Talk:Art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
A	Art has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

Art is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 16 August 2006

See also: /Archive 1: all talk through December 2005

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 {{NPOV}} 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Good

This is a preety good sized article.

General E isenhower

[edit] Further Reading

I would like to point out that there is no dialogue by Plato called Theory of Forms, and that Aristotle's Metaphysics is not about art. Maybe someone who knows about art could put some relevant things in the "Further Reading" section. (Perhaps Plato's Ion and Aristotle's Poetics would be more relevant, though a distinction should be made between aesthetics and art.)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Talk%7EArt_d2a3.html"