Talk:Artistic canons of body proportions

Proposal to change name

Given that this article is really about artistic canons, I propose to move it to "Artistic canon" (the current title will remain as a redirect).

Full disclosure: until a few days ago, the article had other material not directly related to visual or plastic arts, but it consisted of uncited musings that forked the articles on physical attractiveness, makeup, fashion but without any specific focus on canonical frames of reference.

If there are no objections, I will ~~move the article on or after seven days.~~ --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arising from a discussion elsewhere, I will do a formal WP:RTM after seven days and will summarise this discussion (with pings to contributors). Comments continue to be welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the existing name, but I'm not sure the proposed one is right either. I think a longer & more explicit one would be better: Artistic canons of human proportions perhaps. I don't know there is a common term that is clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction to that idea was very favourable, definitely an improvement. It is certainly true of the two canons of proportion (Egypt, Greece), but what about Indian art and eight arms? Islamic art that has no bodies at all? I am conscious of the risk that people will add "conventions" – but then again if a convention has persisted for ten generations, does it just need an RS to call it a canon for it to become one? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I see I fell into exactly that trap myself. The prescriptions of the European Academic tradition might be described as "canon-like" but has any reliable source called them a canon? Should it be deleted from the article for that reason and demoted to See Also? (not a hardship, since as it stands it is just a copy/paste from the main article). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a see also for now (will change) but see #Future expansion below. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common name

A quick Google search reveals many many pages using the term "artistic canon". The very few that use "aesthetic canon" are wp:circular. So that aspect of a name change is uncontroversial. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future expansion

Canon of Lysippos, who appears to have invented the eight-heads canon. Parking this here for now as it needs research to find better sources before it can go in the article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Artistic canons of body proportions" (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic canon → Artistic canon – The article is about the basic principle of the canon in art: a formally codified set of criteria deemed mandatory for a particular artistic style. As originally written, it was an unstructured and poorly cited mess of original research and comment, that tried to synthesise a variety of topics into an aesthetic statement. User:Johnbod and I have restructured it so that it focuses on art alone, initially on figurative art, where the material can be properly supported by citation.

I have invited comment at related talk pages but there has been no further input.

That the article should be moved is not in question: a quick google search shows that the term "artistic canon" is the widely used wp:common name; "aesthetic canon" is only used by wp:circular copies of this article (or older versions of it).

The only controversial aspect of this WP:RM#CM is whether a name should be chosen that limits the article to canons of body proportions in art, or whether it should be open to expansion with different types and traditions of artistic practice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support a move in this direction. As I've said above, I think a longer & clearer title like Artistic canons of body proportion would be better. Or Artistic systems of body proportion, to avoid "is it a canon" questions. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we already have a self-sufficient article on body proportions, which we don't want to fork: I think there is a clear and distinct role for each. IMO, we positively do not want to avoid the "is it a canon question", otherwise we drift back into the uncited OR and SYNTH that littered this article before the clean up, One external link I came across was headlined "is there a canon for pop art?": it seems to me that this is the sort of material that could find a home here given sufficient backing from wp:RSs that says yes there is and this is it. Obviously it would be a separate major section from the canons of body proportion. But if it really bothers you, I won't insist on my version because I have neither the personal background nor the sources to write the kind of material I'm talking about. If another editor in the future comes along with a suitable enhancement, the name can be changed again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd imagine "is there a canon for pop art?" is talking about the Western canon type, not this. Was it? This is the problem - most people will think "Artistic canon" means that. Maybe "system" is the answer. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can search again but as I recall, yes, it is the same conceptual model a 'Western Canon'. So this, I think, is the core of the issue: should the article be limited to the strict original Greek meaning (which I think will limit it to Classical Greece and Egypt), or should it recognise that the world has moved on and the term is widely used in RSs with the broader meaning – such as in Western Canon. I can see from your editing history that you have a far better understanding of the field than I do, so I will gladly accept your counsel. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rereading Western Canon, yes, I can see the risk of leaving the scope of the article too open to interpretation. If it starts to include literature, music, philosophy etc then it will become a mess again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - But if the name is changed from 'canon' to 'system', it will fail wp:common name and will look very odd from the articles that wlink the word 'canon' to this article. Is that wise? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - From wp:common name: "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." I think that applies here. "Artistic canon" would still redirect & can be bolded in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        But we can't just do whatever we like with no recognition of wider context. All the links to this article use the word 'canon'. All the references in external literature use the word 'canon'. The historical antecedent is the word 'κανών'. Per wp: principle of least surprise, the article name must contain that word. I am prepared to compromise on everything else but really must insist on this one --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Revised proposal

Arising from the discussion above, I propose that the new name should be Artistic canons of body proportions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, also per above. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wanted: Islamic canon

If anyone has Mehrdad Fakour (1993). An Islamic Canon of Proportion: A Study on the Depiction of the Human Form in Early Islamic Art., it may be worth adding (though it is a PhD thesis for UCB, so I don't know what its status as a WP:RS is, but presumably if the PhD was awarded then it passes). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iversen citation

I tracked down the opening citation for Iversen but unfortunately (a) it is only a book review and (b) it doesn't mention any canon.

David, Madelaine (1965). "The myth of Egypt and its hieroglyphs in European tradition". Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Etranger (in French). 155: 506–509. JSTOR 41090203.

so I have removed it. I have replaced it with a citation for the book itself but have had to tag it with {{verification needed}} since I don't have access to the book. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albrecht Dürer: to be added?

To be added when I have a moment. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Albrecht Dürer#Four Books on Human Proportion 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might take more than a moment, if at all. Further study required. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I know much about (either re Dürer or in general). I think most sources don't give a huge emphasis to his work or theories on this, but Bartrum (222 etc) has bits. She say he initially wanted to define a single set of proportions (around 1500), but later gave up on this idea for more flexible ratios. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tyvm, that makes a lot of sense. I won't pursue it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]