Talk:List of art media

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of art media article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Video games

Where is videogames? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.136.166 (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to adding video games? Otherwise I will add it to this list.-Splinemath (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Architecture is a visual art, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.233.128 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media vs Medium

Why use the word mediums? why not media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.198.62 (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree- mediums refers to two or more people who talk to the dead. Use of the word is grammatically incorrect, and likely of the same source that brought us the word "ironical". We could start a discussion about the attempts to separate the news media (who use some of the same media as artists) from fine arts, but I for one don't feel the need to overload Wikipedia's servers today. In the meantime, can we make a bid to save the English language and remove "mediums" from this page, or at least note that it is incorrect? 71.243.120.234 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Techniques

Why does the list of art techniques link here? 38.112.4.154 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what about "immaterial" media ?

sound waves (music)
words (poetry, litterature)
nature (landscaping, land art)
etc.

or do I misunderstand the point of this article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.48.39.55 (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photography

I edited the photography section to include photographic media. I also removed the reference to photography as a technique because there are hundreds of photographic techniques, making the term 'photography' too vague to be described as a technique. 71.243.120.234 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Hi all, I didn't see this list when I started the Wikipedia:List of 100 Art concepts Wikipedia should have. Clearly they should be merged, but I'm not sure all of it should be merged together. As an art conservator I'd argue that you need to have some of my stuff in this list, too. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

This article needs a clean-up. The types of content and applied styles are not actual media. They should be mentioned only in how they relate to an actual medium, if they can only be achieved through use of that particular medium. Oicumayberight (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example: cartoon and comic are types of content and styles applied to content. Cartoons are not the actual medium and can be done on a wider variety of media than murals. Oicumayberight (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The individual choice of media to create works of art could be considered a style, however in the article any forms of styles are merely a description for materials or equipment that are related, are a category of different forms of materials or media that haven't yet been specified.

I think "related styles" don't necessarily need to all be removed, as this is encompassing a compressive article. A sentence that some are styles is perhaps all that is required. — RW Marloe (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a style is defined by the medium, the list of styles is potentially infinite. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 July 2017

The request to rename this article to List of art media has been carried out.

List of art mediums → List of art media – "Media" is preferred as the plural form of "medium" (over "mediums") in this sense by NOAD (and, I assume, other Oxford dictionaries), Dictionary.com, and Wiktionary. Additionally, "media" is used almost seventy times as much as "mediums" according to Ngram (though this search obviously spans all senses, not just art). Nloveladyallen (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until this undiscussed move last year, the article was stable at the title List of artistic media for years. I prefer a move to that title but support just about any move from "mediums" (which correctly refers to spirit mediums). — AjaxSmack 00:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move accepted without opposition Nloveladyallen (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is for those who participate in the discussion of a move not to close the move (see: WP:RMCLOSE). As a neutral party not involved in the discussion, this appears to be a fairly non-controversial move supported by two people with no other participants involved. I would have liked to have seen a bit more discussion as to the title with consensus. For now the article will be List of art media. I have edited the lede to reflect the list article's content. Further edits and expansion of the lede would be welcome. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

right next to ridiculous

For instance, if carpentry is "art," then certainly dental prosthesis qualifies. If landscaping qualifies, why not plumbing?

And if all examples of assemblage and collage are examples of artistic expression, then certainly those people who create sports trophies from (almost entirely) standardized parts deserve to be considered artists. Maybe it could be used to support such WP travesties as sandwich artist.

A Wikipedia list should NOT be a refuse pile created by one drive-by pedant after another. Its existence ought to be at least justifiable if not fully justified; that requires that one or more credible sources be offered to support inclusion of the entries on the list.

And in this instance, not only should the various heaps of media be rationalized, but the purposes to which they might be put ought be justified as art. This is necessary as it's not a mere LIST but contains repeated explicative attempts (unfounded, of course) to hide the illogic. (Being as these discurive digressions are certainly not "list like," I will probably remove most; interested contributors are welcome to relocate those comments to their proper articles.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]