Talk:Visual arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic visual arts topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start Class: This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Copied from Visual arts and design

Shouldn't this page be named fine arts instead? --maveric149

Category includes fine arts but is not limited to just that. --user:ichimunki

Removed:

(though there may be a question as to whether drawings done using invisible ink, when it is not then decoded, are "visual" art)

The invisible ink article already mentions this. It's slightly relevant, but I don't think this page is the place for it. -- Merphant 06:11 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if it should say, "human performance." I'm not sure how to deal with the fact (and it should be dealt with in some way) that many different species of animals have acted, on stage, in movies and on television, and that there have been paintings by elephants, apes, cats and so forth. It might just be a small detail but the impression that performing arts, like visual arts are a purely human, rather than primarily human, endeavour, should either be left out, or, which is from my point-of-view worse, mention should be made of all this stuff. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:59, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have included depliage under "see also". It does not concern "new material," but there might be a "new techniques" section as well. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:57, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Seems like this should just be an article about 'visual arts' where the design parts can migrate elsewhere. Any objections?

Clubmarx 19:21, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Deleted the Design section. Some of those items weren't even design – like the architecture links. Regardless, I made sure all those pages listed in that page section are categorized in some manner to Arts categories. Clubmarx 18:53, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Took out New Materials or Processes section – not really weighty enough for an overview article.
  • intro rewrite to better define the category. Took out smaller areas like Body art which aren't typical examples.
  • Cleanup of list of artists and subcategories of artists. The List of artists seems to be sufficient.

Clubmarx 20:13, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

A few suggestions for the categories of Conemporary art:
  • Move avantagarde to Modernism or Art Movements
  • Perhaps also move Fluxus to Art Movements
  • Add Relational Art to the list
  • Shouldn't Internet art and electronic/digital art could be put together under the term New Media Art?

brunberg, Nov 29, 2004

The Visual arts page is in really bad shape. It should really be an overview of what is meant by visual arts / art. (I'm trying to figure out what the consensus is or was on that.) The Contemporary art page is probably the best place to describe contemporary art. I'm not sure a list about contemporary art belongs on an overview page, IMO. I have a grouping of internet/digital/new media/etc art in the Category:Computer art, but there isn't an overview article right now. And yes, there is probably a way to merge several of those. Go for it. Just put redirects on the old articles so they aren't dead ends. Clubmarx 17:35, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Brunberg 01:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • It took me a while to find out but now I understand how categories relates to articles and each other so I find my note above to be quite irrelevant and thanks for being patient with me. I added some artists from the List_of_contemporary_artists to Category:Contemporary_artists that wasn't in the latter. Brunberg 23:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm new to editing in Wikipedia so I'm taking things slowly. Please correct me if I'm doing something wrong here. Wouldn't it be a good idea to include a Modernism section to capture some of the items such as Avantgarde?
  • Removed Fluxus from the list since it is in the Art Movements section, which I think is the best place for it to be
  • Added Relational Art to the list

brunberg, Nov 29, 2004

There is already Category:Modernism and more specifically Category:modern art with its associated article Modern art. I'd look there to see if Avant Garde is discussed. Clubmarx 18:35, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] fine arts or visual arts

This entry is listed as a PNA. and I agree it was a bit of a mess.

I have edited it fairly heavily in the hope that it is clearer.

I have also added a paragraph that seeks to explain the sticky issue that has been occupying the discussion here, that regarding the visual/fine art usage dilema. both of these phrases are politicaly loaded - Fine art has nothing to do with the quality of the art, it was termed to apply to the art that was exclusively reserved for the wealthy and discerning at a time when the masses did not have access to the 'academic' arts. Visual art is a fairly recent replacement that seeks to update it and shed the exclusivity. under the term fine art graffiti could never be included as it is a popular art form whereas it can be and is a visual art form. So I hope you will agree that Visual art is an important page

also

previous contributor 'merphant' - regarding the subject of invisible ink - I think that perhaps you are being a bit too literal in your interpretation, Visual art is primarily a descriptive of genre. therefore any painting is a work of the branch of the arts known as visual art, besides invisibility is surely a visual issue is it not? DavidP 01:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signs

Should signs be included as a visual arts item? Many of them are truly one of a kind works of art. Vegaswikian 21:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] name

this should be visual art no s, as per naming conventions

No - see that page, & talk article cited. Beatles example etc. Who actually talks about "Visual art", although one could? Johnbod 00:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok - DavidP does above, maybe only in deference to Wiki-convention Johnbod 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It may a convention within Wiki - but the convention in the Visual Arts field is to call it Visual Arts as it refers to a number of different forms of visual art. So you either have one page which says what visual art is without describing its forms or you have a category called Visual Arts - which is the term in common use - and then use that to provide an overview of all the different aspects of visual arts. I'd suggest that the introduction says what Visual Art is and then leaves all further discussion for articles - with the visual art forms within this section providing an overarching summary only.Cosmopolitancats 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art Uploads

Hello. I was wonderining if you could help me by providing me with some more information about uploading pictures of art works onto Wikipedia. Thanks, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 02:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Plastic Arts?

I'd say no, but clearly the division needs to be explained at the head of the article Johnbod 01:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the lead para was a mess, included film etc, have removed film, added printmaking & added sentence: "Visual Arts that produce three-dimensional objects, such as sculpture and architecture are dealt with in plastic arts." Johnbod 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I really think that Plastic Arts needs to be merged in here and then drop the word Plastic. I'm a professor of sculpture, I read journals of sculpture, talk to famous sculptors, and attend academic conferences and present papers on sculpture. No one in the field of sculpture refers to the plastic arts. We all call ourselves part of the visual arts. The phrase "plastic arts" largely fell out of common use in the mid-20th century. Just look at a few Google searches: Painting - 40 million hits; Sculpture - 15 million hits; but Visual Arts - 7 million; and Plastic Arts - 420,000. The conclusion is that, while sculpture is less referenced than painting, almost no one uses the phrase plastic arts. Why does no one use it? Because sculpture took on "non-plastic media" such as installation, performance, video projection etc in the 1960's and isn't only about clay, bronze, and statuary anymore. Grhabyt 03:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • No Merge Their totally different in how they "fix" ideas into a medium. You almost could never put photography, and video into "plastic" arts (true that term has not been used since the 70s [as plastic gives an air of kitsch and cheap]).--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
But the term "plastic arts" dates from a time when "visual arts" were divided into "graphic arts" and "plastic arts" with painting and drawing in the first and sculpture and ceramics in the second. At that time there was no video (or even film), and photography would not have been included in either (it would have been considered an "industrial art" along with typesetting, moldmaking etc.). So why should the former graphic arts be listed as visual arts and the former plastic arts still be listed in a 19th century category? Grhabyt (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Grhabyt (I'm also a sculptor and professor of art). The term "plastic arts" is oddball. In this entry it should be changed to Sculpture (with the various mediums as subcategories) and Architecture either given its own section or taken out altogether (I'd vote for the latter... usually people don't include architecture in the category of "visual arts"). Simenzo (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge, as above. The Transhumanist (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously some people believe that the visual arts and the plastic arts would be separate categories, or they would not be on separate pages as of now. As member Grhabyt states, the term plastic arts is an outdated one, referring to when these new technological mediums began to be developed. The visual arts page, as of now, states that sculpture falls into the category of visual arts, however as Wikipedia states of the plastic arts, " visual arts that involve the use of materials that can be moulded," sculpture should lie within plastic arts and not included onto visual arts. Would it not just make it easier for people to understand if plastic arts, if the name still needs to be used, be included as a subcategory within the visual arts, outlining the different "mouldable" materials that are used. I have never once, until now, heard of the term plastic arts, and believe that it will just lead to confusion for some people, until it becomes included with the visual arts. say86tay 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plan of Action for Improvement

Can we identify what needs doing to improve the structure and content of Visual Arts within Wikipedia? I keep finding gaping holes, articles written in isolation of similar and related material, repetition and uninformed comment. I'm trying to tidy up as I go but it would be great if we could have a plan of what needs doing - and maybe develop some priorities. I've found the Visual Arts project thingie - but nothing seems to be happening. Cosmopolitancats 17:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing is. There is a lot of work going on in some areas, but no real project unfortunately. Btw, people might like to Support the proposal at Talk:Etching to reverse the new disambig page someone not involved in the area decided to put in for Etching , previously the title of what is now Etching (art), which will just be a pain. Thanks Johnbod 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the realm of visual arts on wikipedia needs improvement, and the WikiProject Visual arts would be a great vehicle for doing so. More and more things are being discussed there. Let's do it some more. :)
Regards this specific article, which is the first link on the soon to be a featured portal - Portal:Visual arts... The "what" is pretty well covered. "Who" (artists, patrons, dealers, museums, curators, etc.), "Where" (global, Western, Eastern, African, etc.), "When" (periods, movements, pre-history, ancient, etc.), and "Why" (ha, that'll be interesting :) ) are hardly touched. Visual arts is a huge topic but I think we can make an decent overview article out of this.
I'm going to post a "call for improvement" notice on the project page. Shall we start with an outline? --sparkitTALK 16:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OUTLINE:

Intro

What - pretty much the bulk of what is already in the article
Who - A few paragraphs about the people involved in the arts - how their roles relate to one another
Where -
When - a few paragraphs about art periods and movements
Why - ?????
How to - see wikibooks

[edit] The section presently called: Common types of visual art

These are a collection of art related terms. Some are at movements (Conceptual art, Found art, Graffiti, Mail art, Installation art, Landscape art) some are techniques (Collage, Drawing, Mixed media, Painting, Photography, Printmaking, Sculpture), some are descriptive (Decorative art, Portraiture, Old master print). It is really a pretty meaningless hodgepodge of art related terms. I hope to get back to it and try to improve it, but for now I would like to just change the heading to "Art-Related terms in the Visual Arts." Bus stop 14:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you are editing to support your prejudices. Apostle12 19:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- I am only prejudiced in favor of clear use of language. If you want to take issue with what I said, why don't you instead try to tackle the individual points I've made, rather than making unnecessarily broad, sweeping, statements. For instance, do you take issue with any of the terms that I have placed in the category that I have referred to as "movements?" Same question with the category that I have referred to as "techniques." Same thing with the category I'm referring to as containing "descriptive" terms. What do you take issue with? I am not denying the significance of these terms. I am saying that I think it helps to bear in mind the type of term one is referring to. Bus stop 19:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that this list of "Art-related terms in the visual arts" could go on endlessly. That is why I am calling it "a pretty meaningless hodgepodge of art related terms." Bus stop 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This really relates to the overall categorization scheme of Visual arts. There was a promising discussion about sorting this out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts a couple of months ago, which in fact has just been archived, but it is intended to revive the topic. That addressed just these topics. At the moment the categories certainly aren't right, hence part of the reason for the hodge-podge. This should really be sorted out first. As an interim measure, I don't see calling say "Drawing" a "term in" rather than a "type of" art is a particular improvement. What would be useful is for people to check out the debate so far (mainly Archive item # 24), and revive the topic at that page, which is beginning to be more active. Johnbod 04:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visual Artists

Can you have an article about Visual Arts without working out how you are going to deal with the associated artists? (I've just noticed that there appears to be no mention of artists at all in the article)

And the reason I ask the question is I've just been looking at the article about Van Gogh - which is seems to be heavily biased towards a chronology of events (which fragments comment ion his artwork) and making sure all the wiki bits have been done - but just happens to miss out any significant summary sections about his drawings and paintings and the major influences on his work. It occurred to me that maybe there needs to be a template for how the biographies of artists are dealt with - which ensures that the summarised version focuses on the visual arts part of their life as well as their comings and goings and medical records.

Maybe this has been discussed somewhere else and I just haven't come across it yet? Cosmopolitancats 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If more should be said about a visual artist, it should be said on that particular page of the visual artist. I don't know that anyone could write an article on visual artists and know where to start or where to end. Oicumayberight 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Cosmopolitancats -- It is my experience that it is only individual passion that pushes things forward in this enterprise. Even if others disagree with you, I think it is worth your while to post what you think is missing. I never regret expressing what I sincerely feel needs to be read by others. Wikipedia will never be complete, in my opinion. I think one way of looking at the endeavor is that it is one of inclusion and exclusion. Since this article is about Visual arts, in general, I tend to feel that the exclusion of mention of all or many artists is a good thing, in order to focus on just the general category of Visual art. But you may have a good idea, concerning a template that articles could try to adhere to in trying to write articles about visual artists. One big problem though does come to mind: The construction of that template. It too would be an ongoing, changing, contentious thing. Therefore my inclination would be against your suggestion. But -- good suggestion. Maybe others have more intelligent input. Bus stop 01:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Oicumayberight - I'm not suggesting that this article cover all visual artists - that would naturally be impossible. But since this is the overarching article for visual arts I thought it might point would-be contributors towards places within wikipedia where they would find those visual artists and how to write about them (ie a template). Now I might be mixing up an article and a portal here - but one of the main difficulties I have with the whole of visual Arts is the lack of referencing of the existence of other 'relevant bits' of Wikipedia. In order to encourage people to contribute it needs lots of signposting to bits that help.
Bus stop I'm not sure a template need be contentious although doubtless those that like to debate these things will have a jolly good go at making it so. So how about a "How to improve how you write about artists" page instead?" Picking away at the bits instead of getting a grip of the big issues will only make improvement slower than it need be. Aren't we supposed to "Be Bold" ? Cosmopolitancats 02:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There is the category page that lists the artist. You could point to that. As for the writing style and structure, it wouldn't hurt to write a wikipedia essay and link it in the visual arts project page. The only problem I see would be trying to get everyone to conform. Artists are non-conformists by nature. Oicumayberight 02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'd like to suggest the latter sentence might be rather more fallacy than fact - as detailed insight into actual working practices often reveals. Also, I;d hazard a guess that it's more likely that art historians will contribute on artist biographies rather than artists. Cosmopolitancats 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a draft "Visual arts Manual of Style" - link from the Project talk page. Johnbod 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraphs

At the moment there's a statement awaiting citation about the distinction between 'elitist' modernism and the Arts and Crafts Movement. Clement Greenberg's 1939 article Avant-Garde and Kitsch defends the elite, or rather criticises them for their retreat: "But today such culture [the avant-garde] is being abandoned by those to whom it actually belongs - our ruling class." I haven't included the citation because this opens up whole other areas of debate (many of which are historically specific and outside the scope of this general article). A section could be added on the history of the art/craft distinction (going right back to Cellini and the artisan/artists of the Italian Renaissance and moving through 'art-for-art's-sake' to present day disputes), but this would I think be innapropriate given the general overview of the rest of the article. The art/craft distinction (or not) is important to indicate briefly in the lead paragraphs, but I think the reference to the Arts and Crafts movement is sufficient - especially given the title of the movement. It's the reference to modernism that is misleading, giving the impression that these are the only two contrasting views on the topic.--Ethicoaestheticist 15:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference to modernism is misleading? I'm not sure if I understand you. You are objecting to modernism being contrasted to craft? Bus stop 16:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop, my objection is that the reader would be under the the impression that the Arts and Crafts movement and modernism are the only two contrasting views on the art/craft distinction. Looking at the article again, I think the problem is in the wording. Here are the sentences from the article:

"The distinction was emphasized by artists of the Arts and Crafts movement who valued vernacular art forms as much as high forms. The movement contrasted with modernists who sought to withhold the high arts from the masses by keeping them esoteric.[citation needed] "

Over-looking the anachronism that the Arts and Crafts movement was 'contrasted' with the (later) modernists, and the assertion that the movement emphasised the art/craft distinction when earlier sentences claim that it did away with it, the most significant problem is that 'contrasted' has been placed in the wrong place, leading to ambiguity. It gives the impression that the movement and modernism were, in totality, contrasted, and isn't clear about the nature of the contrast. Is the contrast in the relative importance given to art v craft? Or that one group was democratic, the other elitist? Or that one group held an art/craft distinction and the other didn't, and if so, which is which? Here's a possible rewrite which would clarify where the 'contrast' is between the two positions and also avoid giving the impression that they were the only positions adopted.

"The Arts and Crafts movement valued vernacular art forms as much as high forms. Modernists, maintaining the art/craft distinction, valued the high art forms over the vernacular."--Ethicoaestheticist 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethicoaestheticist -- It is a very complex relationship. It is those who advocate for the value of the vernacular (craft) art forms who seek inclusion in the upper stratosphere reserved for fine art, not the other way around. It is never (in history) that fine art covets the place that craft possesses. (Correct me if I am wrong about that. I'm no art historian or expert about any of this.) Therefore the Arts and Craft movement is just another affirmation of the exalted status of fine art. The modernists may have endeavored to maintain an art/craft distinction. But I don't think the distinction could be done away with no matter what. We are always dealing with the exalted status of fine art. Whether or not craft is allowed entry is just a trend. Furthermore the craft that was granted entry was a cut above the run of the mill variety. Again, it had to aspire to the qualities associated with fine art. I hope I'm even addressing the question you are raising. I just thought I'd comment because it I find it an interesting topic. Bus stop 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bus stopYes, some interesting observations. While cruising the wiki art articles I always seem drawn back to classificatory disputes about art, which always seem to be the most interesting features. By the way, I seem to remember Marlene Dumas saying something about aspiring in her work to the condensed power of a pop song. It all depends on what you mean by 'craft' I suppose. Craft = skill, or craft = vernacular. Oh well, a bit outside the scope of this article!--Ethicoaestheticist 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)