Talk:Classificatory disputes about art

message: The question of whether computer games are art is an interesting question if one wants to understand the place of computer games within the broader cultural context. It is not a very interesting question in terms of understanding the meaning of art. The section certainly does not establish notability in terms of this discussion constituting a significant classificatory dispute about art. I do not believe that it is, and I don't think this section belongs on the page.
Whether role playing games are art is a not especially interesting question as regards role playing games. In terms of a definition of art, it is utterly irrelevant. While the paragraph does cite two writers in favour of such games being classified as art, and one against, this is insufficient to establish that this constitutes a notable classificatory dispute about art. Surely notability would require someone to at least be writing about the dispute.
Role playing games are certainly not the subject of a notable classificatory dispute about art. I have removed the paragraph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.46.75 (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they should be considered art either, but whether they actually are is not for us to decide; we just need the article to say what disputes there are. There is currently a dispute as to whether video games should be classified as art so that should be represented here. That said, I have no strong opinion about whether the role-playing game dispute is important enough and I don't disagree with any of the edits you've made so far. Recury (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role-playing games and computer games 

message: At the moment I like "Film critic Roger Ebert, for example, has gone on record claiming that video games are not art, and for structural reasons will always be inferior to cinema" but I think that the argument of Kojima should be integrated, as well as Crawford and Klosterman. My first language isn't English, which may or not be the reason, but while I don't generally have difficulty writing in English, but I had a hard time trying to give a brief idea of Kojima's thoughts.
Keep up the work, it looks great. --A Sunshade Lust 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for video games 

message: Tyrenius-- I will concede that the sentence is nicer with the change you made. But it doesn't as well illustrate the possibilities of "classificatory disputes about art." Bus stop 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the definite statement is a more accurate representation of the current critical consensus. "Should be considered" indicates a reservation which is not present and is therefore slightly misleading. But I don't think it's a major issue. Tyrenius 18:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the point that you are concerned with is shown by the fact that previously these things weren't considered art. It shows the evaluation can change, and certainly by implication that there was a contest about this at some stage, though this isn't stated as such. Tyrenius 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Paintings of Picasso Are Art 

message: The examples currently listed in this section are not noteworthy in art historical terms. These stories gained some notoriety within the UK in the late 90s until the present time due to Britain's right wing tabloid media, which also tends to retain a philistine attitude to contemporary art. To state those arguments here is to give them unfair credence and to slant the article in a very British direction. None of the artworks mentioned in this list is disputed in terms of their status as art. The only serious, credible issue has been whether they are art historically significant.
Zeneka 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's unclear how this section contributes to the article. Ditto discussion of YBAs (who are post-conceptualists). By the mid-1960s radical experimentation was de rigeur and generally, the issues raised by Conceptualism concerned politics, beauty, the definitions of art, and more - but not the "classification" of it. Recommend reframing or simply remove. Aolivex (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent examples of disputed conceptual art 

message: :Image:Vampmasq.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
— Save_Us_229 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Vampmasq.jpg

message: :Image:Sons big boss.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sons big boss.JPG

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Classificatory disputes about art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619125645/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=answerman&date=20051127 to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN&date=20051127
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017050011/http://kotaku.com/150043/kojima-says-games-are-not-art to http://kotaku.com/150043/kojima-says-games-are-not-art
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified