Talk:Art world

message: This article is linked as something for SCENE. I would like for there to be a page FOR scenes in the sense of people associated with something. I can see where the person who made the link was coming from and I appreciate it. Corrupt one 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the difference? Hyacinth (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scenes 

message: This is going to be refined by german wikipedia! Best!--Aquilinae (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is going to be refined by german wikipedia! 

message: This article should be deleted. It is too poorly focussed. The term "art world" is used loosely and means very little. It is not the sort of term that would ever be defined anywhere. It is a term that is used, but its meaning depends on its context. Bus stop (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wait and calm down, this will be an intersting article and please help to work on this! Best Regards from Berlin--Aquilinae (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The attempt to write this article is an exercise in futility. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  should be deleted 

message: I'm surprised that no mention is made of Arthur Danto's essay The Artworld Danto, Arthur. “The Artworld.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 61, no. 19, 1964, pp. 571–584. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2022937.
 Mduvekot (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: An entire section "Art theory" about Danto was "commented out", I have restored it.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was completely incoherent, and Danto's essay isn't really about the art world in the plain sense of the term (which at one point he was, absurdly, credited in the article with inventing).  This sort of subject really belongs at Classificatory disputes about art (currently lacking Danto etc) or art. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Danto 

message: I was going to concur in the deletion of this article since it has little content except a statement that "art world" has no coherent meaning that would make it a fit topic for a WP article. However, a bit of research found many references that use the term, so a rewrite is in order.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly needs expansion, but should try to avoid an excessive emphasis on today's (or yesterday's) New York high-end contemporary art scene, or on "what is art, and who says so" issues.  There are plenty of sources. A useful approach might be to consider the various main components, other than the artists: art dealer, auction houses, art critics and art collectors.  None of these articles are that good. Also there should be some coverage of the economic size of the art world, and its history.  I don't think it would be hard to find later references using the term as far back as the mid-17th century - Rembrandt's Amsterdam certainly had an art world.  Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, The Rijksmuseum says so! Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Other fashionable & patently untrue stuff like "Prior to that time, the visual arts were not distinct from crafts that were both useful and decorative.[2]" needs to go too. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

text: There are loads of references on other art worlds - really, you just have to look. In fact Dutch Golden Age painting was precisely when artists began to paint without commissions (not portraits obviously), selling through art fairs, dealers, and at their own studios.  In fact Amsterdam in say 1660 was arguably more like London or New York today in this respect than any city in 1760.  The 18th-century saw the introduction of press art critics and salons, both features that are far less important in recent decades than they used to be.  Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For example: gbooks search on "Victorian art world". Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The lede says the art world is continually changing in response to social change. Isn't every world continually changing in response to social change? Or is this particularly the case concerning the art world? Bus stop (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The full quote is "The art world(s) are continually changing in response both to the creativity of those that create art and in response to social change." The combination of creativity and social factors amplify the rate of change in the art world.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But even the "creativity of those that create art" is not known to "respon[d] to social change", or at least not more than corresponding changes in other areas of life. For instance, does cooking respond less to social change than art? Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine art enjoys a special status in that it has no function beyond the value placed upon it by the collective judgement of the art world, which being small changes more easily than society in general. There is no comparison to be made between art and cooking unless you mean haute cuisine, which elevates food preparation to an art form, with its own art world of culinary schools, food critics, consultants, promoters and exemplary practitioners (chefs), whether old school or avant garde.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The usual criticism of today's high-end art world is that it is very largely insulated from social change, & exists in a plutocratic bubble. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WriterArtistDC—you say "Fine art enjoys a special status in that it has no function beyond the value placed upon it by the collective judgement of the art world, which being small changes more easily than society in general." But it is not the "collective judgement of the art world" that matters here. If art is resistant to change or if art readily changes, that would primarily be a function of works of art, which are of course produced by artists, so I don't know why you are talking about "the collective judgement of the art world". Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes, the art world is "driven by artwork." Yes, it is true that "Individuals may call themselves "artists" and create "art" but the art world may or may not accept it as Fine Art", but the art world cannot even consider for inclusion in the collection of things considered fine art anything that does not exist. Is the art world going to introduce a urinal to that collection of things that are considered fine art? Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Duchamp's "Fountain" was accepted by the art world as fine art, not only for itself but as the exemplar for all the "found objects" and conceptual works that followed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The art world is . Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned rewrite 

message: I am re-reading Becker, and adding the sections of roles in the art world incrementally. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization and new sections