Talk:The arts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Art, The arts, Visual arts

We need to make a clear difference between these three articles. "The arts" encompasses all of the arts, while "Visual arts" obviously only pertains to visual art, but what about "Art"? It says on the article it mainly refers to Visual arts, so what's the point in having both pages? Voyaging^(talk) 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I was also confused by the art/arts designation. However, I believe that if "Art" wants to be a separate entity, then let it be so. I have no problem with two separate entries in Wikipedia for these two terms, as long as they acknowledge the existence of the other, and explain the difference. For example, when you take a degree in the Liberal Arts, you are definitely not restricted to "Art", but have all the Arts at your disposal.

Skol fir (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is imperative, in a lexicon such as Wikipedia, that all terms in use have their place for the arts. If art is mostly referring to the "visual arts", then that is its common usage, but that does not represent the whole story. Art as a term has many interpretations, because we have carried that same term through many centuries, and as society has developed new methods of expression, the term art has also evolved. Since everyone cannot agree on only one usage of a word that has such a long history, it needs its own pages. I think the article on Art is accomplishing its purpose, and doing it better every day as it is refined here on Wikipedia.

Skol fir (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation would be that art is a philosophical concept, with all the difficulties found in in defining any other philosophical concept, yet the idea of the concept itself is most easily and most commonly grasped through the visual arts, empirically. On the other hand the arts is just a category system for differentiating between disciplines from a functional perspective. Brad7777 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think an adequate distinction between arts and Art lies in a description of the varieties for the former, a definition true of all for the latter. Arts is essentially an administrative exercise in taxonomy, Art the province of aesthetics. Gerry Bell (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am planning to edit the article on art to make it a general discussion of the concept in aesthetics, which is not limited to the visual. The definition of "the arts" here should be more about what distinguishes the different arts. As noted above, the problem is the conflict between the dictionary definitions based upon common usage and the scholarly definitions.FigureArtist (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Media

While I agree with the moving of drawing section to be with painting, the last edit places architecture first, which is not appropriate. There is debate whether architecture is truly an art form given the primacy of function over form in design (or the failure of some buildings when this is forgotten, and are wonderful to look at but questionable for people to use). Designed objects may have an abundance of aesthetic qualities, but are they art? The list would become endless. I do plan to add sculpture and printmaking, which are in the main Visual art article. Film? OK, but is it visual or performing?FigureArtist (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Film is essentially performing arts, with some overlap into conceptual art etc for artists' films as exhibition/gallery/museum objects in the current style. You need to work in the decorative/applied arts somehow - perhaps group architecture with them, & a mention of video games - otherwise I gennerally agree with you above. This is "The arts" not fine art, which is more restrictive. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The section on architecture is currently grouped under "Visual arts". This does not seem accurate to me. The entries under "Visual arts" should match the entries found in the corresponding article. As FigureArtist mentioned, it is questionable whether architecture is an artform. The section should be moved from "Visual arts" to the end of the article. I will take the initiative to do so. Any objections can be further discussed. - The Aviv (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted, as architecture is always treated as a visual art, as well of course as a matter of engineering, practical design etc. Art history courses will almost always cover architecture, and so on. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have done some reading since the above referenced comment. Architecture is often uniquely categorized as a "mixed art"; neither strictly visual nor applied, but definitely on the list of fine arts. This may be for cultural/historical reasons, architecture being very important to the same upper classes that were patrons of painting and sculpture, rather than strict logical/philosophical criteria for categorizing the arts.FigureArtist (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense, as architecture is at least as affected by style as art, and has mostly the same stylistic periods - Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Mannerist, Baroque, Neo-Classical, Romantic, Modernist. The earlier of these were in fact first defined in terms of architecture, and then applied to art. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Scope: Art and fine art

Please see Talk:Fine art#Scope: Art and fine art for a question that may affect the scope of this article. czar ♔ 21:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

-->