Portal talk:Arts/Categories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Performing arts etc.

Is this the beginning of a structure for the arts?

Regarding 'Performing Arts', I am not sure what 'Theatre' includes or doesn't include. Is it just for English-language spoken drama? If so, I wonder whether major non-Euopean forms of music drama such as Kabuki, Nō, and Chinese opera should all be listed alongside Dance, Film etc.

Also I see 'Liberal Arts' is being used for literature. My understanding of this term is that it includes the arts and humanities and the social sciences. Would 'Literature' be a better label here?

Regards from the Opera Project - Kleinzach 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Theatre" is obviously going to include the Western dramatic tradition and not just plays in English. I would imagine that a user would expect to find Kabuki and Noh in that category as well, although I'm aware that certain Eastern art forms would not fit into any of the categories here: a Japanese tea ceremony or Zen garden, for example. I suppose that "the arts" with its subdivisions "perfoming arts", "fine arts" (which I omitted because I see it as an antiquated term), "applied arts" etc. is a wholely Western concept and that trying to pigeon-hole Oriental art forms into this structure would have a distorting effect.
I'm having second thoughts about classing "Opera" under the Performing arts alongside "Music" and "Theatre"; isn't it more a descendant of those two art forms? Also it seems that opera as most people think of it, more than art, architecture or theatre, is an entirely Western tradition, and that people might be be surprised to find Chinese opera as a subcategory of it. I confess to complete ignorance of Chinese opera, but from the article I just read it would seem as unrelated to Western opera as the European robin is to the American bird of the same name – the similar name is a convenience that explains something from culture X that is alien to culture Y in terms that put it within Y's frame of reference, but apart from the superficial resemblance they don't have that much in common. That Chinese opera is not currently categorised under "Opera" would seem to bear this out. (Though, as I said, I'm speaking from a position of ignorance and may have the wrong idea entirely.) Perhaps the categorisation should go something like this:
Performing arts
Theatre [or, alternatively, Music]
Opera [by implication, Western] | Chinese opera etc.
Is that too Western-centric?
As for the "Liberal arts" label, I'm not entirely happy with that myself, either. At first, I didn't want literature and poetry to be left out on a limb with no sur-category, but now it seems more sensible simply to have "Literature" on its own, under which would come poetry. Best regards, HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 09:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don’t wish to start writing an essay on this subject, although I could probably write several. Having spent half my life in East Asia I am familiar with some of the non-European performing arts - as well as opera.
First of all you are absolutely right about Chinese opera - it is unrelated to ‘European’ opera. Chinese opera has no more connection with it than Kabuki or No etc. (Incidentally the reason that Chinese opera is no longer classified under opera is because we (at the Opera Project) uncoupled the links.)
Regarding ('European') opera, I would argue that it is not a ‘descendant’ of music and theatre. It is obviously far more than just music, (although the relationship between the main classical tradition in music and the development of opera is close). On the other hand it has little in common with the (non-musical, Anglo-oriented) theatre category. Opera did not develop from this kind of ‘theatre’, in fact it could be argued that it is the other way round - because music theatre predates ‘so-called’ straight theatre. Opera originated in Italy and was developed in Germany and France, rather than Britain (or America).
You ask whether the schemat above would be too western-centric. I think so, but it would also be too Anglo-centric (reflecting an Anglo-American view of the arts). The solution (in my view) would be in listing all the forms (opera, Chinese opera, Kabuki, No, dance, music, straight theatre etc. etc.) as equally-valid performing arts.
Kleinzach 19:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The new version looks good. Some questions - in this case speaking definitely as a non-specialist - would Literature also include other forms, such as some of those listed in Literary genre? Would you consider making a section for Applied arts to include topics such as fashion which might otherwise be difficult to categorize. Regards - Kleinzach 19:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Where you thinking of putting comics? We normally categorise it in both literature and visual art, as it is thought by many to be a hybrid of the two at the least. Others contest it is a seperate language, but none the less it shares common factors with both groups, and is often described as both. Hiding The wikipedian meme 13:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know there was discussion here as well. I responded to this under WikiProject arts talk, but I'll cut and paste my respone from that page and respond to some other things as well.

Ok, I would argue keeping Category:Arts and merging everything there. As I see it, the name of Category:The arts is simply wrong. Naming conventions only allow articles like "the" to be used if the name of the category is a specific title. Certainly, both "arts" and "the arts" refers to the same exact thing, the article doesn't add anything in this context. As for Category:Art, while "art" is the commonly used term for visual arts, for our purposes being specific is the most useful thing. Of course, if we were to do away with that category, it would mean the renaming of a number of categories. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the argument on opera...I have a degree in Theatre with a minor in music. When studying theatre, there was very little discussion on opera but while I was studying music, opera was heavily discussed. I would classify opera under Music and Theatre. I think the best classification for things like Chinese opera should be under theatre, with a note in the category directing anyone looking for non-western opera to the theatre category.

Finally, just a note about theatre (as mentioned at the very top), Category:Theatre includes anything that could be defined as a performance that tells a story, excluding any performances that are mostly a musical performance (i.e. opera) or dance (i.e. ballet). *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Arts or The Arts, I have no strong preference (though obviously it should not be Art as that would be misunderstood). I do agree there should be one overarching category.
Re opera - the intention of those of us who are working on the project is to raise the profile of the subject on Wikipedia. This may be difficult to do, given the general orientation of Wikipedia, but that is what we are attempting. Relegating opera to a subcategory of music or theatre (which have such different cultural baggage) would be counter-productive for us. Moreover I can't see any logic in listing dance separately from music/theatre but not opera.
One other thing - opera is well defined. We even have a exact date for its beginning and composers to this day (even in places like China and Japan) have a clear idea of whether or not they are part of the opera tradition. In contrast, theatre is a much vaguer concept. (The basic meaning, after all, is of a (secular) venue rather than an art form.) I note Ganymead's definition above - based on narrative - but I wonder whether other members of theatre-related projects might come up with different ideas. - Kleinzach 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for sorting cats

Here's my suggested breakdown of categories.

  • Arts
    • Literature
    • Performing arts
      • Dance
      • Film
      • Music
      • Opera
      • Radio
      • Television
      • Theatre
    • Visual Arts
      • Applied arts - Those arts not originally concerned with aesthetics, but may have developed artistic areas.
        • Basket-making
        • Glass-making
        • Pottery
        • Woodworking
        • Textiles
      • Graphic arts
        • Comics
        • Drawing
        • Graphic design
        • Painting
        • Photography
        • Printmaking
      • Plastic arts - may include many items also found under "Applied arts".
        • Architecture
        • Sculpture

*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have explained before, I don't think opera can be listed under music or theatre - or both! Moreover I don't think this 'Arts' project can be successful unless you consult the views of those working on individual arts projects. I can see lots of problems with the visual arts arrangement above. I am not sure what the solution should be, but there must be people involved in this area who have informed opinions. - Kleinzach 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, should opera be separately listed? Why shouldn't it be listed under music or theatre. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I've thought about it briefly and I've decided to agree that opera probably deserves it's own listing. I'll amend the above listing. I agree that we do need more people here to discuss this. I'm not sure if you've noticed my response at the end of the above segment, my specialty is theatre, but I've studies music and performed in a few operas myself. I hope you don't think I'm downplaying operas importance. I have a great love for it as well. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think opera should be under Theatre, Music and Performing arts. I know there's a rule about subcategory X not appearing in both category Y and its sur-category Z, but the letter killeth. HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I am in favour of keeping to the rule. Opera belongs wholly to the Performing Arts. There is overlap with music, theatre, costuming, lighting, set design, architecture etc. but surely there's no advantage in listing opera under all of them. - Kleinzach 23:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Good. Speaking both as an opera person and an orientalist, I think a broad horizontal listing of the various performing arts will be a much better structure for future development. At the moment there are very few Chinese opera articles and amazingly none on Kabuki titles (probably none on Nō either) but these will be eventually written. Giving them due prominence will help. - Kleinzach 20:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
One further point. Should we regard television and radio as media rather than arts? I realize that begs the question of whether film is also media, but I think that can be resolved if we define film as the (authentic) tradition of the feature/art film. - Kleinzach 09:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would say that Television is almost an extension of film, maybe minus all the artsiness. Surely there is some TV that has artistic merit (just not here in America, I suppose). Well, I might consider Monty Python and some of British TV comedy to be worthy. But that's just my opinion. Plus there have been a number of well-known productions of plays and operas on TV. Menotti's Amahl and the Night Visitors was first performed on TV, for example. Radio, I think has similar merits. Of course the term "media" is vague. Here in the states it's quite common to refer to libraries in schools (and I would venture, elsewhere) as "media centers". Well, that's a muddled answer...I'm at work and have had a rather muddled day. I'll look at this later and try to sort it out. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Lots of good (arts) work is certainly done on TV, radio etc. The question is just how it is classified. My suggestion would be for TV films to be under film, TV or radio opera (of which they are quite a lot of examples) to be under opera, radio drama to be under drama . . . I mean theatre! I agree about the word 'media' but that is not really our problem! - Kleinzach 19:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
How about the next tiers down from visual arts being 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional, rather than getting into loaded and controversial terms like "applied" and "graphic" (I bet most painters don't consider themselves graphic artists). >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I view intermediate sub-categories as being unhelpful. From the point of view both of having unambiguous non-controversial categories and of having an easily navigable structure, I think it is better to have (say) Photography listed directly under Visual arts. - Kleinzach 08:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conceptual art?

I notice there's no real place for conceptual art in Ganymead's plan – I suppose that would be under the Category:Art we're battling to keep seperate from Category:Visual arts? HAM Image:Icons-flag-wales.png 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say conceptual and performance art on the same level as visual, literature. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I am no expert on conceptual art but it seems to me that it is basically a contemporary movement within the visual arts. As such it is an important subject to cover but not really an unambiguous, functional, useful category so I am with Ham on this one. - Kleinzach 08:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new category scheme

Here is my alternative category scheme. I thought of putting it on the article page under the other one (Scheme A and Scheme B) but thought that might be confusing. So I am putting it here for comments.

(Scheme deleted for new version see below)

Kleinzach 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice! Though I have a few concerns and suggestions.
    • Plays under literature should be classed under Category:Drama which incorporates all dramatic literature.
    • Why isn't music considered a Performing Art?
    • I really think Spoken drama should be called "Theatre". Drama is defined in most places as the literary element of theatre. In other words, theatre is drama as it is performed. I would consider Chinese opera and Kabuki under Theatre rather than standing alone.
    • Vaudeville should probably be incorporated into Category:Variety entertainment being that it is the American version of variety, sometimes known as "Music Hall." *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I think drama has a bigger scope than just as the literary element of theatre, for example radio dramas and television dramas. Perhaps Drama should be a category of Literature, with Theatre and Broadcast Drama(?) as sub-cats, whilst also categorised as Performing Arts? Broadcast Drama could be made up of Radio and Television plays, like Boys from the Blackstuff or Under Milk Wood. Thoughts? Hiding Talk 21:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on including radio drama, of course while we're at it, you could include film and TV. But, I think that drama is really sub-serviant to theatre rather than vice versa. But on that, I really have to come up with a good answer as to why. Lemme think on it. I sometimes hate being a Libra because I can always see everyone's point of view. Ugh! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd already included Television, and Film had already been categorised under visual art, so I left that. To support my case I offer the article at radio drama, and also note that drama equates to plays as much as it does theatre, and that plays can be performed on radio, television and in the theatre. The BBC once had a slot entitled "Play for Today". Hiding Talk 21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised category scheme

Here is the category scheme, revised in line with your comments above, and with my comments below:

[Scheme now moved to article page.] - Kleinzach 12:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My comments:

1. We are not going to get distinct, hermetically-sealed, non-overlapping categories. Inevitably some art forms belong in more than one place. Given that Wikipedia structure is more of a hedge than a tree this shouldn't be a problem.
2. IMO Music (the art of sound) is fundamental, so it should be at the top level. (Nor is it necessarily a performance art. You can't put on an opera at home but you can play the piano with no audience.)
3. I prefer Drama to Theatre because it is clearer. (A Theatre is after all a venue/building not an art form as such.) I also think we should avoid treating Drama/Theatre as a synonym for performing arts, when in practice the category coverage is narrow. So I'd recommend keeping opera, dance, Chinese opera, Kabuki etc. distinct from Drama. This should facilitate rather than stiffle their development.
4. I have put the category Plays for literature and Drama for Performing Arts to distinguish them from each other.
5. I have put Vaudeville in Variety entertainment. This category should just be Variety and include magic. Of course people involved in these fields may object, but if not they would make a convenient grouping.
6. In my view Film is part of the Visual Arts - it is not performed as such.
7. Media like Television and radio aren't included. I don't think this presents any problems. A radio opera is an opera. A television drama is a drama etc.

I hope this is helpful, I realize we will never get complete agreement on this. Perhaps we need to develop some kind of decision-making process? 23:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Revised Kleinzach 08:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comics

Actually, this works for me, apart from the fact Comics isn't mentioned. As the rep for Comics here, I'd be arguing that it should go in both Literature and Visual Arts. Hiding Talk 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have added Comics to 'Visual Arts'. (I see each of the main four sections being open ended, i.e. when there is sufficient interest in a category we add it.) I think it's better to keep items in one section if possible. Obviously we can't do this with plays/drama/theatre (unavoidably in both literature and performing arts) but with other arts it is surely better to keep the scheme simple. - Kleinzach 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't disagree more strongly. Comics has to be categorised as both literature and art. The form is one of a storytelling nature, which makes it literature, but also one of conveying information through pictures, which makes it a visual art. Time have referred to comics as a literary form, as do the Encyclopdia Britannica, Newsweek, as do the Economist who write "TINTIN, a teenaged journalist, and Yakari, an ecologically correct native American (Red Indian), are among Belgium's main contributions to literature. Their comic-book adventures sell millions of copies, mainly in France.", Apr 6, 1996; p. 69, and the The Washington Post who refer to comics as a "a literary genre" Monday, December 13, 2004; Page B01. Now as the rep of WikiProject Comics I feel I'm going to have to stick to my guns on this point. I don't have reference books to point to right now; given time there may well be comparable The Oxford Guide to Comics and The Cambridge Guide to Comics, but right now there aren't. I can point to American universities teaching comics as literature, and I will have to hope that will suffice. Hiding [

[User talk:Hiding|Talk]] 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

By the same logic, opera should probably be listed in all four sections, but what would that achieve? At the moment no category is duplicated, even if drama/theatre are different aspects of the same thing. If you insist I will add Comics to literature, but I fear people will think the arrangement is a bit ridiculous. What do you think? - Kleinzach 23:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't find the suggestion of categorizing comics in two places all that rediculous. I think you (Kleinzach) and I feel very strongly about fairly rigid categories. Of course it's like trying to fence in a river. The Arts are all fairly fluid. I think we need to compromise where need be and save our heavy discussions for something more important. Just my two cents. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat against my inclinations, I have added Comics to Literature. I fear this will lead to duplication all over the place but we need to reach a compromise. Of course you (Ganymead) are correct (above). The problem is that it is a self-defeating argument. Why have a structure at all if it is completely elastic? Anyway I will put the scheme on the main page and see what reactions we get! - Kleinzach 11:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ta. I for one have never been over bothered by what people think, I'd rather that people discuss and find a compromise or consensual position. I don't think any categorisation structure should be rigid, I thought your opening comment that the structure was more a hedge than a tree would facilitate this idea, and I apologise if I have cause you offence with my position. As to other categories and where they are placed, I think that's a matter best left for people who understand those fields to determine. I'm not well versed in opera, but to me the main point of it is that it is to be performed for an audience. That would seem to place it in performing arts. Unfortunately, the point of comics is that as a form it is both looked at and read, making it the literary form of visual art. I can't really see another category that crosses the boundaries to such an extent, but like I say, I'm not as well-versed in other fields of art. Thanks once again. Hiding Talk 11:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
No apologies needed, Steve. Categorization really is difficult, especially on Wikipedia. It is inevitable that we will each have a different perspective on this. - Kleinzach 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theatre

I accept that we may not agree, but let me throw out this one last argument. Everything else seems ok and I can live with it, but the theatre/drama thing still irks me. I wish to point out that most reference books on theatre use the term to describe the art form. Certainly the two sources I rely on heavily use it: The Oxford Companion to the Theatre and The Cambridge Guide to Theatre. In addition most American universities with programs in theatre refer to their departments or schools with that term. Even here on Wikipedia the articles for theatre (which I'm rewriting but along similar lines) and drama make note of the difference. Indeed, I consulted a few online references and their definitions for drama do not include the full production of theatre, just the literary form. With relegating drama to literature, you also include dramatic items that could not simply fall under the heading of "Play," these may include individual scenes and monologues, etc. While I realize that we may never agree on everything, I still must stick to my guns on this point; especially as founder of WikiProject Theatre. I shall rest my case, now. Thanks for hearing me out. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have changed Plays to Drama, and Drama to Theatre. I don't have strong feelings on Plays versus Drama. (Plays correspond better with Novels but it's no big deal). With two actresses and a drama professor in the family, I understand the arguments for Theatre as a concept much as I disagree with them (and the way so-called Theatre has been hyped and used to marginalize more important non-Anglo drama traditions and cultures). The words used for all the other arts describe an activity or a product of that activity - only Theatre is different!
On the other hand we have to respect each other's positions - otherwise we can't move forward. I just hope the vagueness of the theatre concept will not become a reason for absorbing the rest of the performing arts into it and representing them from a theatrical perspective. - Kleinzach 18:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding, it is appreciated and truly in the spirit of Wikipedia. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Can I, should I, now put the category scheme above on the main (article) page to make available for further comment? Kleinzach 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It works for me. Go for it!*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See my reservations about comics above. Hiding Talk 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking ahead

I see we have Category:Art by region, which I believe we are proposing is to become Category:Visual arts by region. What are we to do with the sub-cats, popose renaming them as follows?

Or should we recategorise by nation or continent instead? Hiding Talk 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have left a comment on the Visual arts project asking if someone would like to join us here. (Unfortunately it doesn't look very active!). I think it's really for them to decide how to categorize their subject. Otherwise I think we might as well leave it as it is. - Kleinzach 17:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey - I'd be interested in helping out where I can. Looking at the 3 categories above, I'm not sure they're full enough to perpetuate. Category:Western art is woefully incomplete, for example. I think if these broad topics need some coverage, there would/should be an article of the same topic.(& I'll leave this comment over in visual arts) Clubmarx | Talk 21:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
See [[1]] - there are articles that cover regions larger than a country. That seems like a reasonable solution. (If we did need something like this, I'm not sure adding 'world' to region labels is a good idea.) Clubmarx | Talk 00:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see that all 3 subcats in Category:Art by region are already in Category:Art history. I think having these in Category:Art history is best. Category:Art by region should probably be deleted. Clubmarx | Talk 04:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge & rename to Visual arts proposal

Since the merge to Art didn't work, I have another proposal. What do people think? If we come to some agreement here I can put in a block merge/rename categories request. Clubmarx | Talk 01:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Rename Category:Art to Category:Visual arts & merge

Category:Art has already been de-populated of performing arts, lit, and so forth, which was a big problem before. The parent category Category:The artsalso has a much better structure than it did before.

I don't think it's realistic, or desirable, to rename each 'Art' category to 'Visual Arts'. So, I propose to just rename the main one & leave the rest as 'Art ____'.

Agree. - Kleinzach 08:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. However, I give it about half a day before Category:Art is re-created. So, I think the thing to do is leave it created with suggestions about categorization, and patrol it. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree, and note you can do a soft redirect, see, um... WP:CFD, the relevant bit is:
Categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (#REDIRECT [[target]]) due to limitations in the MediaWiki software. Instead, just use Template:Categoryredirect. The NekoDaemon (talk '· contribs) bot hourly automatically patrols these categories and moves articles out of them and into the redirect targets.
You can see a list of redirected categories in Category:Wikipedia category redirects.
Hope that helps. Hiding Talk 13:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a sensible proposal to me: The change of name for Category:Art will hopefully mean that no-one confuses art with the arts, but we avoid weird category titles like Category:Visual arts historians. Agree. HAM 08:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Slight issue: how will the article Art be categorised under this new system? At the moment it has the categories Art and The arts – I take it that this would change to Arts and Visual arts? (Arts because the article does not deal purely with the visual side of things, and Visual arts because that is the most common usage of the term – i.e. the same logic as the current categories.) HAM 09:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
That sounds sensible enough. - Kleinzach 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that too. Clubmarx | Talk 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Remove Category:Visual art movements

Just like Art & Visual arts, I think Category:Art movements is sufficient. If there are any pages that are just categorized under Category:Visual art movements, those would get categorized as Category:Art movements. It seems that User:Sparkit did a lot of work about a year ago on this, but I haven't seen Category:Visual art movements grow a whole lot since then.

So

The arts
Visual arts
Art exhibitions
Art genres
Art movements
Agree. - Kleinzach 08:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Most movements are seldom restricted to one area of the arts. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Hiding Talk 13:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. HAM 08:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Popular topics

There are several topics (photography, comics) that are technically visual arts but are categorized under Category:The arts. I don't have a problem with making popular topics more prominent. Visual arts can still include these and all the other art/arts that are visual. Conceptual art could be categorized like this, just in The arts. I think this issue is a little separate than the Art/Visual art category and we could come to some conclusion about the above without completely resolving the popular topics issue.

I'd prefer to see topics like photography etc. under visual arts in order to promote clarity in the structure. If we have lots of categories out of place we will lose coherence, though I realize a perfectly logical order will never be achieved. In the case of conceptual art (which I don't know a lot about), isn't this another of the sub-categories like Fine arts, Applied arts, Plastic arts etc. which we are covering in articles but which we are trying to keep out of the structure because of the difficulty of definition? - Kleinzach 08:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Photography would be in Visual Arts. If could also be in The arts- I'd prefer not, but don't have strong feelings on this last part. Clubmarx | Talk 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Put the photography, comics and the like in visual arts. Conceptual and performance art on same level as visual, drama, music, etc. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, conceptual art - as i understand it - is a movement in the visual arts. I don't see any reason to elevate it to the same status as Literature, the Visual arts etc. Or am I missing something here? - Kleinzach 08:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Conceptual art was born amongst visual artists, but I believe grew beyond that. Where it goes really isn't that important to me. >>sparkit|TALK<< 13:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I seem to be able to see all sides here, and am finding it hard to make an informed decision. However, looking at the category, is it actually needed? Hiding Talk 13:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Steve, what category are you refering to? Clubmarx | Talk 17:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Category:Conceptual art. Did I get hold of the wrong end of the stick and you were talking about the article? Hiding Talk 16:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Category:Conceptual art is needed. There are many articles in the subcategory Category:Conceptual artists. Clubmarx | Talk 18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems like I've gotten good feedback about #1 and #2, so I will now start a merge/rename proposal for those categories and we can go from there. Clubmarx | Talk 19:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've posted the suggestions for #1 and #2 here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_19#Category:Merge_Art_to_Visual_arts Clubmarx | Talk 01:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but can you sign your proposal? - Kleinzach 09:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Both are signed now. Someone split these two & my name was then only attached to one. Clubmarx | Talk 17:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. Perhaps he should have left it alone? Will people who read the second half get confused? (I've left a note on the item about this.) - Kleinzach 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that most would be confused. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Cat and Articles

Pardon my absence, i've been busy with a musical and now that it is over, I can spend a little more time here. I still have a problem with Category:Arts and Category:The arts. I really think they should be merged into Arts. "The arts" is wrong in terms of naming conventions and the article "the" adds nothing to the arts that isn't there in just "Arts." The same should be said for the articles The arts. It should be returned to Arts which is currently a redirect. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ganymead here. 'The' Arts only makes sense in apposition to 'The' Humanities and 'The' Sciences which is not the case here IMO. Kleinzach 20:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I shall go ahead and put forward a CfD Proposal for this. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It is now on CfD. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I couldn't help but smile when I started seeing support votes from members of this project. I think we're beginning to make quite a difference here! I imagine a small gang of arts geeks roaming the streets of Wikipedia being all artistic and stuff! Ha! Cheers to all of you! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genres: how do we define them and do they belong here?

I was looking at the "Literature" subset, where Essays, Sagas, Epics etc. have been added to the list, unlinked and in italics. Now, Category:Essays exists and I would be happy for that to be included in the restructuring scheme, but I'm less sure about the place of "Sagas" and "Epics" here. For one thing, no such categories exist to my knowledge. But also, as a saga or epic could take the form of novels, poetry, comics, (not to mention operas, plays...)

When I wrote this scheme my intention was to list some examples of future possibilities with Essays, Sagas, Epics etc. I am in agreement with your comments. The scheme should be built around existing categories, not ones that are not there. - Kleinzach 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would class those as genres, and I would argue that this scheme should just include artforms – because to my mind that is what poetry, drama, essays, novels, poetry and comics are. Strangely, every projected subcategory of Category:Music looks to me like a genre:

Classical | Popular | Folk | Jazz | Reggae | Rock | Blues, Country, Electronic etc.
What is the difference between an artform and a genre (and indeed a sub-genre)? In the case of music are you saying we should list symphonies, concertos, songs etc, instead of the arrangement above. I doubt if that would be practical. - Kleinzach 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There also exists Category:Arts genres by country or nationality, which I think should be changed to Artforms by country, because its subcategories are along the lines of Category:Films by country and not Film noir by country – again, it's really about artforms and not genres.

Category:Arts genres by country or nationality is a useful list of 58 subcategories. It's actually by country or nationality or region or ethnicity or language. Renaming and restructuring it would be a considerable job and would also be highly controversial. Different arts have different requirements. Take opera for example, Opera by language is used because operas are often by written and performed in foreign languages (e.g. Handel's Italian operas written and performed in London). - Kleinzach 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

(As for the thorny question of "country" vs. "nationality", it seems to me that people have nationalities, but artforms come from countries. I don't think this is something to go into depth about here; Ganymead brought it up during the early days of WP:WPArts and it still hasn't been resolved.)

This is complicated. There are historical problems. Countries and nationalities disappear - particularly in the middle of Europe. This has been a problem with regard to opera, and I am sure other fields. Kleinzach 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So, should we get rid of the subcategories on this list that are best classed as genres? HAM 09:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether this is necessary - and whether it could be achieved if it was. Would it perhaps be possible to explain your ideas in more detail? - Kleinzach 11:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that I started this topic because I think that as sagas and epics do not belong in the same list as novels, poetry et al, for a reason I have imperfectly tried to pin down above (that a saga or epic could take the form of a poem, a novel or a series of plays and thus does not belong on the same level of categorisation). I am having to rethink my definition of "artforms", after my Concise Oxford Dictionary from 1980 problematically suggested "novels, sonnets and sonatas" as examples – I'm sure you agree that the latter two examples are way too narrow for our scheme, and that "poetry" and "classical music" would suffice. So I think I am going to change my tune and argue for a degree of internal consistency within subsets, but that none of the differing aspects of the arts can be expected to follow the same standards. Pop music deserves inclusion but not Pop art, because the division of music into styles (what I have been calling genres) seems more necessary and useful than to do the same thing with the visual arts. "One law for the lion and the ox is oppression". I suppose that whereas doing this sort of thing with the sciences is straightforward because the scientist's job involves categorisation, pigeonholing isn't actually necessary for artistic endeavour at all, unless you're putting an encyclopaedia together!
Yes, the problem here is that while the visual arts tend to be defined by tools (pencil, brush, camera etc.), literature is organized by forms of production (novel, poetry etc.) and music by styles (classical, pop, jazz). Classifying music by instrument or form (across styles) wouldn't work. - Kleinzach 18:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
However, I do still think that the name of Category:Arts genres by country or nationality needs to change. If its only use is as a helpful grouping together of 58 subcategories, might I suggest a change of name to Arts topics by country or nationality, at least provisionally? It has subcategories like Category:Essayists by nationality and Category:Cathedrals by country; whatever your definition of an "arts genre", I don't think essayists or cathedrals would figure. HAM 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree the name of Category:Arts genres by country or nationality is less than ideal. It groups people/places/artforms by country/nationality/region/ethnicity/language. What is the solution here? Arts topics by country or nationality is only slightly more accurate than Arts genres by country or nationality. Would dividing the category into people cats and thing cats help? Or would that would create even more problems? - Kleinzach 18:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
After reading this, the question that sticks in my mind is: "Is this category really useful?" I agree that the name is wrong, but if someone is looking for Michel de Montaigne in the categories, wouldn't they follow a path through Literature to Essayists, then Essayists by country to France and then find him? Now, if I were looking for Belgian Symbolist playwrights, I might look in this category and it may be helpful. To me, it just seems like a worthless melange of categories. As for the nationality/country argument, I think we should probably wait a bit before we get into that. I think we still have a few items to argue over before we get into the meat of the 2nd Level Categories (Music, Visual arts, Performing arts and Literature). I have a little list that I'll post shortly, with some remaining questions and issues that need to get worked out. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this category Arts topics by country or nationality is not one of the top concerns right now. But this would be the place to gather arts sub cats: Film by country, Literature by country...
I think that 'by country' is for topics, and 'by nationality' is for people. (These would go all the way up to Category:Categories by country and Category:Categories by nationality.) See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) --Clubmarx 22:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "As some day it may happen...I've got a little list..."

As mentioned above, there are still some minor issues in the 2nd Level of categories that I think need to be worked out before we get into the nationality/country argument. A few nights ago when I was being an insomiac, I took a look at the 2nd Level to see what else needed to happen before we move onto the 3rd Level of Categories. Here's what I have found:

  • Just a general category note: should we consider creating definitions at the beginning ot each category list? This would briefly define the topic and then lay out the parameters of the category. Certainly for the large categories, these should be created by us as a group.
  • After defining the "Big 4" categories (Music, Visual arts, Performing arts and Literature) we're still left with a few categories.
    • Category:Arts-related lists - I would suggest this be structured just like Category Arts.
    • Category:Arts deities - Should this be included?
    • Category:Arts centres - This should be restructured to include categories for art galleries and performing arts centers, neither of which are found in it now.
    • Category:Arts organizations Again, another cat. that should probably be restructured like Category:Arts and expanded.
    • Category:The arts by country - I'll nominate this for renaming since we're change Category:The arts as well. This could probably do with a restructuring along the lines of Category:Arts as well.
    • Category:Lost works - A great category, but should probably be broken down into Category:Lost literary works and Category:Lost works of visual arts (though maybe visual arts could use a better name).
    • Category:Arts managers - I'm not really sure if this category should exist. All of these managers fall under a specific type of art rather than just the arts in general. Perhaps, just do away with this?
    • The rest of the categories will fall under the categorization system we've decided on. But think we might wait until the CfD finishes and then put our plan into place.

Ok, that's my little list. Once a decision is made we also should either volunteer or delegate someone to take care of moving and restructuring. I'll be more than happy to take care of most of the stuff on the list. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking about your proposals above, (and also the work Ham is doing on the category scheme for the portal). I am wondering whether it is a good idea digging too deep into the categories. As we know there are lots of anomalies - like for example Category:Arts deities above. These are often insubstantial in terms of content.
My proposal would be to start an expanded scheme - like the one of the portal page but more detailed in order to provide a road map for any re-organizing we do. Obviously the Portal page scheme is best kept simple. Perhaps a new arts category scheme could be attached to the Arts project page? I can set up the page if you think this will help. The page (and discussion) would also be less obscure than this page.
In general I think we should be cautious in what we do. Top down re-organization isn't easy and invites controversy. At the moment I am working on an infobox category scheme for opera which is more bottom up in nature. (I don't know if this will serve as a model for other category maps.) - Kleinzach 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favour of moving the activity on this page to a more prominent place, and in keeping this portal page as a simple, clear outline of the scheme. The more prominent our categorising plans are the better, because it's no good honing them to just the way we like them on an obscure portal page like this (and although it's just one click away from the Main Page, not many people will think of looking at the talk page) – because some time we're going to have to make our proposal for upheaval of the arts categories to the greater Wikipedia community (I suppose on the Wikipedia:Community portal) and I don't expect that everyone will like it. Yes, we should be cautious in what we do, and transparent as well – I'm thinking along the lines of advertising this projected categories page prominently on the main WP:WPArts project page. I wonder how many members of WPArts know that this talk page is just as active as the project's main one? HAM 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with all that. Would the new page be something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Categories ? - Kleinzach 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I just stumbled on this discussion by accident when I was checking out the categorization scheme. I would go with Kleinzach's suggestion of creating a subpage of the project page, though I'm not sure about advertising it. In a way, we're already advertising when we propose items for CfD. We should certainly make sure we mention this project and link to it in the CfD nominations. Though we may want to leave a note on Wikipedia:Categorization as well to formalize our presence. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:The arts by country

This category is now up for renaming here. Please vote! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Categorization

From the good suggestions on this page, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Categorization. It is just a start so please add and modify away. I tried to start sections about category areas, without getting into exact labels in the headings. I started a new one about people in the arts and some suggestions I had there.

I took some cues from Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Novel categorization and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum. It's not linked to anything yet, but I think it should be linked from WP:WPArts. I'll do that if people start adding to it.--Clubmarx 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've identified some problems with existing sub-catories and some omissions on the page for that project - whether I'll ever find it again to do some more work is another matter! Cosmopolitancats 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art market

This is just a proposal, but perhaps somebody with more experience can have a look on it. - I am missing a Category: Art market that could cover dealers, auction houses as well as art collectors, and reunit the various bits and pieces under "art dealers", "art collectors by country" etc. - May be that I am only too green to find the proper categories. --R.P.D. 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation within Visual Arts

Might it be helpful to organise this discussion to that there are separate categorisation pages for each of the main arts sections - at the moment it is a total nightmare trying to read through what has gone before and identify what has been dsicussed in relation to the Visual Arts field Cosmopolitancats 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Arts?

I see Media Arts has been added, although it is apparently an empty category with no pages. What exactly is the situation here? - Kleinzach 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kleinzach! I'm not sure what this is either. It's obviously quite ambiguous, though there may be a link with New media art. Whatever that is, I'm sending this category to CfD. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's on CfD now. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Ganymead, I've also deleted it from the table. - Kleinzach 21:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Art

I think Digital art should be a category. GWatson • TALK 02:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)