Talk:Classificatory disputes about art

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

Philosophy: Aesthetics High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics

Role-playing games and computer games

The question of whether computer games are art is an interesting question if one wants to understand the place of computer games within the broader cultural context. It is not a very interesting question in terms of understanding the meaning of art. The section certainly does not establish notability in terms of this discussion constituting a significant classificatory dispute about art. I do not believe that it is, and I don't think this section belongs on the page.

Whether role playing games are art is a not especially interesting question as regards role playing games. In terms of a definition of art, it is utterly irrelevant. While the paragraph does cite two writers in favour of such games being classified as art, and one against, this is insufficient to establish that this constitutes a notable classificatory dispute about art. Surely notability would require someone to at least be writing about the dispute.

Role playing games are certainly not the subject of a notable classificatory dispute about art. I have removed the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.46.75 (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should be considered art either, but whether they actually are is not for us to decide; we just need the article to say what disputes there are. There is currently a dispute as to whether video games should be classified as art so that should be represented here. That said, I have no strong opinion about whether the role-playing game dispute is important enough and I don't disagree with any of the edits you've made so far. Recury (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for video games

At the moment I like "Film critic Roger Ebert, for example, has gone on record claiming that video games are not art, and for structural reasons will always be inferior to cinema" but I think that the argument of Kojima should be integrated, as well as Crawford and Klosterman. My first language isn't English, which may or not be the reason, but while I don't generally have difficulty writing in English, but I had a hard time trying to give a brief idea of Kojima's thoughts.

Keep up the work, it looks great. --A Sunshade Lust 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Paintings of Picasso Are Art

Tyrenius-- I will concede that the sentence is nicer with the change you made. But it doesn't as well illustrate the possibilities of "classificatory disputes about art." Bus stop 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definite statement is a more accurate representation of the current critical consensus. "Should be considered" indicates a reservation which is not present and is therefore slightly misleading. But I don't think it's a major issue. Tyrenius 18:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you've said. And I don't think there is any difference between our two versions. But I like it the way it is because it addresses the subject of the article. It raises the possibility that a critic could not consider a painting of Picasso to be art. Bus stop 19:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is misleading, but it is only misleading about something that is not the subject of the article. It is not misleading about the subject of the article. It points out the subject of the article at work, in a hypothetical instance, though that instance does not in fact reflect reality. Bus stop 19:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right. Bus stop 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point that you are concerned with is shown by the fact that previously these things weren't considered art. It shows the evaluation can change, and certainly by implication that there was a contest about this at some stage, though this isn't stated as such. Tyrenius 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Bus stop 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can an encyclopedia be cited?

I can't claim much knowledge about how Wikipedia is produced. However, citing Britannica Online seems incorrect. It is certainly disconcerting to see another secondary source, while hoping to read an informative article.

Definitions of art

Britannica Online defines it as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others"[1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.15.168 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see any problem. It is a reliable source. Tyrenius 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do however see a problem cropping up a couple of times in the definition of "art". A contributor at Wikipedia has persistently introduced the erroneous concept that the Indo-European root "ar-" means arrangement or to arrange and that this has something to do with the word "art". This is most definitely false. In fact, if you consult "The American heritage dictionary of Indo-European roots", By Calvert Watkins, you will see under

ar- To fit together. 1. Suffixed form ar-mo-. a. ARM, from Old English earm, arm b. ARMY, ...

2. Suffixed form ar-smo-. HARMONY, from Greek harmos, joint, shoulder

3. Suffixed form ar-ti-. a. ART, ARTISAN, ARTIST, etc., from Latin ars (stem art-), art, skill craft; b. further suffixed form ar-ti-o-. ARTIODACTYL, from Greek artios, fitting, even. ...

I do accept that "to fit together" is a meaning associated with the Indo-European root ar-, but since the word for art in English is from a different suffixed form, it derives from the Latin. This means that "to fit together" refers to a general concept for all words derived from ar-, not specific to the word "art". I hope that is clear.

Skol fir (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent examples of disputed conceptual art

The examples currently listed in this section are not noteworthy in art historical terms. These stories gained some notoriety within the UK in the late 90s until the present time due to Britain's right wing tabloid media, which also tends to retain a philistine attitude to contemporary art. To state those arguments here is to give them unfair credence and to slant the article in a very British direction. None of the artworks mentioned in this list is disputed in terms of their status as art. The only serious, credible issue has been whether they are art historically significant. Zeneka 18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's unclear how this section contributes to the article. Ditto discussion of YBAs (who are post-conceptualists). By the mid-1960s radical experimentation was de rigeur and generally, the issues raised by Conceptualism concerned politics, beauty, the definitions of art, and more - but not the "classification" of it. Recommend reframing or simply remove. Aolivex (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vampmasq.jpg

Image:Vampmasq.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us_229 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sons big boss.JPG

Image:Sons big boss.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Classificatory disputes about art. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]