Talk:Art/Archive 1

message: This article really needs work Sanjay Diwakar.
I am very tempted to remove all the quotes about art.  They aren't even about art, per se--e.g., the quotation about impressionism.  What is the point of having a list of quotations in an encyclopedia article?
::And the quote on surrealism is a oversimiplification/distortion of surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 
Philosophy of art is very much concerned with definitions of "art," and if there is one thing that is clear on this subject, it is that there is no single way to characterize art that everyone will be willing to agree upon.  Therefore, the notion of a Wikipedia article starting out declaring, "Listen up, people, this is what 'art' means" is frankly ridiculous.
: The notion of Wikipedia telling somebody about what anything means is ridiculous. You think YOU can tell ME what a tree is? Or wine? As a freshman linguistics student I got quite a surprise when several professors told me that the subject of my studies, language, could not clearly be defined. Yet, Wikipedia has managed to build an entry that does exactly that.
: Of course, the art literati are overjoyed by the notion that their 'thing' defies definition, that it is too mystical to be described. But art can and should be defined. The difficulty of this task stems probably from everybody having an opinion about art. Unfortunately, although I have an opinion about art, I cannot present any facts about. Fortunately, though, Wikipedia is all about opinions, and somebody more versed in the world of art than me should be able to present a few of the more sensible ones. branko
::It's that "a few" which is the whole point - it's not that nobody has ever definied art, or that it's an impossible task to even attempt. The point is that we can't give a single definition, because people just can't agree on one. Different people have different ideas about what should and should not be described as "art". By the way, questions of definition should be dealt with at definition of art. --Camembert
Anyway, this article about art should, at least, (1) give several paragraphs about different attempts to define "art" by leading philosophers, art historians, and artists--as well as observations about the very idea of giving a definition of "art"; (2) briefly characterize various art media and styles; (3) outline art history.
MichaelTinkler, help!!!
I'll try to work on this more later but I've got to work on some other stuff right now.  Unfortunately, it's easier to kvetch than it is to do actual work.  :-) --LMS
I like Larry's outline, but as I taught a seminar last spring in which we never came to a less than 20 minute definition of Art, I'm not sure I'm up to it! I rather like the 'short takes' as a cumulative non-definition. --MichaelTinkler
----
The page does not acknowledge found art in its definition. --65.174.35.65
----
Fails to deal with questions related to surrealist visual production and its relation to art; the subject with extra-aesthetic (in how the production of them was pursued) surrealist paintings, drawings and the like have to be dealt with very subtly.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:23, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff

message: Wow. Art is such a broad thing, shouldn't this just be a category/disambig page? How can we expect to cram everything about art into one page? It'd be madness. I was going to list all the different styles of art with explanations but that's kind of a futile endeavour, as I'm sure the pages already exist elsewhere. As it stands, this page is totally useless. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The future of this page

message: Art/Draft  -SV 14:11, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
I'd like to leave the lists of movements, materials etc in the article as they are in Poetry rather than linking out to them. More like a one-stop-shop- to find anything you want to know about art in the fewest clicks possible. Anyone got an opinion?Bmills 14:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that what :Category:Art is for? I guess it would be more useful if it were organized by topic instead of alphabetically, though. On a related note, what is that Art/Draft page SV linked to? -- Merphant 00:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict Draft 

message: * In ancient Greece, wasn't art combined with math and music and poetry and stuff? There is a page, Greek art (more accurately ancient Greek art that we could link to, although maybe this is best left in the art history section.
::Art history needs expanding on in the article, for sure. Bmills 07:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it's really relevant. Bmills 07:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quotes should go completely. Bmills 07:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc questions 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Art article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 10:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Art|Link suggestions]] 

message: Having looked at 'visual art' and 'Fine art' and found a fairly sad can of worms, which I attempted to straighten out (please have a look and wiki them) it was a delight to come to this page called 'Art'. 
A few small details aside - i think it now does a very fair job of tackling the subject. 
The Key point seems to be in its avoidance of dwelling on any specific form too much. we all know that the subject is huge and that the confusion of disciplines and sub categories is torturous, but that is exactly the reason that this page should avoid refering to any singular instance of art, instead it should be the doorway that leads off into music, drama, sculpture, visual arts, black arts, martial arts, and all the rest. once we are at those pages is the time to get more specific. so for this page the distinctions are pitched just about right.
I was especially heartened to see the mention of a need to see art from the perspective of producer, viewer and object. this really is an important step.
I have got one further aspect that is not represented though - I'll try it out on you guys here first.
that is art as a therapeutic activity as outlined by donald Kuspit.
he states that in addition to art production (technique or disipline) and appreciation(or critique) the very act of creating is of physical and mental benefit. in other words therapeutic. this is a contentious issue because it follows that the quality of the art (an important factor in  both production and appreciation) is of little importance to the person in the act of creating.
to give an example; a composer uses art to make a fantastic score for a film, we listen to the film score and we get something from it. these are the usual considerations - Kuspit would suggest that when we whistle we may attempt to get the film score right, or we may just make a god awfull noise but the act of making the sound ourselves in full control of the outcome is beneficial.
This sort of begins to fill in the strange survival and reproduction issue. if you take birth and death out of the equation all you are left with is existance, and existance consists almost entirely of experience. so to appreciate that which is other than yourself has the effect of confirming your existance - in a passive, I see it so I'm alive kind of way - but to produce and more than that to feel yourself produce confirms both your existance and your taking part in the world. it is utterly confirming. 
that is until someone else says that its rubbish.
OK so i mentioned that in a fairly subjective manner but I'd like to know if you think its worth an objective referenced entry.
DavidP 05:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art... 

message: Yeah - this article is a nightmare isn't it. Where do you start etc. Oh well, glad someone did anyway. Duncan Smith 15:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  tried a bit of copyediting! 

message: In Chinese Classical painting, what is to be captured by the artist is 'truth of natural forms' or 'spiritual essence', which is parallel to the Western concept of 'ideals' or 'forms'.
Poetry, calligraphy and painting are the ‘three perfections’ of the scholar-artist.  Painting and calligraphy are strongly linked skills.
Three ranks of painting: spiritual, marvelous, and competent.
"Form-likeness",  or conformity to visual reality, increases an image's spiritual likeness.
Chinese Classical arts affect change in society not through technology or novelty, but by resurrecting ancient truths.
Ancient arts should not become outmoded, while modern arts should not become decadent.
Classical Chinese arts are not purely secular.
A story:  A Chinese emperor commissioned a famous artists to paint him a picture of a fish.  The artist delayed giving the emperor his painting; he always said that it wasn't ready yet.  After a year, the impatient Emperor went to the artist, demanding his painting.  The artist sat on the floor with a paintbrush and paper, and with one motion of his hand, painted a masterpiece fish.  The Emperor, angry, demanded why the artist delayed giving him his painting.  The artist, silently, opened a closet door, and thousands of paintings of fish fell to the floor.
Types of landscapes:  places to see, places to play in, places to live in, and heavenly places.
:good stuff yes, but what you are refering to here is mainly pertinent to painting, a branch of the visual arts that has its own page (yes even caligraphy and to some extent poetry in the context you discribe). More to the point this is expressed in some very wooly phrases. 
:another classical chinese art form is ceramics, and its preoccupation with glazes is more akin to chemistry as we know it, the intention of the ceramicist being expresion of a mood - so you see art is not just about representation. however this page is about art, there is perhaps a need to cover spiruality as an issue (in fact in reference to kandinsky it is almost essential) but it would help greatly if we could just manage to come up with a scheme that would allow for the subject 'art' to be described in ALL of the other contexts with which it is associated. for instance.
*Art as a spiritual exercise - both the doing and the viewing
*art as an educational activity
*art as a therapeutic intervention
*art as a economic industry
*art as a practice
*art as an historical study - art history, anthropology, ethnology etc
*art as a pholosophical study - art theory, philosophy of art, etc
*art as a political instrument - early soviet policies, american government funding, iconoclasm, etc
*art as a cultural imperative - elgin marbles, national association with various styles and movements
:Of course there is a pressing need to relate all cultural outlooks to this subject, unfortunately just adding a list of nations and some isolated anecdotes wont begin to do justice to this universal phenomenon.  :DavidP 23:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: China

message: Islamic art is nonrepresentational; only God is beautiful, and this beauty is shown abstractly using signs.  Beauty is in the form, not the representation.
In Islamic art in general, and architecture in particular, beauty and utility are both inseparable.  Ugliness is uselessness.
Art should reflect the cosmic poetry, the logos of God in His creation of the world.
:again what is it about representation that is pertinent to art in its broader context? wether a work is caligraphic or mathematical as in abstract islamic deoration - it is still art. In the case of the common islamic patterns, beauty is not even in the form, as they are direct codifications of the  chapter numbers of the koran - so perhaps to say that 'classical islamic art was used as a method of illustrating gods work on earth' may have some relevance for antiquarian interests, it really doesnt help to shed any light on the works of Beirut film makers or the practice of artists such as Mona Hatoum.
:One final point. to say that Islamic art is nonrepresentational is, to put it mildly, a load of codswallop. It is true to say that fundamentalists proscribe the representation of humans and animals, but flowers and plants are valid subjects. But alongside this you should bear in mind that this stance is in the minority over the entire period of Islamic doctrine, just take a look at mughal painting, persian miniatures and of course the large output of contemporary Islamic artists. :DavidP 23:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam

message: Indian art is rich in symbolism and allegory.  Mystical and mythic associations enhance the beauty of an artwork.
Indian art needs to be seen in a spiritual light, emotions and intellect are insufficient for appreciating it.
An artist attempts to infuse his artwork with Rasa, the spirit or essence of the work.  The art patron strives to detect the Rasa.  Parts of Rasa are mood, determinants, consequents, and complementary emotional states, enduring emotional state, and involuntary bodily emotions.  The kinds of Rasa are erotic, comic, pathetic, furious, heroic,  terrible, odious, marvelous, and quiescent.  Rasa is not made, it is bestowed.
Traditional artists of India of emphasize aesthetics, which to them is a state of heightened awareness and empathic bliss, of a spiritual kind, beyond pleasure.
Dance, drama, and music are classically a single artform.
Classical Indian arts are inseparable from religion.
:which religion would that be then? Hindi, Sihk, Islamic, Bhudist, Christian, Ba'hai, Jain, Zoroastrians, Jews? Rasa is an Hindu concept associated with Krishna, is this the right page for it?
  :DavidP 23:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: India

message: Looking back on the two years of above comments -- if there is consensus on anything about this topic, it is that it's impossible to have one.
At the very beginning, Branko wrote:
: " if there is one thing that is clear on this subject, it is that there is no single way to characterize art that everyone will be willing to agree upon." 
Camembert concurred with:
:"The point is that we can't give a single definition, because people just can't agree on one. ".  
MichaelTinkler 
:" taught a seminar last spring in which we never came to a less than 20 minute definition of Art, I'm not sure I'm up to it! I rather like the 'short takes' as a cumulative non-definition"
So -- I'm inclined to agree with DavidP that:
:"there is an awfull lot to say about art, in all of its varied forms, but most of it can be said in the many sub-headings that we all know are just waiting to be filled. the point of this page is not to get hung up on detail but to define the concept and point to its intricacies through related links."
In defining that concept, I think marcusscotus has pointed in a useful direction:
:" I think that this may be a reason why it is so hard to define art nowadays: we are trying to define it on its own apparent terms instead of seeing it in terms of what it is defying." 
This would concur with DavidP who "somewhat timidly"  suggested that:
:" Art as we are attempting to define it, IS a western categorisation.
I suspect that  DavidP is being timid here because he wishes to be respectful towards the great arts and cultures of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc.  It appears from his discussion that he has studied and admired them --- so he still wants to say that art is a "universal phenomenon."
But I think that, encouaged by Wikipedia's prime directive to "be bold", we should recognize that even though every culture has cultivated various arts -- and even though many of us respond very strongly and positively to things from cultures not our own --- STILL --  a concept of art that would encompass all of them is a " western categorisation" that
emerged less than 300 years ago -- and as our Classical scholar, Marcuscotus has suggested, it is best understood for what it defies.
Hence -- the following paragraph that I offer as the entrance door into 
Wikipedia's entry for "art"  :
::Art is an  open-ended category of distinction, with its roots in  European Romanticism, that accompanied the global growth of a secular, industrialized, urbanized world. It may be applied to things or performances  and the distinction extends to those who made or found them.   There are no necessary or sufficient criteria for the items chosen other than the necessity of originality, although the choice is independant of original intention and use. It is a category that seeks diversity and  a narrative (art history) of liberation and exploration.
Since this notion is specific to a time and place -- I would also suggest that the time may come when it will be abandoned (except by die-hards) -- i.e. "art" will be dead.
A possible re- structure for this entry might be as follows:
:*a section on the history of European collections of non-European art  and the art theories that accompanied them
::*The humanism of the Hellenistic period -- the development of secular arts.
::*Rome as a polyglot culture - tolerating   the various arts and practices of the subject peoples -  maybe even encouraging that variety by allowing them to import their practice to the capital city.
::*Revival of  Hellenistic culture in 15th Century western Europe.
::*Revival of secular political ( Roman republican ) values in 17th and 18th Century  Europe (and colonies).
::*the romantic movement - emphasis on exoticism, personal vision,variety,human nature -- the concept of a human nature that is beyond human cultures.
::*Inclusion of ancient and non-European artifacts in art museums - Beginning with Egyptian sculpture into the British museum, 1760, -continuing with establishment of public Asian collections 1870.
::*Development of the avante garde- beginning 1863- the
explicit attempt to make art that is not yet recognized as such.
:*a section that would invite many  contributors -- perhaps through unedited outside links --to display the diversity of art notions being presented by living artists and those who collect them --  including those who pursue non-European traditions
:::(and let there be a  full diversity of opinion regarding "Defining art" and "Forms of  art" -- currently presented in Wikipedia's Section 2 -- each developed by its own advocates -- instead of pretending that there can be consensus on any of these issues)
::::--Mountshang 14:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Conclusions and new directions'''

message: The page 'art' is begining to look better, but it is almost exclusively focused on a single definition of the word.
There are others that perhaps should be disambiguated before the first paragraph here.
(The OED is a useful source here as it also gives dates of first recorded usage in English). it records art as steming from latin 'ar' - to put together, join, fit.
:1 Art: Skill as a result of knowledge and practise.
:2 Art: Human skill as opposed to nature
:3 Art: the learning of the classical schools also known as the trivium: Grammar, logic and rhetoric. (first use 1573)
:4 Art: Technical or professional skill, ie artful (first use 1588)
:5 Art: perfection of workmanship or execution as an object in itself (first use 1620)
:6 Art: skill applied to the arts of imitation and design (first use 1668)
This list shows that our efforts here are mainly aimed at the last definition. 
It is probably the most common form of use, but the 3rd 4th and 5th really should be represented on this page without reference to the visual arts.
the list also helps to clarify some of the seemingly irreconsilable misconstructions that are common on this page. martial arts for instance make sense when seen in the sense of perfection of execution, but make a horrible mess when we try to shoehorn it into our (visual art or even arts)biased text.
DavidP 16:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art - does it need a bit of disambig? 

message: #a new opening paragraph -indicating art as an historical concept rather than a category concerning which there is any consensus.
#a section on the history of the concept --it's foundations in the classical tradition -- then it's development over the past 200 years
#a section on the relevant issues of today -which is an (unedited) copy of what was already on the Wikipedia page. Nothing was added -- nothing was removed  (except for the opening paragraph)
#all the other sections also remain unchanged --except that I moved the reference to martial arts from the end of the article to the beginning.
I think the value of this page -- and the value of Wikipedia in general -- is as a handy reference center for a subject -- so I'd like to see this page grow with
links to outside sites and a bibliography attached to EACH  topic of discussion.
:::--Mountshang 16:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The changes I've made today are as follows:

message: Could:
::When accompanied by a specific purpose, art is a supposedly superior way of cultivating knowledge and skill in order of entertaining that goal. 
be replaced by:
::When accompanied by a specific purpose, art is a demonstrably superior way of fulfilling it with the cultivation of specific knowledge and skills.
(since a claim that X is an art implies that it
can be demonstrated (not just 'supposed') that it 'fulfills' (not just entertains) a certain goal - even if the preference for that goal is assumed.)
Could the following be eliminated ?: 
::Interpersonal communication is the implied purpose when no other is specified
(since I'm doubting this is accurate. For example, if
someone says about an unknown person,"She's a real artist", all that you know is that she's really good at doing SOMETHING -- which may or may not involve interpersonal communication)
Mountshang 14:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: edits made in first paragraph

message: Just gave the page a major overhaul - what was with all the empty titles and the bullet points?  Surely an encyclopedia entry must make at least some nod towards conventional prose?  I've removed several exclusionary statements from the intro (such as 'necessary or sufficient criteria for the items chosen other than the necessity of originality'), and some bizarre categorisations ('european' and 'non-european' - am odd distinction for a language elsewhere described as universal).  The extension of art does not extend to those who make, find, exhibit or own them.  Since when is the owner of art also art?
Art did not come about in Romatic Europe - cave paintings are unarguably art, and are millenia in age.  This introduction was far, far too restrictive.
This article needs a hell of a lot of work.  Perhaps some talk of theories in art.  The difficulty is in keeping it elastic enough to cover the creative process in general, and still able to cover the basics of the various forms of art.  Perhaps some could put in some important theories of art?  I've started with Plato and Aristotle, anyone else help out?
Visual Error 22:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Overhaul

message: Thankyou for your generous  reply, VE.
We both agree that the page for "Art" is a work-in-progress ---- needs a lot of work -- and I'm guessing that it will  be constantly (and properly) revised for as long as Wikipedia lasts on the internet.
We can also agree that my previous entry was too rough / too unfinished for publication --
so I have no problem with you replacing it --- but I do have a problem with the text that replaced it.
If I understand you correctly,  most of that text was written by someone else and you
don't necessarily agree with it.  So could I ask you to remove those parts which you do not find acceptable  -- and then we can begin to discuss those parts with which you do agree ?
And ---  might we consider fundamentally changing how we use this discussion page ?
Under current usage --- it seems to be a ongoing chronicle of every opinion that was ever sent to it.
Could we transform -- and structure -- it into a forum of on-going issues ?
The current contents will ( as always)  be saved in the History archive -- and a link could be put on the new page to send newcomers who want to look at it.
Then we might structure an ongoing discussion page as follows:
:== Discussion of the Introductory paragraphs ==
:(a topic that interests all of us)
:==Discussion of Current generally accepted characteristics of art==
:(a topic that interests you and many others)
:==Discussion of the History of the Idea of art==
:(a topic that interests me -- and hopefully a few others)
As parts of these discussions lead to acceptable text -- they could be transferred to the Article page.
Then periodically -- maybe twice a year ? -- the whole discussion page would be sent to History -- a link put on the replacement page so new people can find it -- and
a new structure for discussion created fit for whoever is currently working on the topic.
Is there any other topic in Wikipedia as contentious as "Art" ? 
Is any other article vandalized daily by some teenage prankster who replaces it with acronyms ? Is there any other topic as vast -- since, unlike poetry or music -- we have things that some of us  call art that span 40,000 years from thousands of different cultures.  What are the limits of expertise on this topic ?  How much can one person see ? How much can one person know ? Even those who are acknowledged to be experts in specific artists or genres can only be trusted on a limited range of questions, mostly  concerning identification or monetary value.  Questions that concern meaning or other kinds of value (other than monetary)  seem to defy expertise by defying consensus.  We certainly do have people who have been vetted as experts -- and they staff art museums and universities -- but what is the real extent of their expertise when fashions in opinion change so rapidly ?  Or if -- as some experts say -- art is dead or art is institutionally determined -- what kind of expertise is possible at all ?
So I don't think we need to wait for experts to appear --we just need to present a structure so that people who know something/anything can  contribute what they can.
Mountshang 17:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Proposal regarding this discussion page

message: There has been a page called "Arts" around for a while.  It purports to be a disambiguation page, but it spends most of its space trying to define "Art".  The whole singular plural thing is ridiculous.  After the merge, "Arts" will be a redirect to "Art". -- fairplay 05:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please just pick up the content from the history of "Arts".  This one is obvious.  It is now a redirect. I also copied in the verbiage from the "Art" Category.  We need ONE definition of "Art" and this is the page for that definition.  ONE disambig page for Art and redirects for all the plural and variations of the word Art.  Again, review the old versions to pick up any content of value. -- fairplay 06:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between the terms; art is more often used to describe painting/drawing etc. while 'arts' is often used to mean the broader meaning with language, music etc. Technically they are the same thing, but in popular usage the meaning is different I think. And at universities a "degree in arts" usually means a general degree with history etc. but a "degree in art" implies art school. To make the old 'arts' page easier to find - here it is -- Cfitzart 08:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergefrom 

message: Can anyone cite a use of "ars" in Latin literature where it refers to an arrangement that is random, has no identifiable purpose,  and does not require some specific knowledge or skill ? 
Is anyone aware of "ars" referring to a deliberate
arrangement by nature (rather than by human or divine
agency) ?  (as the word "tao" in Mandarin may refer to all three)
Mountshang 16:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions in Etymology