Portal talk:The arts/Categories

message: Here's my suggested breakdown of categories. 
*Arts
**Literature
**Performing arts
***Dance
***Film
By Bibek Chaulagain Spiky Heaven  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.139.232 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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  22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I'd say conceptual and performance art on the same level as visual, literature. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggestion for sorting cats

message: 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  22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say conceptual and performance art on the same level as visual, literature. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Conceptual art]]?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A new category scheme

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Talk 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comics

message: 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?
* :Category:African art -> :Category:Visual arts in the African world
* :Category:Asian art -> :Category:Visual arts in the Asian world
* :Category:Western art -> :Category:Visual arts in the Western world
Or should we recategorise by nation or continent instead? Hiding Talk 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  See [] - 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)
thread_title: Looking ahead

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Main Cat and Articles

message: This category is now up for renaming here. Please vote! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:The arts by country]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts/Categorization

message: 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)
thread_title:  Art market 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Categorisation within Visual Arts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's on CfD now. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ganymead, I've also deleted it from the table. - Kleinzach 21:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Arts?

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