Talk:Visionary art

message: Theres a lot of vandalism on this page. I notice for intstance someone has removed the hyperlinks from several websites, including The Visionary Revue and Lila.info. These have been restored.
The spirit of visionary art is cooperation and co-support, not suppression or slander. Nor should the wikipedia entry be used for too much self promotion. For instance, a group calling themselves Multimedia Layerists put themselves at the top of the networks and organisations entry. Of course its fine to put ones project in, but right at the top ? Hows about a bit of humility ?
I recently had a mentions of myself and the Lila project (the author of most of the content on this page) removed, which I feel is unfair. I am not using this page to self promote, but it happens that my website is one of the largest repositories of visionary art theory and interviews with visionary artists on the internet. I have also contributed work to several visionary art journals. This just happens to be how it is, and a mention of the Lila project and my work is fair enough, because I use it primarily to promote other artists.
So anyone modifying this page I ask, lets cultivate respect and integrity...
Danielmirante 18:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very Sad

message: the Klarwein painting used to represent visoinary art at the top of the entry also gets used at the top of the Psychedelic art entry. seems a little redundant to have this in both entries. certainly a great piece of art, though. preferably, we could have some art, that, while visionary, most people *wouldn't* qualify as psychedelic. (Ernst Fuchs, for example.) ***Ria777 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: choice of art used

message: Can this redirect to outsider art, with a discussion of the subtle differences in terms (while they describe the same art, basically, the difference is in emphasis), or does "visionary art" really have enough to say about itself as a category? I'd think seriously about making it a redirect. Philthecow 23:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've made a redirect, it was removed without comment.  Please explain why you'd like this to stay if you want to remove this redirect, oh person who does this. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect to outsider art

message: I hate to delete someone else's work, but this page starts with what, for me, is a completely false assertion:
"Visionary art is art produced by self-taught individuals, usually without formal training, whose works arise from an innate personal vision that revels foremost in the creative act itself."
You only need to look at the work of the visionary artists cited as examples; H. R. Giger, Alex Grey, Mati Klarwein, to realise that this is plain untrue.
The author seems to be referring to a very American specific subgenre of visionary art and seems to be promoting a particularly narrow view of what visionary art is - taken from this site:
http://www.avam.org/stuff/whatsvis.html 
Take a look at the wide range of art at the society for art of imagination ( http://www.artofimagination.org/Pages/MemberArt.html  - does this look like it has been done by self taught individuals, without formal training?
The comments may, perhaps, to relate validly to 'outsider art', but are certainly not true of 'visionary art' in the broader sense.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PhilStein (talk • contribs) 08:26, March 7, 2006  (UTC)
:Perhaps the writer was only familiar with that sphere of visionary art, but yes, it is not exclusive to untrained artists. >>sparkit|TALK<< 05:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visionary versus Outsider Art 

message: I have removed all external links from this article relating to Example Artists.  I think that going by Notariety, it can be safely assumed that one must be meritorious of an article in order to be included.  Otherwise it bears the potential of being a link farm.  ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 17:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The example artists listed are extremely well known, recognised masters of their craft and strongly allied with the visionary art theme of this wiki. 
Several people have been coming to these pages and adding themselves to the list of visionary artists, without being humble and recognising that they do not have the widespread acknowledgement but are rather 'up and coming' or in the development phase as artists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielmirante (talk • contribs) 
:The "visionary art theme" you speak of smacks of unconscionable elitism. It is one thing to relay information. It is another to load a (supposedly) encyclopaedic article with so much bias that it becomes a self-parody of everything that is wrong with the exclusionary nature of the "high art" world. The quotation of the museum's definition of "visionary art" is shameful and embarrassing. People vandalize this page because they implicitly understand that it's nothing but a vulgar farce that is attempting to parade as an informative article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.109.100 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting to note that Mr. Mirante added his own name to the article's "Emerging Visionary Artists" list here, but the supporting article was deleted due to lack of notability after review at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Mirante.  --CliffC (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-promoting artists 

message: I see some passionate arguments here, but the question isn't who deserves what, it's what's verifiably true. Those who argue a particular case needn't do so with proper citations. Worries about this article becoming a forum for self promotion will disapear with the proper third party citations. 
Discrete facts seem particularly absent from the "Important" network and segregated artist list sections. In the absence of specific, inline citations, these sections seem to be clear violations of wp:nor. - JeffJonez (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: These points are still valid almost one year later. Organizations without a wikipedia article or significant mentions in credible sources should not be included. This information constitutes original research, which is a Bad Thing. Organizations like Lila and Laurence Caruna's Visionary Revue are both examples of links that need credible sources before they should be included in the article - JeffJonez (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I've just started Raw Vision from scratch (and from references), not using the previous content. Ty 12:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite it having been deleted - for having a link to its site in every para I think - the original article contains valuable info if it can be cited. Have you found the copy at my userspace: User:Trev_M/Raw_Vision?
Yes, I had found it. It was deleted with the reason "G12 (may be notable, but this content is spam)". The problem was the editorial opinion such as (from the first five paragraphs):
*a way to intelligently present art 
*a form of creation so strong and so spiritually charged 
*neglected creators of great quality and importance 
*It reflected the best international perspectives
This is original research as the only source apparent is the editor's own viewpoint. Everything needs to be sourced, as it is in the new article. See WP:REFB. Ty 13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline citations and third party citations needed

message: I question whether your addition of heading Definition is a best course at this early stage of the article. The para The Vienna School of Fantastic Realism... becomes out of context and needs yet another heading if you do this. There is very little verifiable content at this stage and almost too many headings. Would suggest create cited content then section it.   Trev M   ~   12:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Text moved to appropriate section. I don't see anything wrong with the current structure as a starting point. At least there's some organization in the article now, but it's obviously still not in a very good state, particularly because of the lack of inline citations. The first heading is needed to create a WP:LEAD section. Otherwise the Table of Contents comes halfway down the article. Ty 13:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Please avoid bold text: WP:TPG#YES. Ty 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I commented before you'd created Schools   - looks fine - I'll find some other way of more discretely refering to key points - italics are unsmoothed and almost unreadable on the browsers I use.   Trev M   ~   14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: Hi, just coming across this page and I'm confused on what is visionary art. In web search results it seems visionary art is a kind of cross between surreal/psychedelic/spiritual genres yet the AVAM states it as some sort of outsider art. There is some kind of disconnection in definitions. The quote in this article, which is on the avam website, says there, "Visionary art as defined for the purposes of the American Visionary Art Museum refers to art produced by self-taught individuals, usually without formal training, whose works...etc." Doesn't this mean that AVAM is defining visionary art for themselves? It seems Visionary art is more like the works of Alex Grey and such... --Turn685 (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  visionary art definition