because most human creations serve an instrumental function, from textbooks to prayer beads to shovels. Archaic Greek pottery features Archaic Greek art, entirely regardless of whether you consider 'pottery' an art, a craft, or both—simply because such pottery features surface art. Thus, the design on the Rwandan pot, however simple, is unambiguously artistic regardless of whether the pot on which that design is printed is likewise artistic. It is the same with a painting; making a canvas is a craft, yet we would not say that someone who made canvases and then painted them was even conceivably a non-artist (whether or not he was a craftsman). And its simplicity is valuable for precisely that reason—it removes all the extraneous trappings which only certain art shares, making it clear just how broad a category the English term 'art' encompasses (even under its strictest definitions!). This problem of confusing trappings with definition is, in contrast, greatly exacerbated by the new lead image, which features four images (incidentally, drastically biased ones, since two European images are featured and zero images from the Americas or Oceania, as though we were only obliged to be representative of the dichotomy 'civilized world' and 'uncivilized world' and not representative of the polychotomy of cultures and/or geographies) of close-ups of faces, strongly suggesting that what makes art 'art' is the depiction of faces in either painting or sculpture. Misleading. It is preferable, even if we don't use the Rwandan art, to choose just one image to put in the lead section—it prevents biased proportions and also, incidentally, is much more aesthetically pleasing. -Silence (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty broad topic

An article about art. Where to even begin? So many different types of art. How is art even defined?

Personidrew (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I would define art as meaning absolutely anything and an artist as absolutely everyone. Hell, singers aren't singers, they're artists. Engineers, dancers, actors, playwrights are all artists. Everyone is an artist and everything they do is art. I do have a question.. Now that art/artist has no actual meaning and should just be flushed as a word - what do you call people who create images with their hands on 2-dimensional surfaces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.15.11 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If ready-mades are art, everything is art, just waiting to be labeled as such. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the limited amount of talk on this page, I would not auto archive, or if so with a term of 90 or 120 rather than 30 days. (A 30 day limit right now would move all but one or 2 threads to archive tomorrow). Arnoutf (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would configure it to keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. BTW I agree there are some extremely old threads still here. Arnoutf (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done The bots should start over the next 24h.--Oneiros (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in last sentence of the "Purpose of art" section

The last sentence of the "Purpose of art" section does not seem to me entirely without bias. "One of the central challenges of post-modern art (after the 1970s), is that as the world becomes increasingly utilitarian, functional, and market-driven, the presence of the non-motivated arts, or art which is ritualistic or symbolic, becomes increasingly rare." At the very least it needs a citation, but even with one it seems to me that this does not represent a neutral point of view.

Nb99 (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

At the very least it needs a citation. I agree with that. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also a little unclear to me. When it says "One of the central challenges of post-modern art is… [X]" does this mean "one of the problems that some people have with post-modern art is…" or "one of the ways that post-modern art challenges viewers is through exploring issues of…".

Nb99 (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That sentence does not make sense. I don't know what the editor was trying to say, assuming the sentence was written by one editor. No citation is provided, so one can't look to that for a clue. Unless you can find a thought that is salvageable from it, or it leads you to wish to make a different, related, and hopefully sourced statement in its place, I would just delete it. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to "Characteristics" section

The first paragraph of the "Characteristics" section seems to have bias and not really be an introduction to the section (it seems to be part of a debate that art can only be intuitive and never rational, and not really an introduction to the characteristics of art). When it says that "fine art intentionally serves no other purpose [than to facilitate intuitive rather than rational understanding]" it contradicts articles such as Baroque painting that talk about the "rationality that had been prized during the Renaissance."

It has no citations and it seems less of a lead section than a personal reflection or essay. I would suggest that this paragraph be deleted.

http://artmusicblog.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.39.151 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Nb99 (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikify "Anti-art" section?

The anti-art section seems like it needs some tidying up. It has some weasel words problems, as well as passive voice.

The anti-art page says that the idea of anti-art came from Duchamp (though I did not see any citations for this). Can anyone find a reputable source for this? If this is true that might be a better way to start the section than "It is has been suggested in some quarters..."

Also, does anyone have any sources on the dispute over this that is implied by the sentence: "This is obviously a minor opinion, and it is disputed." Or is this simply meant that the idea of anti-art is not universally accepted. If the later is the case than I would say that simply saying that it is a "suggestion" in the sentence before is enough to get this idea across and the section would be stronger without the "obviously a minor opinion" sentence.

Nb99 (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A citation for Duchamp coining the term anti-art has been added to the anti-art entry, so I will go ahead and change the first sentence...

Nb99 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at this "anti-art" section the more it seems to define anti-art narrowly (just the way The Situationist International group used the term, and not using the more generally used definition). I am going to try rewriting it and cleaning up some of the style problems at the same time.

Nb99 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had already revised the section, and I thought the version, which I have just revised, was the version you objected to. Anyway, it is much tighter now. The previous two refs for Situationist International did not explicitly state the movement was anti-art, so I've removed them and replaced them with a ref that does state that. There is one key point missing, namely that what was considered anti-art is now accepted as art. The Tate glossary implies this, but doesn't say it outright. Ty 02:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My only concern now is that it might be a little too close to the Tate glossary entry. Perhaps it needs to be rounded out with more sources? Also, the Stuckists are not really considered an important art historical movement here in the states. I have a question about them even being notable enough to be included in the main Wikipedia entry on art (and not only that, but they are the final thing talked about in the entry - which makes them feel even more important - they have the "last word" as it were). They are mentioned in the Tate glossary entry, which would tell me that they are seen as more important in England (which would make sense). Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Nb99 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've merged anti-art into the Classification Disputes section and reworded it. The Stuckists - we follow sources. Here's the Tate definition.[10] They regularly get worldwide coverage for their activities and views, e.g.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17], on Damien Hirst auction[18], and every year since 2000 against the Turner Prize[19] (click links for press coverage for other years), so they merit a mention re. contemporary disputes. Ty 12:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That is great. It makes the Classification Disputes section richer and takes the emphasis off the Stuckists at the end of the article (I have no doubt that they are notable enough for Wikipedia entries, they just did not seem significant enough to be the ending of the main article on art - but I think the way you reworded it puts it in a good context.) I also added the word "intentionally" to the anti-art description for this reason: with it now being in the Classification Disputes section, it seemed possible to confuse other, earlier art from that section (that also conflicts with the established parameters of art) as being anti-art. So I wanted to make a distinction between the artists after Duchamp that were doing it on purpose, and others for whom perhaps that was not really their intent.Nb99 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A University Project in to the subject of 'what is art?' grabsomeart

Rebecca Bell, studying at Sunderland University has launched a viral research project via online platforms including Facebook, Twitter and a website to find out people'e opinions on 'What is Art?'

After studying art at Sunderland University for over two years it occured to Becca that no-one had taken a step back from what they were doing in their studies to ask that simple question 'what is art?'

The idea is to collect and collate all of the information from her viral campaign and create something which uses the information received to go towards her final piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzicmadd (talk • contribs) 21:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Euhm, "what is art" is the perennial question. People like Warhol announced this question to be irrelevant (i.e. art is that which an established artist calls art - The MCDonald Arch is art (my piece of art), because I Andy Warhol name it so).

Since then the question has not been a major focal point of any notable/important art discourse I know of. So I am not sure how a student's work be notable in this?? Of course there may be reliable 3rd party sources claiming its importance, but without these, no please Arnoutf (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dpiers, 19 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The first sentence is a bit convoluted.

" Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. "

I think a much more elegant definition is: " Art is the process or product of creative expression. "

It's a subjective improvement, but hey, that's art. Dpiers (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, and it may well be a good one - however, I can't do this using the 'editsemiprotected', because of the subjective nature - it needs a bit of discussion to see a consensus. Hopefully, some other editors will notice this, and add their comments.

The main reason why this needs further discussion is, the existing first sentence includes 2 links - which may be a good way to provide readers with access to articles that help understanding. Or not, I'm not sure, but that is why it needs a bit of a debate.

If a consensus can be shown (and if none of the other editors have gone ahead and changed it), please use a further {{editsemiprotected}} - if we can see that others agree, we can change it for you.

Alternatively, you could edit other articles, or even the sandbox, wait a few days, and you'd be able to make the edit yourself. To edit semi-protected articles, you need to be auto-confirmed, which means having 10 edits and have been on Wikipedia for 4 days.

Thanks for the input; I am marking this as 'notdone' for now. Best, Chzz ► 08:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(I will add a further comment on the users talk page)

Not done

Psychology Of Art )92.69.202.99 (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

Psychology Of Art

Art is an esthetical value representing: 1) individual creativity, 2) vision or model of (virtual) reality, 3) consistent harmony or logical structure, 4) valued through time and place. Given the definition of art, a vision can be represented in sound like music, visual like paintings, sculptures or architecture, in word symbols, like literature, poetry or in science, like a formal theory. The methods and techniques applied for the creational product are necessary but not sufficient condition and can as such reinforce the artwork. Representations with ‘art–value’, the main exclusive characteristics of ‘creativity’ and ‘universality’, incorporate a harmonious or logical vision. Creativity of a (logical) vision is not enough to denote art, but is completed by a universal vision. Thus, the concept of art pertains by definition to the uniqueness-universality of esthetics.

Euhm, what is your point. First of all your definition does not hold especially Vision or model of reality (e.g. Rothko), consistent harmony and valued through time and place (see several modern artists). What is art is a difficult question, and unreferenced ideas cannot be take in in any case.

This makes the rest of the section a bit useless, let alone that it is far from clear what you mean with "psychology of art" as I see no reference to psychology in your text whatsoever.

If you have any further intention for this effort, please be a bit clearer what it is you want; and how you will support your texts. Arnoutf (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag removal

I removed the unreferenced tag for the article as a whole, as this article uses "notes" as refs. I am not sure the other tags apply, but this one seems off base.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

^ Marie-Denise Villers at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

[1] Marie-Denise Villers at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

[1]