Talk:Horror vacui (art)

message: Are we certain that this entry is spelled correctly? Should this phrase actually be spelled "Horror vacuui"? 
Regayov (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Plenism redirects here. Although that's obviously related to plenum, it's not listed in my 1928 OED. Does anyone have a cite for it? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It seems that the derivation is coming from philosophy, more than physics. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like it's from the time when they were the same thing. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. If it were current back then, I'd expect to see a cite in the OED. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plenism]] 

message: Shouldn't the section on the philosophical meaning be split into a separate article? --kAtremer (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, & it's physics, not philosophy. Done. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: From one of the captions: "Former mental patients such as Neil C.K.R. feature elements of horror vacui prominently in their work."
Two issues.  First, the sentence is a sweeping and unsubstantiated generalization that is assuming the inverse of an idea in the article.  The article suggests that horror vacui can often come from or be inspired by mental patients, whereas the caption suggests that horror vacui is a common and prominent feature of any art by any (former) mental patient.  It seems like a bit of a logical disconnect.  
Second, the artist used as an example is a living artist (unless there is another artist Neil C.K.R. other than this one, which I rather doubt) who, as far as I can glean, does not meet notability.  I am aware that notability applies more to whether or not a given topic merits a separate article, but even if the caption is kept, the red link to Neil C.K.R. seems unnecessary.  There is no reason that I can think of for the artist to be used as a singular example of the phenomenon discussed by the article.  The artist is but one example of an artist that fits the statement (in theory, anyways) and is not particularly useful for providing context.  I mean, I'm starting to trip over my words here, but you probably get what I'm talking about, right?  Is there any reason that the picture/caption should actually be kept?  Even if it isn't found to be otherwise unencyclopedic to include Neil C.K.R. as an example, the statement itself seems to be a fallacious assumption, based on ideas from the article but not really related.  And even if the statement proves to actually be the case, there should be more (and more notable) evidence of such included in the article.  In fact, I would even go so far as to say the article on the whole needs more evidence of horror vacui frequently being the art of mental patients.  (Did that sentence make sense?)  ʎəɹSquaredⓉⒸ 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've cut that pic as too obscure & in B&W, & softened the claims. I believe the connection is documented, though we could do with refs. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mental patients"? 

message: Does anyone havce a source for E. H. Gomrich's statement that horror vacui is a misnomer, particularly for more primitive art?  If I remember rightly he suggests that the quality in question is not a fear of empty space, but rather a love or delight in drawing. Mddietz (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gombrich 

message: I dont think this has much do whit art at all, minor topic in whole thing. This is all about VACUUM, what is phy-sics.(!!!)Claustrophobia has nothing to do whit physics, sound silly to call phobias some latin based phycal law, what much higher science, highly developed atomic theory already at ancient phy-sic(!). More about criminology where evil fills empty please in soul,how criminals describe systematically automatism (pattern what they all repeat)
in psyche when they do bad, example planing murder, and process it. But still language how you talk about it is not from physics, it is from medical science and sociological fact. Phy-sic(!) knows horror vacui as law of empty space what is filled by (matter's quality) phycal law. Classical example is water, when object hits to water it makes empty space above it, it is filled by water around, object doesent leave empty space above it when it drops to bottom of vessel, and water level rises same amount than object takes please. Sand and water is easier to understand, you take hand full of sand from ground and empty what it leaves pl is filled by water and sand. In atomic physic this is meaningful actual fact, you cant take away and leave empty space because horror vacui - law stops it. Law of filling empty space undone emptiness, when we go atom theories we really dont have such thing than empty space only in vacuum.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.204.169 (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  law of horror vacui