Talk:Art world

Scenes

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)[reply]

What is the difference? Hyacinth (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be refined by german wikipedia!

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

should be deleted

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The attempt to write this article is an exercise in futility. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Danto

I'm surprised that no mention is made of Arthur Danto's essay The Artworld ^[1]

References

^ 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)[reply]

An entire section "Art theory" about Danto was "commented out", I have restored it.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Planned rewrite

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, The Rijksmuseum says so! Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Its going to be difficult to avoid the "high-end contemporary art scene", whether in NYC or elsewhere, since references on other examples of the art world(s) are difficult to find.

Perhaps Rembrandt's Amsterdam supported some of the characteristics of an art world, yet artists continued to be dependent upon the commissions of the wealthy rather than producing works on their own to be sold through galleries to a growing population of upper class collectors. This supported the system of dealers, galleries, action houses, and critics which the reference I cited says is the indicator of modernity which did not occur until the next century. Perhaps there is no need to refer to what happened before, but the art world that is the topic of the article did not exist fully until the 18th century.

The problem of "what is art?" is unavoidable, since the opening definition of the topic includes "fine art". However, rather than plunging into the morass, there is a pragmatic answer: fine art is whatever the an art world agrees it is through collective activity. It has already been noted that this definition is perhaps tautological.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For example: gbooks search on "Victorian art world". Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The art world is not driven by artwork. Individuals may call themselves "artists" and create "art" but the art world may or may not accept it as Fine Art. Established artists may be members of the art world, but they may have relatively little power over the collective decision, or may in fact be protective of their status and want to maintain it. I mention in the article the work of Bob Ross. "Happy little cloud" paintings are not even outsider art, which is created when someone in the art world finds something they deem worthy. The history of art has been one of innovators (impressionist, fauves, cubists, ab-ex) being excluded until the art world decides they are doing fine art.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The art world is "driven by artwork". Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed outline for new section

Everything is open to question, but given the opening statement of the topic: "The art world comprises everyone involved in producing, commissioning, presenting, preserving, promoting, chronicling, criticizing, and selling fine art."

Roles in the art world

Production
- Independent artists who conceive and execute a unique product

- Directors of a production studio; workshop, "factory" (Are the skilled employees of such a factory, whose hands actually touch the work, arists?)

Marketing
- Dealers, curators, consultants

- Gallerists
- Auctioneers

- Appraisers

Collecting
- Private collectors

- Museum or other public collectors

Presenting
- Public

- Private, e.g. Art Basel
Preserving

Evaluating
- Art historians (Art historian redirects to Art history, which is not helpful)
- Art critics

- Art theorists (philosophers)

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mention Collecting, Private collectors, Private collection, Museum or other public collectors, and Collection (artwork). Shouldn't the sentence "The art world comprises everyone involved in producing, commissioning, presenting, preserving, promoting, chronicling, criticizing, and selling fine art" include "collectors"? Also I don't think your proposed outline should be collapsed by default. Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collectors are in the outline. Perhaps it was not when you first viewed it. I have been adding to it since the first posting, since correcting one's own talk page entry is allowed.

As the outline grew, I had second thoughts about placing it here; that I should have put it in a sandbox with a link. However that did not work when I tried it before, no one follows the link to provide input. The collapse box seemed to be the best alternative since fixing my mistake by deleting this section is not allowed by talk page guidelines. I have begun drafting the section here.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The opening statement ("The art world comprises everyone involved in producing, commissioning, presenting, preserving, promoting, chronicling, criticizing, and selling fine art") doesn't contain the word "collectors". Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added "buying" to the opening.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list is along the right lines. Personally I'd skip "Appraisers", just linking Art valuation in the dealer or auctions section. People calling themselves "appraisers" (rather a US-only thing) mainly work at lower levels for insurance values I think - at higher levels they are dealers or people in auction houses. Not sure Conservation and restoration of cultural heritage needs it own section either, or Studio. I'd rearrange the order too, bumping up critics at least. You could group them into producers, intermediaries and consumers. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am headed in that direction, not having all the subsections. Found some articles that indicate the sad state of the arts on WP. For example, art gallery redirects to museum, while Contemporary art gallery is a personal essay that has changed little since its creation in 2006-07, was tagged as needing citations in 2009, and currently has no references whatsoever.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Art gallery and Art museum should be two separate articles. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization and new sections

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

[1] Danto, Arthur. “The Artworld.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 61, no. 19, 1964, pp. 571–584. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2022937.

[1]