Talk:History of ceramic art

message: *This article desperately needs to be either expanded or merged with Pottery. 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The STUB SCOPING discussion should be on the ceramic stub discussion page .... or on the stub renaming proposal page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion - no one will think to look here. Goldenrowley 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 1

message: *..I've made a start on expanding - could be a good article eventually... HeartofaDog 01:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Well, something needs to be done, so...

message: Hello HeartofaDog,
Thank you for your message. There is a need to improve the “ceramics-stub” as it is currently being used inappropriately and appears to have been casually attached to articles of little relevance. For example, two articles from which I removed the stub are:
*Engineering ceramics – the production of articles such as ballistic protection plates and the nose cones of rockets is nothing to do with art pottery or decorative arts 
*J. & G. Meakin – this company produced tableware, and I struggle to see how plates, mugs, cruet sets etc. can be classed as decorative arts. However should there be a Wikipedia policy of classifying such as decorative, and however much this is illogical, it should be more clearly explaned
I can think of four ways of resolving the current misuse are:
1. Only use the stub for art related ceramic articles
2. Re-write the ceramics (art)
3. Direct the stub to a disambiguation page such as ceramic
4. Direct the stub to ceramics
A re-write of ceramics (art) is needed anyway as there are errors, including:
1. ‘Ceramic art can be either made by hand or manufactured’ Items made by hand are, by definition, manufactured
2. ‘in most cases, ceramics various types of clay - processed, shaped and heated that can be molded.’ It is far too much of a generalisation to state ‘most cases’ 
3. ‘ancient word Karamos, meaning "potters clay."’ More specifically it’s Greek, and also the correctly spelling is keramos
4. ‘Ceramic materials take the form of either pottery (earthenware) or porcelain.’ is a grotesque simplification. Even for whiteware ceramics this ignores many different body types, and what about non-whiteware ceramics?
5. I personnally struggle to accept that ‘The oldest known ornamental ceramic in the world is the Venus of Dolní Věstonice’ as how is it possible to know the article was made to be ornamental. It may, for example, have been made for religious reasons; however it is not possible to know
Thanx,Theriac 13:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:User:Theriac]]

message: :I welcome Theriac's point of view, examining <S>ceramic</S> ^ceramics^ it is a disambig page and equally unclear about what ceramics are, so I do not recommend it to be the stub's main article.  The point of the stub is to put things into general baskets or topics, if you review the ceramic-stub nomination history and what it was nominated to do it is nominated for both fine and decorative art, mainly under decorative art, however pottery starts to branch into applied arts, but they share the stub because there were too few to have their own stub. If the "ceramic (art)" article is not the "best fit" we might find another article with a better fit to the stub, or else we can make this a better article...I vote make this a better article.  See also applied arts as reference material. Goldenrowley 18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:User:Goldenrowley]]

message: :*I am glad that these things have come up for debate, as the ceramics-related articles etc are overdue for a systematic re-think.
:*The ceramics-stub, as Goldenrowley says above, was made from the background of arts, but to be effective it seems to me also to need to cover ceramics as a material. That should be easy to achieve by adding the necessary over-categories to the stub itself.
:Even if that is not possible however, the definition of "art(s)" needs to be as wide as possible. Since many top-grade ceramic artists worked for some or all of their careers in the major factories, I don't see the sense in asserting that a porcelain or pottery factory cannot be stubbed with an "arts"-related stub. And once that is conceded, it is simply POV to claim that some factories are "artistic" and others are not. Who is to say?  Meakin's is an excellent illustration: I don't supppose anyone would ever claim that its products were "fine art": they are commercial pottery, but as such were designed to be attractive and useful, so what is the objection to counting them, and those like them, as applied arts? 
:*This article needs lots of improvement - there's no argument about that. What is here at the moment is only a preliminary attempt to widen it enough to make the stub workable. Individual points can easily be amended. We must however be clear about what the proper scope of the article needs to be. Especially if it is the defining article of the stub, I think it has to cover not only fine art ceramics, but ceramics under the umbrella of applied arts, in the wider household and tableware sense.
:*I agree with Goldenrowley that the best course at the moment is to work on making this a better article - the other options may cause more problems than they solve. My only concern is to keep it as wide in scope as possible. HeartofaDog 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that might make the problem worse, not better - the more this page appeasr to lean towards "art ceramics", the more difficult it is to deal with everything "applied arts" in the middle that is neither industrial nor "fine art". I would rather see this page as a counterweight to :Ceramic, which is about industrial and scientific uses, and have it deal with artistic AND domestic ceramics - I must admit, a concise title to cover that escapes me just at the moment. HeartofaDog 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Goldenrowley & HeartofaDog, I'm not sure about your proposal. Lumping bog-standard plates & cups with Art does not seem right. Would you consider the mug you may use in Starbucks to be Art? However if on Wikipedia tableware is considered to be decorative art (and personally I do not think they are) then surely tiles, toilets and wash basin should also be included as they are also decorative. I suggest renaming this page 'Whiteware Ceramics'. This is a recognised term for any ceramic article that was shaped from a body that contained a significant amount of clay. The page could include a quick description / summary with links to appropriate other articles which feature more detailTheriac 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Heartofadog, I've just had a look at :Ceramic. I can not agree with your description of it being 'about industrial and scientific uses' Yes the article does have a lot of detail about Engineering uses but the whole page seems to be trying to define and explain all uses of ceramics as a group of materials; which of course is a very big subject. The early parts of this page are relevant to applied / fine art ceramics as it tells readers what ceramics areTheriac 19:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HI think we should keep this page's topic "ceramic art"  not Whitewear Ceramics nor the clay composition, this would be as a complement to the other articles out there on ceramics. If (for this page only) I suggested table wear without any limitations that would be a mistake in overlapping with other articles. Goldenrowley 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heartofdog, I do not see ceramic art as only fine art, "art" has a very broad application and meaning in the art world, and artists design flatware, tableware, etc. I wouldnt classify a Starbucks Mug as art because they did not use an artist to design it, but I might classify something I saw in a craft show made by a local potter ? Goldenrowley 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take the point! and what I am thinking about is exactly that: something designed by a top range designer or painted by a first-rate decorator or modelled by a top-notch modeller, but produced by a good factory. I don't like Theriac's view that if something is made in a factory it cannot therefore be art, which seems to me far too narrow. Probably the answer is to have a separate but related article on :Ceramics (commercial production) or similar. Something I have been meaning to do for ages is to start off some lists of porcelain factories and commercial potteris, and that might be a good starting point for such an article.HeartofaDog 23:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:User:HeartofaDog]]

message: Hi Goldenrowley & HeartofaDog,
I've started with a new title as I begining to find it a little difficult to keep a track. I support HeartofaDog's suggestion to just have a "ceramics-stub"Theriac 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree I have a "generalist" viewpoint I would reade to see the article once written, but beyond what little I added, I don't know what else to say so I look forward to more from others. I see you want us to take the "is a toilet art" challenge ... anything that an artist says or thinks is art, is art, anything they did not consider art, is not.  At least thats how I learned itin school. I was going to hunt around and show you a ceramic toilet bowl by Robert Arneson, he's known to make art like that, but a factory toilet no, I draw the line... Goldenrowley 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And putting any joking aside, I thought  Wedgwood, Jasper ware and hummel are art due to the artists involved, and I thought its better to stub the factories as a related matter. I am not qualified to judge all the factories but I would think these 3 factories qualify, much can be said on the factory artists creating that lovely Wedgwood blue and art that decorates them, for example? Goldenrowley 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, in fact, about Wedgwood etc at one end of the scale and about factory toilets at the other (I will go away presently and google Robert Arneson for the art toilets - new to me!). The problem I was having was with a lot of the stuff in the middle, which is sort of art but not high art, and where the people involved are excellent commercial artists but maybe not "fine artists", and I could see endless discussions ahead factory by factory about whether they were "art" or not (and perhaps in any case I am confusing art with design). I'm not sure I can add much myself here either - but I hope that Theriac might add to the article, as he/she is clearly very knowledgeable (hint to Theriac!). HeartofaDog 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussing and sorting art into categories is natural and healthy work. It is okay to have discussions about the different levels of art and what is art. I guess I am not so worried about it. Theraic, the only reason I have not given an opinion on that one ceramic company you mentioned is I do not know their qualities....but are we safe to say that if a factory employs artists they are attempting to ceramic art or ceramic "craft"? I am thinking of Delft Blau ^Delftware^ that is sort of factorized but also employs many artists.  Goldenrowley 06:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The whole area of ceramics / porcelain / pottery etc badly needs re-thinking - it's quite a mess at present. You're right that the category shouldn't point here, not just for the reason you give but because this isn't IMO the right article. The category should point to a master article :Ceramics, and this one here - and a few others, perhaps as outlined by Theriac below - should slot in under that. But whether anyone with enough knowledge to do them properly is going to find the time... HeartofaDog 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Theriac 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Re Wikigender, I've left a note on your Talk page! Re the rest, it's clear that you have a good background in several aspects of ceramics. Anything you aren't personally familiar with, someone else can always add later - that's the whole point of Wikipedia articles. By all means suck it and see - Be Bold"! BTW, a search for "ceramics" already leads to a disambig page; and the existing article Ceramic is in effect the master article on ceramic materials. Why don't you cut your editing teeth on this one - there is not much here, so no-one is likely to be worried by your re-writing and expansion. Don't hesitate to ask if you need help or a second opinion. HeartofaDog 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next move?

message: Given the amount of discussion this article has engendered on quite wide ceramics issues, do people think there is scope here for a Ceramics project (or alternatively, is there perhaps a dormant Ceramics project that is worth reviving?) This talk page prob isn't the right place for any further general discussion, however. Please get in touch on my talk page if anyone think the project idea is worth a second look. HeartofaDog 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project?

message: Hello Guys, just to mention that when developing an article it's sometimes helpful to do this using a sandbox. For example I have one running at the moment, see User:N.Hopton/Sandbox where I'm working on a fragment for inclusion in the Chinese porcelain article. It's just a way of testing how things will look and work, away from the gaze of the multitude, but it's also a place where one can invite friends and invite them to comment. Regards, Nick. Nick 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandboxes

message: To discuss: Merge "fine art pot" page under "fine art" here. I always look at what other pages have before moving ahead and this seems like a good merge. Goldenrowley 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Goldenrowley. I have not strong feeling about the merger. But if it does happen then some editting would be needed: remove the ceramics (art) stub from many of the industrial companies it is currently attached to, remove the listing of Wedgwood, Jasperware, and Royal Doulton. Replace the Portland vase as the icon that is currently used for ceramics (art). ThanxTheriac 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I don't understand ...your talking about the stub again. The stub was recently refocused to be "ceramic art and design" with links to both those topics (art) and (design) so that people who like ceramic high quality designes are not left out in the cold of stub categories.... Now about this page: I am sorry I was no to clear on the suggestion: If you notice the page has 2 subsections one for fine art one for commercial art. I planned to keep the topics somewhat separate and I'd rather not delete one section just so "a fine art" section can be written. I was proposing to put the paragraph on "fine art pot" which seemed fairly well written but all on its lonesome under "fine art". This would be beter than having 2 articles both on the very same topic.  Goldenrowley 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mergers

message: Hi Goldenrowley, I think of this article as being yours or in any case as not being mine if you know what I mean. I've tried to put together some of the words at the head of the article in a slightly different form, see below.
This article is concerned with the ceramic arts and in scope covers ceramic works either made as objects of art or that are seen as being such. Works of ceramic art may be classified as fine art, decorative art, commercial art and might also be regarded as applied art. Objects of ceramic art may be made in small workshops and  studios, and in large  factories.
A simple utilitarian vessel hand-made by a potter five-thousand years ago might today be regarded as an object of art, as might a porcelain plate from an eighteenth century dinner service made in a large factory. Probably, neither vessel or plate were primarily created to be art, but both might be regarded as art today.   
The term ceramic is derived from the Greek keramikos; keramos, potter's clay or pottery; and is taken here in the sense of having to do with wares including pottery, porcelain, stoneware, earthenware and terra cotta.
You're welcome to use all, or none, of this. Regards, Nick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N.Hopton (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I am just a bashful beginner in ceramics and helping the page get off the ground. while your thoughts are very good on 1st paragraph... I would not bring in utilitarian vessel and dinner services ~as if~ they are art because of their age... rather to pay close attention to the meanings of "applied arts" and "fine art pot" compared to a "utilitarian pot" and "collectible" pot - which I wanted to do under "fine arts" but lack a good reference material. Goldenrowley 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, I had some energy so began to expand along the above lines. The stubs on different articles can be changed if needed, if they are not "art and design" related although one of them has a brand name, which means they tried to design and market a design.Goldenrowley 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Head material

message: Loses some of it's point since it's about art. Add pictures. 65.40.239.99 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello 65.40.239.99. I do not think anyone would disagree. But Wikipedia is a voluntary and a collaborative project, so perhaps you would like to "Add pictures" ThanxTheriac 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs pictures 

message: Hi all. I have just re-written the first part. As per Wikipedia's published advice I was being bold (-: I think it reads now better. Hope you agree. ThanxTheriac 18:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of sounding like an excited teenager it sounds fantastic now, thank you ! Goldenrowley 20:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Goldenrowley. Thanks. I do not think you sound like "an excited teenager", just an enthusiastic contributor. Through the combined efforts of all the article is gradually building. Lets keep it going! ThanxTheriac 08:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-wording introduction

message: If you have a look at the label in the Korean Girl picture I think you'll find that she's just a bit later than the early nineteenth century <grin>. Pure German, 50s, look at that face. Regards, Nick. Nick 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell if your kidding! On each picture, I just cut and pasted the exact caption from the wikicommons where I got these pictures and the photographer details are recorded. Goldenrowley 23:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok I guess since we don't know that we should change the picture. Goldenrowley 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Mm opinion is the "box" is a label to another display on the right not this display,  if you review up close... Orientalistm was in vogue about 1880, so it could be authentic. Goldenrowley 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean Girl

message: Delft blue is a brand name ceramic art. I collect it... let's put it back. " Today, Delfts Blauw is the brand name handpainted on the bottom of pieces, this simply means Delft blue in Dutch and identifies it as authentic and collectible." Goldenrowley 17:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Goldenrowley. Yes I know Delft Blue, but is it a brand in the same way the Doulton is, or a generic type such as majolica? ThanxTheriac 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I visited Delft, they are all hand painted by hired artists. Admittedly, some of the tourist shop ones are cheesy but the higher priced ones can be real art and in museums today. I could not be sure if it was a company or collective because the art shops are spread out (not all in once place) but it is a Delft design style. Goldenrowley 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Goldenrowley. I believe in connection with pottery that delft is a style rather than being unique to any one manufacturer, and so is not a brand. Have a look at the article delftware and an associated external link  http://www.xs4all.nl/~kalden/dblue/delftblue-workshopENG.htm ThanxTheriac 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I beleive you are right with the caveat it must come from the collective people in Delft, however an artist's style is by definition a ceramic art.  the section heading is "industrial art" not "brand names". I would consider it purely "decorative art" in most cases to have a cow with painted flowers on it. Goldenrowley 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I would call this one a regional "art movement"  and maybe broaden the sentence that announced the list, so as to allow decorarive art and art movements? Goldenrowley 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Goldenrowley. I've no issue if Delft goes back in. I removed it only as it was described as a brand. But if you're gong for regional then don't forget about English Delft! ThanxTheriac 18:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OKay I mean no disrespect to the English I just cannot find a link on an article on English Delft or I would use it. Delft is a place name in Holland. English people borrowed the word. Goldenrowley 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Goldenrowley. Yes the name was borrowed from the town / pottery but it is used for the English variety of delft. Have a look at English Delftware ThanxTheriac 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok added it. Thanks Goldenrowley 18:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Goldenrowley. You're going to hate me for this but delft wasn't / isn't made by "art collectives", it's a style. The manfacturers may not share any connection.ThanxTheriac 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't hate you we are having a productive, nice conversation. I think industrial art has come up with some art styles. However there are also regional pottery styles. This article should include them to stay on topic. We just need to capture this in wording. Goldenrowley 19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Goldenrowley. Thanks. See what you think of my recent edit. ThanxTheriac 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I think we've got it now! Its always a pleasure seeing your edits. Goldenrowley 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. We got there in the end :-) Theriac 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining art brands 

message: I propose to put together first, a short paragraph to introduce the subject of Makers' Marks, which I believe would be of interest to collectors and historians.  There are a lot of references that can be made on this subject.  Then perhaps at a later date, a separate, expanded article could be done on this subject and connected to Ceramic Arts.  Thoughts?  
I am also interested in expanding the section that mentions the discussion of Art vs. Craft among potters and ceramic artists.  Or has that subject be re-hashed to death?  Aclayartist (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Addition or New Section for Makers Marks

message: I have 4 tiles they are all in black and white,they all have the same guy in them,they are labeled Pilkington,all are framed.
I have had these tiles for a number of years,they were found with pictures..Louis Pasteur, and Sir Richard Owen, yes I know the pictures are old, I am looking for info on my tiles, I am willing to send pics. please email me if anyone thinks they can help, sondra_neace@yahoo.com  I look forward to hearing from you, happy holidays.                                                         
Sondra Neace  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.163.144 (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  tiles 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Bureaukraten by Arne Ranslet.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mochica Portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hi all, PatHadley (talk) here. I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence at York Museums Trust (Project pages). I've been uploading images of Studio pottery from the W.A. Ismay Collection. The whole set can be found here: Category:W.A. Ismay Studio Ceramic Collection (53 images), I hope that they're useful for various articles! You can find out something about Ismay and the collection on the Google Cultural Institute (written by YMT's curator). Also, if there are any ways in which we could help you achieve your goals for coverage of ceramic arts (or anything else!) on Wikipedia that would be great. You can contact me with any queries. Look forward to working with you! PatHadley (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio Pottery Images 

message: The article Ceramic art was moved to History of ceramic art.  I agree, the article is about the history of ceramic art however the subject is ceramic art.  There are articles on Ceramic for technical aspects of ceramics and Pottery, which includes a history of pottery.  What is your opinion, and is there a consensus for keeping the article named History of ceramic art, renaming to History of ceramics, or reverted back to Ceramic art?  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "art" should stay in the title. I wouldn't have moved it myself, but don't have very strong feelings against the present title. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

text: This article was moved to make way for the creation of a root article on the base subject.  This article is now a subtopic of its parent Ceramic art, an article on the subject in general. The new root article includes a section on the History of ceramic art, created via Wikipedia:Summary style approach, which links to this article.  The Transhumanist 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a terrible article, and much of it barely on the topic. I wish you would stop doing these sort of things. If it hasn't improved significantly after a while it should be deleted and the status quo ante restored.Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The creation of the new root article is a good solution; allowing for articles on ceramic arts to be expanded and created.  In reading past talk page discussions, this was a solution proposed however never put into action.  Summary articles do not overwhelm the reader and allow the reader to focus on the topic they are interested in if they so desire - as well as giving an overview of the subject.  Good work and a good solution.  There is no need to change the title of History of ceramic art.  Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately almost none of the new Ceramic art is actually about Ceramic art, as opposed to just pottery. I'm amazed you can find it a "good solution"; have you actually read through it? My support for retaining the existing title here is entirely conditional on Ceramic art redirecting here, or having another article that is actually on that subject, unlike at present. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming article