Talk:Contemporary art/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Contemporary art. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

References

Bus stop, I see you've removed all the references from the article [1]. These were specific references for how the term contemporary art is used. I'm not sure what your objections are to the references. Any explanation would be appreciated. Thanks, --Ethicoaestheticist 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethicoaestheticist -- The references have to support something. What are they supporting -- that the term Contemporary art can refer to the period of time from World War Two to the present? That is said in the article. And a reference supporting that should specifically support that. The comment that compares Contemporary art to a collage and other such notions seems only tangentially relating to the simple definition that you and Simenzo have been arguing for. Or do you both want to see an extensive (and endless) accounting of all the threads in recent decades in art history in this article? Bus stop 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you that the article should not give an historical account. To clarify though: you added the comment about contemporary art referring to the art after WWII. The reference you removed referred to contemporary art as art produced in the second half of the twentieth century. OK, the comment about contemporary art as collage is not necessary, though in the context it made sense after Danto's description of the separation between contemporary art and modern art, because it helped explain Danto's view of the nature of this distinction. You don't explain why you removed the references to craft practices and outsider art being outside of the use of the term contemporary art.--Ethicoaestheticist 21:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethicoaestheticist -- Are you quibbling over whether Contemporary art begins after World War Two or in the second half of the twentieth century? Either wording is OK with me. I think that would come down to how Museums of Contemporary Art define their collections.

Danto's reason for separating Contemporary art from Modern art is an intellectual, art critical reason. Danto has volumes of opinions on everything having to do with the art of recent decades. Other writers also have written tomes on the same subject matter. Why even begin the endless process picking a quote out from this writer and a quote out from another writer. Believe it or not I think that constitutes original research. It constitutes original research because there are tons of incomprehensible verbiage out there written about art of recent decades, by many intellectual authors. Who is going to digest that stuff and produce a balanced and comprehensible article for Wikipedia, especially given that the title of this article is simply Contemporary art? No editor here, and that includes Simenzo, can even come up with any convincing qualities or characteristics that pertain to Contemporary art. So, if we don't even have a grasp of what styles of art we are referring to when we speak of Contemporary art, why are we quoting authors to support our point of view? We don't even have a point of view, so what purpose is a Danto quote serving?

I feel we should just define Contemporary art in incontrovertible terms. If we follow the lead of art museums of contemporary art I think we are on solid ground. And if we use the dictionary definition of the word contemporary I think that is very relevant too.

The word postmodern covers, in the visual arts, approximately the same period of time as the museum definition of contemporary art. And the term postmodern art is a much more intellectual, art critical term. I just think that these matters should be covered in the Postmodern art article, and that this article should just be defined by simple definition. What would be the point to have both articles grow into whatever mess results at each article's page? Wouldn't it be better to approach one article one way and the other article another way?

Craft practices and outsider art can be mentioned in this article, if you insist. But I would argue against it. The discussion inevitably takes in intellectual approaches to art that can very easily lapse into a wild quoting of art critics out of context. I think this article should take an aloof approach to these things. In point of fact craft is both included and excluded from art made in recent decades. Outsider art the same. Most outsider art is rejected because of the narrow awareness that an "outsider" works in. Yet the work of some outsider artists is fawned over by the art world. There are many factors that come into play. If you are not going to take an aloof approach you are going to get bogged down in stating things that are disinformational, if that's a word. Bus stop 23:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's not original research, but it is similar in some ways to original research. Bus stop 23:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So, agreed that the reference for contemporary art defined as the art of the late twentieth century can be reinstated. Like you I think that it doesn't really matter much if it's post-1950 or post 1945, but obviously if the post-1945 view can be referenced this can be included as well. The Arthur Danto references do put undue weight on his argument, but he is one of the few critics who attempts to define how the term contemporary art is used (as distinct from the tomes written on the characteristics of contemporary art). Agreed also that the article should not replicate the postmodern art article. The Danto references make a distinction between contemporary art and both modern art and postmodern art. The other removed reference states the contrary view that the term contemporary art is equivalent to term postmodern art, and for the sake of balance should be reinstated as well. The craft/outsider art references are not taken out of context. They appear in works critiquing the institutions of contemporary art, and specifically refer to how the term contemporary art is applied to some practices and not to others. I agree that other references can be found to support the status of both craft and outsider work as contemporary art, and both positions should be stated and referenced.--Ethicoaestheticist 00:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the quibbling is about. It is just a stretch of time. So much art was produced that nothing can be said about it, I don't think. You say that Danto says that there is a distinction between Contemporary art and Postmodern art. Can you tell me what that distinction is? They both cover the past 50 or 60 years of time. They are merely stretches of time. I have to assume that you feel that some commentary belongs in this article more so than it belongs in the Postmodern art article, but I don't understand your reason why. I think the Postmodern art article takes a more art critical approach to the subject matter because postmodernism is an intellectual, art critical term. This article (Contemporary art), I think, can feel free to ask questions, but I don't think this article is the place for answering those questions. The questions are really unanswerable questions anyway, in my opinion. But an article like Postmodern art can hazard a guess if it likes. Bus stop 01:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern is simply that the article should include references. I was hoping to get some agreement for reinstating references that were removed.--Ethicoaestheticist 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

References support positions. My question to you and Simenzo is what is it that you feel should be said about this 55 year stretch of time in art production? Is there some quality that characterizes the art being produced during that time? If not then it is just a period of time, and a very big period of time. It's not like asking the question, What can be said about the art produced in Los Angeles in the 1950s? We are talking about worldwide for many decades, aren't we? Bus stop 01:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethicoaestheticist -- I'm not saying that my version is the only version. I'm arguing for not having an article bristling with "sources" that doesn't have a coherent point to make. Edit the article. It's not my article. I just happen to feel that it shouldn't be cluttered with sourced items that add up to a mass of confusion, which is the state that this article has been in at many points in its history. It just seems to grow like Topsy when people start adding every art historical reference they can find for the period of time. Bus stop 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethicoaestheticist -- I wish you would just edit the article. Don't just revert it to a previous version, but edit it to bring it into the form that you think it should have. Then, if I disagree, I will point out my disagreements on the Talk page. Obviously, you don't have to leave it in my version. Bus stop 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop -- I'm sure you can appreciate my reluctance. My most recent work on the article was to supply references for unsourced statements, all of which you removed! However I am not overly sensitive and will work on some additional content in response to your invitation. --Ethicoaestheticist 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Concerns" Section

Hello to everyone here. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I figured I would state that upfront and raise my concerns with the article on the Talk page before editing the article itself. I've skimmed and partially read through some of the previous disputes on here, and don't quite feel like jumping entirely into the fray quite yet.

However, I do have a concern with the "Concerns" section, no pun intended. This section seems to consist of a number of hasty generalizations and rather inaccurate comments. For example, the distinction between modernism and postmodernism is not, in fact, as clear as the article would suggest. Even describing postmodernism as a "period" is in dispute among many scholars, as it did not arrive in the art historical lexicon as an historical term, but rather to distinguish a loosely threaded movement from the tradition and mythology of modernism. Further, the debate over what constitutes art should also be cleared up. This is indeed a central issue of art that began with modernism, wherein numerous challenges arose to formalism and tradition. One needs only think of the Fountain (Duchamp) to see the roots of this art theoretical concern.

I would certainly like to take some time to edit this particular section in a way that would more accurately and clearly reflect these concerns. Infiniteawe 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it. I'm glad you've read the talk-page - it's pretty dense, but there are some important recurring issues. I would also suggest having a look at postmodern art because I think there's agreement here that the two articles should cover different ground.--Ethicoaestheticist 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw those points of agreement that the article on postmodern art and this article should have a different focus. I agree that they should, but of course modernism and postmodernism cannot be left out of any discussion of contemporary art. I did notice that there was some discussion over what we mean by contemporary, whether it means art produced in the contemporary era or something different. Most art historians, obviously, agree that it is the latter, as someone pointed out correctly that there is a great deal of traditional art that is not contemporary. I'd propose that the difference between avant-garde and traditional art be made clear in defining what is contemporary; of course, this encounters its own problems since there is a lot of debate over whether the avant-garde still exists in contemporary art, or whether it has moved to a form of complicity. --Infiniteawe 04:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be minimal discussion of contemporary art. This article is best left as spare as possible. In fact, left spare is an incorrect locution. Spareness is not the starting point. We should endeavor to make this article spare. The fact that it is about the most recently produced art, at least in part, means that it is about something that is unknown. If you want to pontificate about something that you don't know about I think you are asking for failure in writing this article. I'm not meaning to discourage; I'm just meaning to caution. I have seen how ugly this article can get. Look in article History to see the tale of Brillo boxes and urinals to see what I'm talking about. Bus stop 12:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not follow that since contemporary art refers to recently produced art, that we cannot know about its contents. The ongoing nature of a subject does not make it irreducible. If that were the case, Wikipedia would be completely unable to have articles on quantum computing or intelligent design. Even ancient history is open to revision and thus in flux. What we ought to do is make this article as complete as possible. Being spare is nice for scientific theories. Being spare doesn't seem to make sense for encyclopedias. What I think you mean is that the article does not need to engage in trying to discuss absolutely every aspect of contemporary art possible. But luckily enough for us, we do have the ability to implement Wikipedia's internal hyperlinks to make a basic introduction of contemporary art serve as a launching off point to learn more about its artists, its movements, and its theories. Infiniteawe 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that we know the least about its contents (contemporary art), and the most recently produced is completely unknown. I think we should start with square one -- that we don't even know what art is. Go ahead and do what you are suggesting. I am saying that the more that is said about contemporary art the more we reduce it to art history. Bus stop 15:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand why you're using "art history" pejoratively. Is it not the job of art history to look - even at contemporary art - in retrospect and deduce significance? Maybe in postmodern theory it isn't, but an encyclopedia is most certainly not a postmodern endeavor in the first place. Also, your suggestion that art is essentially a non-referring term doesn't make total sense. While it is certainly a condition of contemporary art that art's status and meaning are called into question, it does not mean that it is absolutely indefinable. Most contemporary artists, for example, have no problem calling the work of Thomas Kinkade kitsch. At the very least we can look to define art by broad and mutual agreement, if not first by other means. Infiniteawe 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The more recent the art subjected to "art history" the more likely the result is just mythologizing, in my opinion. Deducing significance is not very likely for recently produced art, in my opinion. Art can be described. There is little danger of leading the reader astray in describing what one sees. But I think the interpretation involved in deducing the significance of something involves something far trickier.

I don't know what you mean when you say that art is essentially a non-referring term. Please tell me what you mean by that. You say that I have suggested that. What does it mean, and where have I said that? I'm trying to understand that better.

Please work on the article. Don't allow me to discourage you. Bus stop 16:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wabi-sabi

I'm struggling to see why Wabi-sabi has been added to the see also section? Teapotgeorge 21:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see removing Wabi-sabi if you object. I think it is a thought provoking, intellectual approach to understanding how some aspects of modern art (using the term modern art not in the art historical sense, but more just in the sense of art in recent times) can come to be. My understanding of the concept of Wabi-sabi, admittedly a shaky understanding, is that it includes as "beauty" half-finished things, incomplete things, things with flaws in them. I thought it would do no harm to add that reference because it may serve to shed some light on the conundrum that is modern art. How can we understand that an all black canvas is art (Kasimir Malevich)? How can we understand that a urinal is art (Marcel Duchamp)? How can we understand that dripped paint on canvas is art (Jackson Pollack)? How can we understand that Campbell's Soup Cans are art (Andy Warhol)? And those are just the icons of modern art. Those are just the high points, or most recognized of works of modern art. The list happens to go on endlessly right up until the present date. Wabi-sabi is an unusual enough approach to aesthetics and I think a valid one that it is worth making people aware of. But if you object to it feel free to remove it. Bus stop 23:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read the article wabi-sabi it's content (as written at the moment) sheds no light whatsoever on contemporary/modern art? Teapotgeorge 19:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And it need not. It is just another Wikipedia article, and it happens to be on aesthetics. Did you expect it to directly address "contemporary/modern" art? Bus stop 20:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Err YES it's "just another article" and with no particular connection to contemporary art? It adds nothing to our understanding of contemporary art Teapotgeorge 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you speak for everybody? Shouldn't you be simply saying that it adds nothing to your understanding of contemporary art? Bus stop 22:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I don't speak for everybody! I wouldn't be so arrogant... you are right...the article about wabi-sabi adds nothing to MY understanding of contemporary art. Teapotgeorge 08:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it has relevance for me and I think it could have relevance for others. Think about the work of Rauschenberg. Think about the work of Jasper Johns. Think about the work of Henry Moore. Think about the work of Barbara Hepworth. Think about the work of Isamu Noguchi. Do we not see incompleteness and "flaw" being exploited as an aesthetic device? Don't we see in the works of these people the deliberate focusing of attention on that which is wrong with the work? Bus stop 13:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Wabi-sabi see also. Bus Stop added the qualification "Not necessarily of specific relevance to Contemporary art", which I've interpreted as a change of heart, or at least an admission that its inclusion is not entirely obvious.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Not a problem. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Art Game

Take a look at this article and see if this link (Art game) should be in your Contemporary art section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.125.69 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Saatchi

Just a note to say I put Saatchi's dominance of the art world into the perfect tense and placed it during the 1980s and 1990s. His influence has really tapered off since the 00s and I think it sounds dated to claim he still has the huge influence he once had. 41.232.45.99 (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

An IP made a whole lot of changes without summaries or talk page discussions. The main change was creating subcategories between "classic" and "new" media which given the complex nature of media in contemporary art serves to further confuse the issue not clarify. Who is to say what is "classic" and what is "new". It's a futile exercise. freshacconci talktalk 22:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

All the corrections were reversed

A person named Modernist undid the various corrections made to the article. No disrespect, but this person needs to know something about art before doing this or at least substantiate his or her claims in the Talk Section. In regards to contemporary art, the article stated, “A similar term to Contemporary art is Modern art.” Contemporary art is not an analogous term, it is not equivalent, they are different. Also many of the movements were incorrectly dated, for example, Abstract Expressionism started in the 40s, not in the 50s (etc). As well, there were copies of the movements under different decade headings; if the person wishes to show that the art movements go beyond the period they started in this is also incorrectly conveyed, for example Abstract Expressionism which is listed under the 50s and the 60s is a style that was still painted in the 70s, and in the 80s, and even today. Many art styles are still practiced today. I know this list is not a conclusive list, but what is listed should at least be accurate. How can a person undo corrections and restore blatant incorrect material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undesignated (talk • contribs) 12:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Response below...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Post painterly abstraction etc

Please stop adding incorrect material to this article, including these glaring mistakes:

Yes we include 1950s - Abstract expressionism (Pollock died in 1956); This started in 1964 - Post-Painterly Abstraction - 1964 Exhibition curated by Clement Greenberg as a reaction to gestural Abstract expressionism (look it up); Plop art - 1960s term for public art coined by Jim Wines (look it up); Pop art - takes hold in the 1960s when the term first appears (look it up); 1950s Lyrical Abstraction - European version of Abstract Expressionism (look it up), Tachism is another term; 1960s Lyrical Abstraction painterly response to Minimalism (look it up); 1950s Color Field via Rothko et al (look it up); reference your changes with reliable sources please or develop consensus here, thank you...Modernist (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Answer me this please

Contemporary art is not an equivalent term for modern art, do you disagree? Why reverse it? Abstract Expressionism started in the 40s, do you disagree? Why is it listed as starting in the 50s? Why are there multiple listings of the art movements? How can these movements start up in one decade, yet equally start up in another decade? Is this to show that the art movement goes beyond the period they started in? If so these art styles are still practiced today, why then only list them as if they continued for two decades and died out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undesignated (talk • contribs) 12:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We list Abstract expressionism in the 50s because it was the dominant painterly movement of the 1950s, it was relevant to contemporary art during the 1950s - both Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning did their best work after 1950. It gained public acclaim in the 1950s. Do not change historical entries unless you are prepared to provide multiple reliable sources!...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It may have gained popularity in the 50s, but it started and was in vital swing in the 40s. It was relevant in the 40s. I can cite material if you wish in regards to that. If you wish to list the entries by popularity then I suppose that is fine, a bit messy and a little subjective, but then I think you should list that is what you are doing under the topic heading. If this is the case, using the example of Abstract Expressionism, why only list the 50’s and 60s? This form continued in the 70s, and onward, with some great pieces being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undesignated (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see now that you are clearly listing these movements based on popularity, so if this is your ardent wish, so be it. Just make sure you explain under the History heading that the list is based on popularity, that it is based on when the art movement was most popular. I’m okay with it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undesignated (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from vague headings. If I misunderstood the intent of the heading and its content, there will be others who no doubt will misunderstand it as well. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undesignated (talk • contribs) 13:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not write those

I did not list Abstract expressionism as being in the 50s, I did not list Plop art as being in the 50s, I did not list Post-Painterly Abstraction in the 50s, etc, etc. I was merely cleaning up some of the obvious mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undesignated (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Let it be then...Modernist (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were accusing me of those mistakes when you wrote:

"Please stop adding incorrect material to this article, including these glaring mistakes: Yes we include 1950s - Abstract expressionism (Pollock died in 1956); ..."

I think it was the colon punctuation that you used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undesignated (talk • contribs) 13:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC on lede

There is disagreement as to whether Contemporary art is synonymous with Modern art, as stated in the previous lede, or in fact an entirely different movement that precedes it, as in the current version, see discussion below (on article TP for RFC board). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede needs changing

I (User:Modernist) prefer this:

Version1 Contemporary art is art produced at the present point in time. Some art museums and collections define contemporary art as including all art since the end of World War II more specifically since 1945. Similar terms to contemporary art are Modern art and Postmodern art. Postmodern art since the 1970s has become major component of contemporary art as is Late Modernism.

To this:

Version2 Contemporary art is art produced at the present point in time. Contemporary art ~~englobes~~ includes, and develops from, Postmodern art, which is itself a succesor to Modern art.^[1]

I would also add that Some art museums and collections define contemporary art as including all art since the end of World War II more specifically since 1945 directly contravenes Wikipedia:WEASEL, "some" - which ones? who defines it as such? (I did have a quick scout around btw) Also, the end of the phrase is redundant as the end of WWII was 1945. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Support change Version1:

Support...Modernist (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Modernist's version "Contemporary art englobes," whatever does that mean?Theroadislong (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

With wording now changed it would be fine.Theroadislong (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks, I didn't get the right word straight off the bat, I just opened an RfC anyway. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, I prefer this unsourced and factually incorrect version, what sort of an argument is that? I suggest we open a Request for comment then as the lede was tagged with {{vague}} and I improved it by correcting the vagueness and sourcing the statement, which Modernist has not done. Sorry TRIL I have changed the word to includes, so it now reads "Contemporary art includes", that was a "Frenchism" that slipped in, englober in FR means includes (I am a native EN speaker, just living in France btw). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Support direction of change, though wording needs work and expansion. "Contemporary art" is also used for a style or range of styles, in this sense not actually covering all art being produced today. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod, it is not clear which version you prefer, as there was a lot of confusion concerning headers and the way things were presented, i.e. change seemed to imply version2 to some people, it is not clear if you are for V1 or V2 so I will not move your comment, please clarify. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Okay so it's clear which side you're on, do not revert back while this discussion is ongoing, I would like to see some sources/arguments to back up what you and Modernist claim, this is an encyclopaedia based on reliable, secondary sources and not just on what people think terms define. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose (see rationale in "Version2" section below). czar · · 21:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Version2

Support per my comments above, and per source. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Support direction of change, because from a quick glance at my various Art books, contemporary art and modern art mean different things. For example, my "Contemporary Art: a very short introduction" more or less defines contemporary art as being produced within the last generation, particularly from the late 1980's; generally Modern Art is used to describe anything from the turn of the C20th, often attributed back as far as Cezanne. Sionk (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This comment was added before Captain Screebo started messing the comments up, & I'm dubious it actually supports this version; it was I think made before appeared. Please stop playing around, Captain. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't work out why my comment had moved in opposition to yours! I'll refrain from commenting, because there is no clear proposal put forward. Both intros say more or less the same thing. Sionk (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but, Sionk, your comment clearly says "because from a quick glance at my various Art books, contemporary art and modern art mean different things", which supports the fact that "Modern art" and "Contemporary art" are not synonymous, otherwise I would not have moved it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That only goes to show it is unclear what we are supporting or opposing. If Option 1 said "The terms Modern art and Postmodern art are sometimes used to mean the same thing as contemporary art" I would not have much problem with that either. We are talking about gradations of gray! Sionk (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Support :With wording now changed it would be fine.Theroadislong (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC) 17:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Support This RfC bifurcated voting structure is a mess—should have just been one section to oppose/support either, not a vote collection. A few concerns: (1) While this is a worthwhile discussion, it should be happening in the article itself, not the lede. The lede is an overview for what's in (or, in our case, is not in) the article. (2) Contemporary as a word can be synonymous with modern. That is, something in the "style of today" can be described as contemporary or modern. However, Contemporary Art and Modern Art refer to periods with time and style bounds. I've never seen Modern and Contemporary art with overlapping definitions. We should separate contemporary (the word) and Contemporary (the period) in the discussion (while minding that even capital C Contemporary is actually lowercase in articles since it isn't a proper noun). Accordingly, Contemporary Art refers to post-60s art (through today), and Modern Art refers to Impressionism through this 60s period. Postmodern Art is a term or genre and not exactly a period. I need to pull my Stokstad and Gardner from storage, but I'll be able to add citations soon. IMO, this lede should use a dual definition: that CA refers to a recent period of artmaking (historically) AND specifically the lump of art between roughly the 1960s and now (non-historically). This way Gardner's 1929 quotes about Picasso as CA are valid alongside a discussion of every MoCA's collecting scope. (3) I'm not loving either lede, but I prefer Version2 since it assumes the least. We need to source any of these statements in question and settle the first body paragraph before considering the lede, and the lede should stay as simple and unassuming until then. czar · · 21:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Czar about the structure but it was being presented as support change, #1, #2, when it was in fact support revert to number 1, not support change to number 2. Do you have a suggestion for a rewrite, as I admit it's fairly ambiguous, depending whether we are discussing contemporary art (of our times, so Picasso, Dada, Pollock et al.) or Contemporary Art, as a specific movement, breaking from the traditions of Modern art and its codes? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We should be using better references than Stokstad and Gardner frankly - I'd let them lie. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Better references than the definitive survey textbooks? Such as? Anyway the two don't offer glossary definitions or any easy quotes. I have some other specialty books in mind, but I'd need to visit a library. czar · · 05:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Better references than the usual American Art History 101 textbooks, yes. Especially when these were first written decades ago. Google books will provide plenty of more specialised works, though they will not all say the same thing, which is good. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

CaptainScreebo—you refer to "Contemporary Art, as a specific movement, breaking from the traditions of Modern art and its codes". Contemporary art is not an art movement and contemporary art may or may not break from traditions. Bus stop (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries on the voting structure. I'm cool with v2 for now, and we can always revisit it once we have a beefy overview section from which to pick. At that time, I'd like to work in that dual definition mentioned above. Also I don't think it's worth arguing about CA as a movement—it's semantics, just as much a "movement" as prehistoric art. czar · · 05:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have always been taught that High Modernism began in the 1890s and a "museum of contemporary art" should include no pre ww2 works. However, we can edit to include the conflict, with wording such as 'note that in the vernacular, modern and contemporary art are sometimes used interchangeably' while including the academic categories. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think that with a term like "contemporary", what you "have always been taught" might not be correct for always? Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Support neither 1 or 2

Comment - both alternatives make statements that are only partially true. The lede, in my view, needs to encompass a wider variety of definitions of 'contemporary art'. The phrase "Some art museums and collections define contemporary art as including all art since the end of World War II" in undoubtedly correct. Equally, the phrase "Contemporary art includes, and develops from, Postmodern art" is only another opinion and open to question. Equally (as I mentioned in a comment above) contemporary art has been defined as art created since the late 1980's, or within the latest generation. The definition is (and will be) moveable. Sionk (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, any one-line lead will be wholly inadequate. Really we should have a proper lead of at least 2-3 paras, including actually summarizing the article, and then a "scope" section setting out the varied and complex meanings of the term more fully. But that is unlikely to happen while squabbles continue. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree Johnbod, but lets start one good line at a time - what we have now is way off the mark...Modernist (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What we have at the moment in the article is Version 2. Neither Version 1 nor Version 2 are supported by the text of the article. Sionk (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not having written either I prefer version 1 over what we have now, however I proposed returning to an earlier version (not written by me by the way) see below...Modernist (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede as of Oct 21, 2012

Perhaps we should return here:

Contemporary art is literally all art produced at this present point in time or art produced since World War II. Contemporary art includes Modern and Postmodern art.

Seems simple and inclusive...Modernist (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed but maybe "at this present point in time including art produced since" ...including rather than or? Theroadislong (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an improvement:

Contemporary art is literally all art produced at this present point in time including art produced since World War II. Contemporary art includes Modern and Postmodern art.

I also agree with the slight change in wording...Modernist (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How's this:

Contemporary art in its widest definition includes all art produced at this point in time as well as all art produced since World War II. In its widest definition contemporary art includes Modern and Postmodern art.

It is very inclusive and it concedes that we are not trying to place an especially strict definition on the term "contemporary art". Bus stop (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary art is fine art created in the present era. In the 21st century, it generally refers to art since either World War II or the late-1960s dematerialization of art. In its widest definition, it incorporates modern and postmodern art.

Doesn't repeat the "widest" phrase, incorporates all of the above that can be sourced. czar · · 20:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting better, - I prefer saying: and the late-1960s dematerialization of art. In its widest definition, it incorporates modern and postmodern art...Modernist (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are some quick definitions I've collected from websites (I have other book sources, but they don't have one-sentence definitions of CA proper): "Art21 defines contemporary art as the work of artists who are living in the twenty-first century." Art21, " the art of the late 20th and early 21st century" dictionary.com, "the art of the late 20th cent. and early 21st cent., both an outgrowth and a rejection of modern art" Columbia Encyclopedia, "Strictly speaking, the term "contemporary art" refers to art made and produced by artists living today." Getty Museum, "Art from the 1960's or 70's up until this very minute." about.com Obviously, they imply that the definition should be based on living artists instead of "this point in time," but I think the latter gives a better historical context. (It's not like Mike Kelley is no longer considered a contemp artist since he's dead.) "There is also the added difficulty of defining contemporary art according to its historical position. The phrase 'contemporary art' is used to describe a great range of art since the 1950s. The rubric of 'the contemporary' therefore begs the question, what is shared in the art of the last five decades that continues to renew itself?" Art History: Contemporary Perspectives on Method, Dana Arnold, p. 55 I was going to update the proposed title to add "by living artists" or something about the centuries, but I'm not sure it needs it, even if it's how the above cited sources roll. I also like this working definition better because it'll be more precise (though it needs more difficult article sourcing). Re: "and"—meaning that either it's either defined as post-WWII or post-1970, but can't be defined as both simultaneously. I've seen CA mostly counted from the late-1960s and on. I included the post-WWII so the working defn would be acceptable to all parties for now. I see this whole process as a stopgap until the actual article has the sources so the lede reflects the body. czar · · 21:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary art is fine art created in the present era. Included would be works produced as far back as approximately World War II. Included would be works displaying tendencies of the late-1960s dematerialization of art as well as works not displaying such tendencies. Contemporary art could include both modern art and postmodern art.

Bus stop (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you please explain your additional language ("included would" twice, "works not displaying", etc.)? It appears somewhat extraneous to me. czar · · 21:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I was concerned that the implication would be that contemporary art includes work displaying "dematerialization" tendencies but excludes work not containing "dematerialization" tendencies. Allow me to ask you a question. Why are we not mentioning for instance that contemporary art includes painting and sculpture that aims for anatomical and color accuracy? Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The definition should include both the materialization and the dematerialization of art, the continuation of painting, sculpture, assemblage, video, collage, photography and all forms of visual art in general, including works done in both the 20th and 21st centuries...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should be aiming for a balanced definition of contemporary art. But why are we aiming for a definition of contemporary art at all? Or at least—why are we aiming to enumerate everything including the kitchen sink, which can be found in Tom Wesselmann's paintings and Robert Gober's three-dimensional works, in our definition of contemporary art? Wouldn't it suffice to pare back our references to the most essential and nothing more? Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Czar's version above is getting much better. I like the inclusion of "In the 21st century...", which makes the obvious point that 'contemporary' is relative to the present time (or the time of the viewer/source). Sionk (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Right—we don't have to mention the media used right now because it isn't vital. Let's just get that it (1) is the "present" art, and (2) currently means late-XXth, early XXIst century art. We can always revisit this once the article is built out. Although I liked it, I removed the "dematerialization" clause from the original, so it should cover your valid point that it could misconstrue all post-1970 work as all "dematerialized":

Contemporary art is fine art created in the present era. In the 21st century, it generally refers to art since either World War II or the late-1960s. In its widest definition, it incorporates modern and postmodern art.

How's that? I'm cool with it. If we can agree on this, let's work on the article and revisit the lede later once we have verified article content consensus. Does anyone think it's necessary to add anything from the green quotes I mentioned above? Alternatively, we can drop the WWII clause since we have no refs to back that up, which would simplify the statement. I also considered adding "the period of art since" instead of "art since". czar · · 00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Czar—I just want to say that I don't mind the mention of artwork displaying a quality called dematerialization, but I think we should make clear that plenty of contemporary art does not display this characteristic. Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

✓ (It'll work its way in eventually—right now just want to get a simple definition.) czar · · 16:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me! Sionk (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Give it a shot...Modernist (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

How about this:

Contemporary art is fine art created in the present era. The term can refer to art produced as long ago as World War II. The term includes modern art and postmodern art.

Feedback welcome. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Art isn't bolded (probably a typo?) The term doesn't always include modern/postmodern, so that would need to change. Also I don't think this offers the definition as both (1) any era's living artist art and (2) historically (in art history), what we refer to as the period since the dematerialization of art era (1960s). I also prefer including something about the 1960s because I can't find any current sources that refer to contemp art as since WWII. I left in WWII previously just for benefit of the doubt. Do you object to the previous version Sionk and Modernist okayed? czar · · 16:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Czar—I read your comments. Thank you. Let me just present another version. It is easier that way.

Contemporary art is fine art created in the present era. The term would include developments involving the late-1960s dematerialization of art. Included among other themes would be modern art and postmodern art.

Please feel free to comment and/or add counter-proposals. I think I've incorporated some of your suggestions into the above. I like the format you've introduced to this thread for presenting these proposals in block-quote form. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Czar—I think there are problems with the previous version Sionk and Modernist okayed. One problem is the mention of WWII. I am in agreement with you that this can be left out. I'm not sure how others feel about that. Also, there are various ways of mentioning some of the key points that we may wish to mention as being included in the past few decades of art production. I have in mind 3 key points: "dematerialization of art", "modern art", and "postmodern art". In the formulation that Sionk and Modernist okayed, there is no mention of "dematerialization of art". I'm also no longer fond of the phrase I introduced: "In its widest definition". I think it is simpler to just say "Included among other themes would be modern art and postmodern art." Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's define our terms

Ok, hands up, this all started with a discussion with my daughter studying ARt history who stated "Contemporary Art dates from 1905, and Modern is from the Renaissance", to which i had an allergic reaaction. After discussion, it transpires that it's a question of terminology, are we talking about a period? modern, contemporary, or a movement? Modern Art, Contemporary Art
Right, so I have read some (? which ones, don't remember) museums' briefs that say contemporary art dates from pôst WWII, BUT ALSO all museums refer to their collections as collections of Modern and Contemporary Art, which signifies that the two movements are discernibly different, and not synonymous. Which is why I objected to the lede saying that Modern, Post-Modern & and Contemporary are all the same, it's great to theorize, better to visit museums and remark the difference.
WWII is definitely mentioned (a lot of the old fuckers are dead, haha, dada), I think we need to say that Contemporary art includes the notion of contemporaneous art (of our times 20C, now), and Contemporary art (movement = rejection of Modernism, so Post-Modernism and all the rest that follows, YBA, happenings, installations and so on). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary art is not an art movement. An art movement is characterized by more than merely time. This table lists art movements. They are defined by years, but they are defined by more than merely time. There are qualities that the artworks have in common. Sometimes these qualities involve imagery, sometimes materials, techniques, or preoccupations or aims. Is contemporary art united by more than time? Contemporary art can be seen as separate from movements that have already ended—but that is hardly a unifying characteristic. We can speak about how the term "contemporary art" has been used in the distant past, the not-so-distant past, and the present. I think this article's primary focus is the use of the term contemporary art in the present. Perhaps the article will have to evolve in a decade. But we cannot define what contemporary art means both in the present and in terms of the art that would presently fall under that heading. To prove this, ask yourself this question: What, in 2013, is not contemporary art, assuming it meets the time requirements for that name? Consider this question: Is there any work of art which has been produced since 1999 which is not an example of "contemporary art"? Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Very far from all museums "refer to their collections as collections of Modern and Contemporary Art", but for the many who do it avoids having to say which is which (and then revising it every few years). I agree it is a date-based disctinction, which is sometimes used to suggest style or belonging to a movement, but can't be called a movement - many little movements are (currently) part of it though. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Aside from any objective significance the word may have in the phrase "contemporary art" the term has cachet. It is fashionable. This should give us pause when trying to "define" it. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary art means alot of different things - as does Modern art. Generally art that is contemporaneous with our moment in time; art that dates after 1945 (WWII), art that challenges pre-conceptions of what art can be, art made by living or recently living artists, art made by deceased artists that have directly impacted the art of our time can be considered as Contemporary art. Modern art sometimes is defined by similar characteristics but generally refers to art made in the period from the 1880s through the 1970s. Art that is made by deceased artists that have directly impacted the art of our time, art that dates after 1945 (WWII), art made by living or recently living artists can also be considered as Modern art. Years ago I attended a conference on this at MoMA and it was agreed that Post-modernism implies the end of Modernism; while clearly Modernism continues. Contemporary art and Modern art are still somewhat contemporaneous in our time...Modernist (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, please stop talking shit, as IO point out above, it is both a generic term for art of the present day and a movement (or an umbrella under which several currents are housed) as witnessed by the use by museums of their presentation of collections of "Modern and Contemporary Art". You are basically arguing Wikipedia:OR, We can speak about how the term "contemporary art" has been used in the distant past, the not-so-distant past, and the present, well of course, contemporary art in the distant past was contemporary but it is no longer, per se the defintion of contemporary. BTW, who says so? It's not a movement: it's a terminology to enscapulate a series of movements which have their groundings in a unified, common principle, much as Modern Art enscapulates Fut~urism, Expressionism, Dada, Surrealism and so on. I would just add that what you argue below:

I don't think it would be productive to attempt to scour the material that has been written using the terms contemporary, postmodern, or modern art. I don't think the purpose is to clearly define these terms, especially in the lede

seems to me to be completely contrary to the founding principles of WP, basically, let's ignore the sources and write a fluffy, nonspecific definition of what we (I) think insert subject is . CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

CaptainScreebo—you are right, to an extent. I should not be saying that terms like "modern art" and "postmodern art" are entirely devoid of meanings, but "contemporary art" would tend to include all that falls within a time frame. Do we "define" art in the twentieth or the twenty-first century as merely being from a time frame? The purpose of identifying and giving names to "art movements" is to call attention to some underlying commonality—not merely to call attention to a period of time. Bus stop (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the side of Bus Stop (I think) and his "shit" ;) Simply because a museum uses the word 'contemporary' doesn't mean it's a movement. Contemporary can mean (and I expect normally does mean) contemporaneous/recent/new. In any case, we need to keep referring to specific examples, rather than exploring semantics. Are there any examples of institutions or experts defining a 'Contemporary movement'? Sionk (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sionk, please AGF and stop quibbling about words, Dada, Futurism, Cubism, Impressionism and so on were all 'movements' that were then later consolidated into the Modern ARt movement as representing a break with what preceded, being innovative and so on. I don't make this "shit" up and do go to museums, of course "Contemporary art" iz not one movement, but a disparate collectiion of artists/tendencies who have a commmon denominator (whatever that is), and are lumped together under "Contemporary Art". This is not my job, I'm trying to reflect the reality of what one encounters in Art museums to enlighten other Wikipedians, these are not my terms. Did Van Gogh, or Turner, or Brughel consider himself part of a movement? Probably not, yet here they are today,representatatives of the xxx movement. WP should reflect what's out there (which will evolve in time), you're right, there is no Cont Temp Art movement per se, but there is a Contemporzry Art Movement of artists allied thorugh rejection of traditional values, or lack of talent, or media hype, or out-of-this-world-genius, or whatever. Thazt's all. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Where wasn't I assuming good faith? "I go to museums so I know what I'm talking about" is not a sound basis for an article. You accused Busstop of 'original research' while you seem to be doing no better. For as long as you continue, without providing a shred of evidence, we will continue going around in circles. Where's this 'Contemporary Art Movement'? Sionk (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

(To BS) Good grief, a considered response, okay contemporary as in contemporaneous "of our times" and Contemporary as in rejecting the codes of what went before (i.e. modernism et al.), so Post-Modernism, YBA, Art Bollocks or whatever. Yes, we do, define in a time frame, (or at least I do, and so do the majority of exhibitions/museums I've visited). What I'm arguing/trying to point out/trying to validate is that contemporary and Contemporary are *not** the same. It would be okay to differentiate in the lede, with explanations, BUT Contemporary Art (as an umbrella for several *totally* non-associated movements*, with a rupture with the aesthetics/ideology of previous movements) does not mean contemporary "of our times".

For example (OMG don't shoot me), Picasso is contemporary but not Contemporary (as I understand it, and as seems to be presented in the majority of museums). As a reply to your initial question, no, Modern Art, as defined by the "experts", is a trend that runs from about the 1870s to the 1960s, so no it's not about a century, but, yes, it's about a period in time, which, if I understand correctly, represents a similar questioning of the classical ideals of what art is about etc. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Lede and WP:OWN

I see that you have already reverted someone's changes to the lede in January, but nowhere did you reply to that person's statement concerning the article's assertion that “A similar term to Contemporary art is Modern art.” where Undesignated points out that Contemporary art is not an analogous term, it is not equivalent, they are different. which is correct, and for which I added a reference specifically proving that they are different (Modern vs Contemporary), and that Post-Modern and Contemporay are analogous.
Also, I don't know who you are or who the we you use in your replies are, but be aware that WP is a collaborative project and no-one person, or group of editors, owns an article. Following the principles of Bold, Revert, Delete you are now required to discuss the matter as I made a BOLD change, you reverted it to an unsourced, and factually incorrect, IMO, version, which I have now replaced with a sourced, thus factually correct, in my opinion, version. If you disagree, please discuss it here, giving your reasons, and with sources to back up your claim. Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean Bold, Revert, Discuss (instead of "Delete")? czar · · 21:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Consensus will determine which lede remains. For what its worth - your source is not very reliable, or accurate; in addition there is no requirement for the lede to be sourced; please deal with the material in question and not the editors. As you say - this is a collaborative project, thank you...Modernist (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I shall do as I see fit, especially if I perceive editors' behvaiour to be problematic. FWIW, back up your claims with references or more reliable sources, before you denigrate the source that I supplied and its accuracy, for the moment all I'm getting is hot air and unsubstantiated claims. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are perfectly clear delineations between periods in art referred to by the terms "contemporary", "postmodern", and "modern". I prefer this version which seems to be supported by Modernist and Johnbod. These aren't terms that a logical body of commentators have arrived at. This is not comparable to the recent defining of Pluto as dwarf planet. Commentators say what they wish to say and they may not be in accord with one another. I don't think it would be productive to attempt to scour the material that has been written using the terms contemporary, postmodern, or modern art. I don't think the purpose is to clearly define these terms, especially in the lede. Each of the terms seem to have implications but these are not terms with strict definitions. This article's scope is clearly delimited by the present, but the point in time at which this article's scope begins is much less clearly defined. We have a chart in this article which tries to nail down with a degree of specificity certain art movements. But these are fairly well defined relative to the more vague definitions of contemporary, postmodern, and modern. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am too late to the discussion to carefully read all, but scanned for a sense of it. I then googled ("contemporary art" define site:.edu) with NYU as the first result: contemporary art is produced by living artists. Makes perfect sense, but not helpful, I think, when people live for a while and don't want to rename the art they called contemporary when they were younger. Born in 1949, I have lived though a bit of art history myself, beginning when contemporary was identical to modern which was abstraction which was avant-garde. Such simple times. Modern and contemporary have the same problem, being moving targets. The modern began in the Renaissance because the middle ages were over, no it began in the Enlightenment, after WWI, after WWII... Wait, this has to stop so we must now be in the Post-Modern (after the present? the future? meaningless?). Stop trying to match apple and oranges; one vague concept with another. Contemporary = living artists, a term meaningful to the art worlds producing, selling, viewing in NYC or Miami at any moment. But it does not refer to any particular art objects, so what can really be said about it in an encyclopedia? FigureArtist (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

The article is written from a neutral standpoint, which is good. However, for contemporary art it could of have included the history behind it. As contemporary art involves from art. This is something the article can improve on by adding in another section that explains how contemporary art become so big now. The article does contain a good amount of information that if someone where to look at the article and read about contemporary art they would learn enough about it. In the beginning where the word contemporary art is define there is not enough information to describe it so readers can get a quick summary. This is the portion where people read to get that quick summary and there is not enough content. It can explain more about contemporary art then to what the word means. Also the article could contain more graphics as contemporary art is all about the visuals. And so having more graphics and examples could better explain the definition of it. An example of a famous contemporary art piece or any would give readers a better understanding. For something that is trying to explain art visuals would be more helpful than words. You can read the article but still not know what contemporary art is because no pictures were added to this article. When reading a wiki article you are trying to obtain information on a topic you want to know about. The article should be informative. And this article does not contain more information than it should. There could be more added to this article. It is under research. Also maybe because this article does not contain much information but there is not enough sources or other sites used to give this article more content. The article is organize well though and the history part where it talked about the different arts in the different times really tell you how art is changing, and contemporary art is one it. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Art Renewal Movement

The Art Renewal Movement is a 21st century reactionary contemporary art movement, which seeks to restore technical skills and craftsmanship to what these artist believe were lost in modernism and post-modernism. It is a return to-the-basics approach, which framed 19th century French academies as the epitome of art education, just as the Renaissance framed ancient Greek and Roman art in the same way. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Art Renewal Movement, think of it as a 21st century contemporary Renaissance. 199.7.157.95 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced nonsense, verges on vandalism...Modernist (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I notice you have been denying the existence of the Art Renewal Movement for years (as far back as 2007 on the Talk:Abstract art. With an account name like "Modernist", I feel it is safe to assume that your preferred art style is one of the modernist ones. Just because you don't like an art movement, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are literally dozens of academies and ateliers around the world which are part of the ever-growing art renewal movement. I personally trained at the Toronto Academy of Realist Art under Fernando Freitas (http://academyofrealistart.com/arawp/), for instance. I also received a scholarship from the Art Renewal Center (https://www.artrenewal.org/).

Even people who disagree with the Art Renewal Movement's philosophy are not so draconian as to deny its existence, http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpage/2007/08/20/Gifted-artist-Bouguereau-s-work-controversial-more-than-a-century-after-his-death/stories/200708200191. 76.10.168.53 (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's denying its existence. There's an article on it. It's a website called Art Renewal Center, not an art movement or style. It's as simple as that. By the way, you seem to be having some problems with google: that garbled mess of links up there are the results of you searching for "art", "renewal" and "movement" as separate words and the results have nothing to to with the website or support in any way that there's an art movement called "art renewal movement". freshacconci (✉) 03:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

http://www.dailypaintersguild.com/about.html "This site is the culmination of careful thought and selection, and we believe it represents some of the finest art and artists in the Art Renewal Movement of Representational Art." 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:RS: the website for some painting group is not a reliable source. Nothing you have shown is a reliable source. Art Renewal Center exists. It's a website. Art renewal movement is a group of words some people use and there is no evidence of notability per WP:RS or WP:NOTE. freshacconci (✉) 03:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Professor Clive Powsey writes: "In recent decades there has been an art renewal movement to bring back traditional drawing (and painting) methods from very early in the 20th Century and the 19th Century, methods used in the so called 'academic' ateliers and schools. These fairly rote and inflexible traditional art educations involved meticulous copying of drawings and plaster casts. Charles Barque was one of the primary artists who developed a widely distributed drawing program based on a technique called 'sight sizing' from plaster casts and portfolios of lithographs of mainly classical sculpture. The sight sizing technique is really a variation of our more casual 'eyeballing'. Using it, your subject, usually a drawing or sculpture or model, is placed beside your paper and from a prescribed distance, using string and plum line, the observer meticulously takes measurements from the subject and plots them on the paper." http://clivepowseyartinstruction.weebly.com/drawing-the-basicsdrawing-and-rendering-for-metal-jewelery-designers.html 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:RS. That's someone's personal website. That is not a source. Further, that is clearly written as a phrase, not as any suggestion of an actual movement. Much like your problems with google, you are simply finding matches of those words and claiming they are saying what you want them to say. Four editors have reverted you. That means the information stays out until consensus is reached to warrant inclusion. I have repeatedly discussed this with you and yet you persist in being disruptive. Read WP:BRD and WP:SOAPBOX. And read WP:RS. freshacconci (✉) 04:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a contemporary atelier in Australia which specifically uses the term "Art Renewal Movement" to describe their educational philosophy. https://www.atelierartclasses.com/aacblog/2011/10/30/a-cast-of-thousands.html This article was written as far back as 2011! There are literally about a hundred academies and ateliers which are part of the Art Renewal Movement. Many artists feel ripped off from their University and College programs, which no longer focus on traditional drawing skills, and instead go the atelier/academy route. Are you suggesting that all of these academies/ateliers, which are part of the Art Renewal Movement, don't exist? Most of them predate the Art Renewal Center. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're not going to bother reading and understanding WP:RS, you're not going to get very far. The mere existence of three words appearing together does not mean anything and a website for an art school is about as far from a reliable source as you can get. As I have said, the onus is on you not me or the other three editors. You are making the claim, it's up to you to refrain from restoring the edit and providing your case here and obtain consensus. You have not done that. I can tell you this: Wikipedia policy and guidelines are on my side. I have no intention of hanging out reverting you. At a later time, another editor or myself will simply remove whatever you put it, based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. So, if not tonight, then tomorrow, if you incorrectly restore your edit, it will be removed. Per guidelines. And just to be clear: mere existence does not mean notable. We go by sources and you have provided none. And you linking to Art Renewal Center with a piping for "art renewal" is just a deceptive runaround notability guidelines. It's a list of art movements and Art Renewal Center is not a movement and there is no evidence of notability for art renewal as a movement. freshacconci (✉) 04:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Author Dylan Horrocks describes the Art Renewal Movement as "a rather eccentric movement dedicated to undoing the modern art revolution of the past 100 years". https://books.google.ca/books?id=gMZ7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&dq=art+renewal+movement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwittM_dm7LUAhVDdD4KHeTxAtMQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=art%20renewal&f=false

So, I have now provided sources from College professors, authors, art historians, and even art schools themselves! It is very important for you to understand that the Art Renewal Movement predates the ARC website. It has a massive global following with academies and ateliers around the world! 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a news article about the Art Renewal Movement, "This movement now has thousands of practicing artists and thousands more studying at ARC Approved schools and academies". https://codecprime.com/partner/content/2250462-one-kind-art-salon-champions-realism The Art Renewal Movement includes several art styles such as: "traditional realism or classical realism, contemporary realism, imaginative realism, photorealism and hyperrealism" http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2250841-a-one-of-a-kind-art-salon-champions-realism/ So, you're right in pointing out that it's not one style, but the Art Renewal Movement is definitely a movement. Think of it like the opposite of post-modernism (which is a movement that includes many styles). It has the exact opposite artistic philosophy. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there a high degree of promotion in this supposed "movement"? Bus stop (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. The Art Renewal Movement is more of a counter-cultural or reactionary art movement against the tenants of modernism and post-modernism. It would be ignorant to assume that every contemporary artist embraces the ideologies of modernism and post-modernism. It would also be quite shameful to dismiss and belittle opposing visual art perspectives. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

But our article says "The Art Renewal Center (ARC) is a US organization led by New Jersey businessman, and art collector Fred Ross that is dedicated to the promotion of what it terms classical realism in art..." Bus stop (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Classical Realism is more of a style whereas Art Renewal is a movement. Please read the quote I posted above from Professor Clive Powsey about the Art Renewal Movement. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Look, I trained at the Toronto Academy of Realist Art from 2007 to 2010 (http://academyofrealistart.com/arawp/) because I was unsatisfied with my art education from York University. All people talk about at the Academy of Realist Art is the Art Renewal Movement, and there are Art Renewal Movement posters everywhere. Even at York University, students and professors were having debates about the Art Renewal Movement all the time, which is how I heard about the Academy of Realist Art in the first place. It was only until after I started the Academy of Realist Art program that I finally heard about the Art Renewal Center. Believe it or not, the Art Renewal Center website is just one tiny grain of sand in the monstrous desert that is the Art Renewal Movement. You have no idea just how huge this art movement is. There were definitely some minimalist professors at York U who were vehemently against it, but you would be hard pressed to find a York U Fine Arts student or professor who was unfamiliar with the Art Renewal Movement. As I posted above, even in Australia, on the other side of the world, their ateliers use the term Art Renewal Movement. This is a huge massive, global, international art movement. It is certainly more noteworthy that some of the minor fringe movements currently in the article. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:ADAD:A6D3:EC42:F1CC (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

There sources seem fine to me. There are many of them, and they all seem to reach the same conclusion. 11pm (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

What the provided sources show is that the "art renewal movement" is not an "art movement". A disclaimer I should make is that I haven't a clue what an "art movement" is. If anything, I think all so-called "art movements" are illusions. But examine, for a moment, a provided source such as this. I read "Unleash your inner artist." And I read "The Academy of Realist Art (ARA) offers a unique teaching environment where students learn classical drawing and painting skills based on 19th century European atelier techniques. We have achieved international success in helping artists of all levels achieve their goals." How does that source support the idea that the "art renewal movement" is an "art movement"? Whatever an "art movement" is, it comes after the production of art by disparate individuals. According to the source this is a clarion call by an institution for followers. This is a case of putting the cart before the horse. Whatever an "art movement" might be, it is something that is identified by one or more commentators after the artwork has been produced. In other words, the artwork at the outset of an "art movement" is produced without a name attached to that "movement". It is only after a sufficient amount of work is produced by multiple artists containing what a commentator sees as a common thread, that the "movement" comes into existence with the christening of that movement with a name. Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Read this article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpage/2007/08/20/Gifted-artist-Bouguereau-s-work-controversial-more-than-a-century-after-his-death/stories/200708200191). This is a retrospective on how William-Adolphe Bouguereau, and his reputation has been restored due to the Art Renewal Movement. So, not only is the Art Renewal Movement a massive network of current artists, but also a restored appreciation of the 19th century French Academies, and alternate view of the Art History Timeline. This article is even written by a commentator who criticizes the Art Renewal Movement. 76.10.168.53 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Bus Stop, on the Art movement WP page, it reads, "An art movement is a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time". There definitely exists, in the Art Renewal Movement, this shared philosophy and goal by the numerous academies and ateliers around the world. Even as far away as Australia, one of the Australian ateliers (https://www.atelierartclasses.com/aacblog/2011/10/30/a-cast-of-thousands.html) specifically states that the Art Renewal Movement has been active for "a considerable time" in the both North America and Europe, and as of 2011, has now expanded into Australia as well.

I think the read controversy here surrounds the theory that certain post-modern artists, who control the art establishment (museums, universities, government councils for the arts, etc.) have that only post-modern art is considered valid contemporary art. I feel this is a dangerous self-serving philosophy, but thankfully most members of the art community are open-minded enough to respect all forms of art. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:8DCC:6B23:8F72:81AA (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The understanding of "art movements" is that they arise spontaneously without prior coordination. The sources provided indicate an advocacy for a certain type of art. This advocacy disqualifies "art renewal movement" for inclusion among "art movements". Also, do we find this so-called "movement" operating over a "restricted period of time", or is it a movement with no beginning and no end? Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Art Renewal Movement is certainly a grassroots movement. Most of the academies and ateliers which subscribe to it have existed long before the ARC website. So, there's no possibility of this being an AstroTurf movement. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:8DCC:6B23:8F72:81AA (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not addressing my objection. The crux of the matter is not whether this so-called movement is a "grassroots" movement or an "AstroTurf" movement. That is because even if it were a "grassroots" movement, it still may not be valid for inclusion among "art movements" because true art movements should arise spontaneously without prior planning and should only be identified after the fact. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Before this discussion gets out of hand, here are the facts: there are no reliable sources to establish this movement as notable. There has been a discussion, despite edit summaries claiming otherwise. It would not survive as an article. At least six editors now agree that this should not be listed. The IP and most likely sock accounts are being disruptive and refuse to abide by guidelines, policy and consensus. To be blunt: there is no consensus to include this. There are no reliable sources to establish notability. The IP and socks are being disruptive and can and should be treated as such, including being reported and being reverted on sight. freshacconci (✉) 14:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

How are the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Professor Clive Powsey, the Daily Painters Guild, the Brisbane painting & drawing school, and authors Dylan Horrocks and Juliette Aristides not reliable source? 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:8DCC:6B23:8F72:81AA (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I've explained it all to you before. You need to read WP:RS and stop edit warring. None of those are reliable sources and those that may under other circumstances may be considered a source, such as a newspaper, are not saying what you are claiming they are. Your mess of google links above shows that you don't understand the fundamentals of research (and frankly googling). At least six editors disagree with you. You do not have consensus, you are refusing to listen or read guidelines and are now just being disruptive. freshacconci (✉) 14:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Lets take these sources one at a time, because your blanket dismissal reveals that you have not read all of them, or possibly any of them. The Bisbane Painting and Drawing School in Australia. Why do you not consider an academy, atelier, college, or university to be a scholarly source? 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:F029:D9B1:D555:76E9 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not playing this game. I've read what you posted. You clearly have not read WP:RS or you would not be posting a school website as a source. freshacconci (✉) 14:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. The latter states "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer". Therefore, academy, atelier, college, and university websites actually count as reliable sources, even if the content is in the form of a weblog. 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:F029:D9B1:D555:76E9 (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you evading your block? Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Range now blocked a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Contemporary 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, 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) 15:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

^ Esaak, Shelley. "What is "Contemporary" Art?". About.com. Retrieved 2013-04-23.

[1] Esaak, Shelley. "What is "Contemporary" Art?". About.com. Retrieved 2013-04-23.

[1]