Talk:Art criticism

I added some references to the page yet no references are beeing shown on the page. How can it be remedied? Thank you. Protector 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By fixing the typo in the </ref> closing tag, as I just did. :-) ―Wmahan. 01:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the references will show on the page again. I understand that I am "encouraged to expand the content of articles rather than adding links." Yet if I quote I should give the reference of that quotation which makes it legitimate. I also realized that the page prematurely ends. Protector 18:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this site. When I realized what importance it might have I decided to contribute financially and add to it. I am discouraged because it seems that instead of recognizing knowledge and diligence this place may be for dilettantes!?!?Protector 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for showing the references again.Protector 22:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The main subject here seems to be art critics associated with abstract expressionism. I suggest changing the headings to include, for instance, Contemporary Art Criticism. Notable critics working today in the UK include Sarah Kent, Brian Sewell, Matthew Collings and Adrian Searle, whose views and writing styles vary. They all have dedicated Wiki entries, but something could be included here to sketch in the overall trends in art criticism in recent years.--Ethicoaestheticist 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

visual?

Intro says "Art criticism is the written discussion or evaluation of visual art." I'm not sure it is appropriate to exclude oral (spoken) art, music, etc. RJFJR 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Where it says: "Artists usually need positive opinions from critics for their work to be viewed and purchased." Since when does the market follow criticism? Thomas Kinkade, for example, is despised by scholars and critics and has huge commercial success. Kitschy stuff has huge selling power and no critical backing. Even Hollywood blockbusters can have huge sales despite bad criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.93.139 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Art criticism is historically considered the criticism/debate about visual art. Keep in mind that the suggestion of musicians and authors being 'artists' has only cropped up in the last 50 years or so. There is also already a music criticism article on Wikipedia. Today anyone can be called an artist for just about anything so I think we should be careful about how the art criticism article is presented. Should Martha Stewart be mentioned here for being called a design and culinary artist? No.SunRiddled (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Art blog section

There is no doubt that bloggers have impacted art criticism. Notable art critic Jerry Saltz has made that clear. However, I'm not sure if some of the blogs mentioned are good examples. Paddy Johnson, Brian Sherwin, James Kalm, and a few others are very well known and have the press references and awards to show their importance. They are all known for art criticism. On the other hand Beauty Flow Magazine appears to be more about fasion than visual art and ArtId's Hispanic Art Scene has not been mentioned by any reliable sources. If an art blog has impacted art criticism it should be expected that the blogger or art blog has been mentioned on at least a few notable sources. I'm going to remove some of the blogs mentioned and add ones that focus on art criticism and have been mentioned on reliable sources.SunRiddled (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a rule of thumb to go by is if the writer or art blog has a Wikipedia article that has shown reliable sources it is probably worth mentioning in this section. Blogs that have nothing to do with art criticism certainly don't belong in this section. I removed ArtCal, which is now ArtCat, because it is a site about exhibit openings. As near as I can tell ArtCat does not even have an art blog! I removed Bloggy, written by Barry Hoggard who also owns ArtCat, because I could not find Bloggy mentioned on any notable media sources aside from mentions by Paddy Johnson and other notable art bloggers who were once in the Culture Pundits ad network. Most of those mentions came in the form of promotion for Culture Pundits ad sales. I have to agree with some of the opinions on the art blog article in respect to Culture Pundits blogs showing up on both the art blogs article and art criticism article. If anything Barry Hoggard's Culture Pundits is merely an art ad aggregator for specific art bloggers and I can't find anything notable about Culture Pundits itself. Is Culture Pundits and every Culture Pundits affiliated blog notable because the likes of Paddy Johnson was once in their network? I don't think so. I'm not going to point figers, but I do think it is interesting that almost every non-notable art blog mentioned on these two articles are blogs associated with Culture Pundits. If Culture Pundits itself has been mentioned by a reliable and notable source in a manner other than pushing ad sales it would be different. SunRiddled (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge Art critic into this one?

Except for the list of persons writing about art and the gallery, the content seems rather redundant. If you check singer or painter you'll see that they redirect to the activities. If no one objects, I'll do it after I finish the referencing. Dracontes (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article can be improved, but i think the two articles need to remain independent and they require different kind of content. "Art criticism" is an article which need to be focus on the historiography of art criticism, which changed significantly through time and it has specific references (art criticism is also a topic taught in university); "art critic" is a job and a role within the art world/art system (with a different set of references). I do not believe the two concepts can be merged. --Iopensa (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked more carefully to the art critic article and now i think you are right; i think it is better to merge them. it is not possible to distinguish the two so clearly and i noticed that also other encyclopedias tend to discuss them together (and art history and art historian are already merged on Wikipedia). Maybe art critic content can be included in a session like "role of the art critic" or something like this. in case the article grows significantly we can eventually decide to split it. thanks. --Iopensa (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't have much problem with creating a duly referenced List of art critics that has a quick summary of Art criticism's lead and afterward establishes criteria of notability for inclusion. I'm thinking being mentioned in reference works (encyclopedias, dictionaries, review scholarly articles) as an art critic is a good start though I'm not entirely sure how 'rising star' art critics will manage... if they exist at all.

Regarding Art critic, I'd have it redirect to Art criticism, though perhaps keeping the link on the navigation table template and adding the one to the list between brackets close to it. As for the 'role of art critics' I think that easily confuses itself with what art criticism is as an activity framed within a society. That is I believe sufficiently covered in the Today section and dispersed commentary about their influence in art movements. True enough these could be edited into a more coherent whole taking care to avoid too much repetition. Dracontes (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Related to the list of art critic, I tried to start a list also here; the list is based on references (you find them in the bottom and in note). Maybe it can be merged with the work you would like to do. thanks for all the work, it is great to have you engaged in upgrading art related articles! --Iopensa (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll be sure to make the best of that work. Thank you for making things easier :)

Well, my sudden interest is rather due to Art criticism being the first item on my user contributions and having acquired certain notions of how things should work regarding Wikipedia articles. Just had an interlude creating one for a new dinosaur if you'd care to look at a pertinent "from scratch" example. So I'm going over those contributions of mine and doing my thing. I'm sure you can see that in this effort I won't be working on art-specific articles for too long, though possibly intermittently. Still I hope to do enough so people can take the result of my efforts and apply it elsewhere. --Dracontes (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the merge - although both articles can be improved...Modernist (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Art criticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130129075738/http://www.hanshofmann.org/biography to http://www.hanshofmann.org/biography

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

1)Description. 2) analysis. 3) interpretation 4) suggestions

About any painting 103.7.77.89 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)