Talk:History of art
From Academic Kids
Why is this article so short??? Rintrah 10:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am obliged to mention once again that surrealism is not an artistic movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:04, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Ok then, just to be clear on our terminology, what is an artistic movement, how does that differ from what surrealism is? -- Merphant 23:33, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Surrealists have objected to the study of surrealism as an era in art history, claiming that it oversimplifies the complexity of the movement (which is not an artistic movement), misrepresents the relationship of surrealism to aesthetics, and falsely characterizes ongoing surrealism as a finished, historically encapsulated era. ~Daniel C.
I took this out since the art history page is now something of a disambiguation page for eras of art history. I'm not 100% sure if surrealism is included somewhere in the art history pages, but if so I'll find it and tack this on to the end of the section. --Alex S 13:45, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
For this page, how broad of a definition of "art" is acceptable? Should we include theatre and music, for instance? Until more discussion on the subject is held, for now I'm goign to assume that "art" means painting, sculpture, and other forms of direct visual representation. --Alex S 17:20, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- As the page says, the phrase "art history" is normally used in reference to the visual arts (which, as that page says, is normally taken to excluse theatre), and I think that's what we should stick to here. Stuff about the history of music can go on history of music, on theatre to history of the theatre and so on. --Camembert
- Oh, yeah. Feel a little stupid for not noticing that. Anyway, the reason I brought it up was that someone put links to "History of Theater" on the "See Also" section and I was wondering where that came from. --Alex S 19:57, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The concept of art has changed over the years, and perhaps the best, most concise definition of "art" is one that encompasses all human endeavors as "art," with the exception of actions pertaining to survival (eating) and reproduction. Thus "art", from the historical point of view, is simply a generic term for the creative impulse, out of which sprang all other human pursuits, such as science, via alchemy, and religion via shamanism.
I'm not sure about adding this into the intro. It seems like it should go more under Definition of art than art history. I made some changes and took out some of the meat. What do you think? --Alex S 22:09, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
questions related to Las Vegas replicas
Could people help me here a bit? Here are the questions:
- At Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, there's this birdy, beasty, and godly gargoyles:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/las_vegas/mandalayluxor.html
is this based on some Burma lore, or just some random design?
thanks.
Xah P0lyglut 16:36, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
There seems to be nothing in the Art history about Soviet art (and little in Wikipedia on this subject overall), which totally sucks. I've found only the Socialist realism article. Can someone who is more familiar with the art history project structure add links (placeholders) for Soviet art in appropriate place. I may then try to fill them will some text. Paranoid 18:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree! This only reflects the general neglection of the topic in Western art theory. Although I am not overtly familiar with the project, I have added Soviet Art in the Modern Art section, and will try to fill in something, too.
timo 12:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Organization of different periods/movements
I've idly been adding things to and rearranging things in Art styles, periods and movements. Since it at the moment seems to have as much information in its list as Art history, and certainly more than the alphabetized topic pages for the Art and Art History categories, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on what should go where. Should anything be moved here? Should anything be moved there? Should the "by name" section just maybe be used as an (incomplete) indicator for what should be alphabetized under the Art or Art History categories, and the Art styles, periods and movements page be turned into a simple timeline? And where does one define what should be varieties of "art" and what should be varieties of "art history?"--STLEric 02:58, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
ineffectiveness of timelines in art history
Before listing the TOC maybe it would be wise to write a few words on the belief many critics have on the ineffectiveness of timelines in art history, perhaps a reference to Elkins book “Stories of Art” or something similar?
141.217.154.18 17:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) Allen M. Goodman
