Talk:Op art

message: In the article's first paragraph it says, "Op art is also referred to as geometric abstraction and hard-edge abstraction, although the preferred term for it is perceptual abstraction." I'm not sure that the preferred term is "perceptual abstraction." I think the preferred term is "Op art." If it is referred to as "geometric abstraction" or "hard edge abstraction," those would be descriptive terms, not the name of the art movement. Bus stop 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've revised the edit, based on checking the Responsive Eye catalogue and the books cited on Schmidt's entry about his involvement in the RE show.
Antonio Giusti 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re Schmidt

message: Sorry to see the list go -- can't it be "sourced" (I'm not sure what that means -- some of these artists have Wikipedia links, no?) so it's not prone to abuse?
Antonio Giusti 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my main issue is that anyone notable should be discussed within the text which eliminates the need for a list. If you're part of the history, something should be actually written about you within the article. Having said that, I'm sure there are exceptions. The list in the article seemed worse than others for so many red links (and I realize there is a line of thinking that says that red links represent areas which need expanding). If someone wants to put a list back, I'm not going to oppose it. But can we at least put some sort of context around it, and not just list names. Freshacconci 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List?

message: This article makes use of inconsistent spelling when writing the term "op art". Examples of variations include "Op art", "Op-Art" and "op art". Assuming only one of them is correct, it should be used consistently throughout the article. SharkD (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2009 (     UTC)
thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.59.218 (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent spelling 

message: What Laszlo Moholy-Nagy’s Op art was not art it was a training exercise, this is a common misconception, and so someone should mention that he did not create Photographic Op art. It even predated the invention of Op art. There’s a photographer/artist who makes Op art, here is a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCxvmLBVdBA
I do not have time to correct it right now as I have a deadline to meet so I deleted the photographic op art section so that it would not be incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.134.218 (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photography Incorrect 

message: The definition of Op Art as using Optical Illusions seems needlessly narrow to me.  Some Op Art pieces employ optical illusions, but not all. I like Martin Gardner's description (from his 1971 column in Scientific American). "a form of hard-edge abstractionism ...  It's distinguishing feature is a strong emphasis on mathematical order."
204.128.192.33 (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Under section "Method of operation", subsection "Black-and-white and the figure-ground relationship", it reads:
"As Goethe demonstrates in his treatise Theory of Colours, at the edge where light and dark meet, color arises because lightness and darkness are the two central properties in the creation of color."
I'm sure there has to be a better explanation in line with our current understanding about light and perception. Goethe's theory uses an outdated model not in line with current physics, biology, etc. --Calsioro (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Theory of Colour