Talk:Figurative art

Conflicting definitions

The Bullfinch Guide to Art describes figurative art as representational. I'll research and get back to this article. Sparkit 07:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Figurative art is by definition representational. They are synonyms. Tyrenius 05:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The proper word is "figural", of course, but "figurative" (which means to express one thing in the form of another or in terms of another) has been misused in this sense for about 40 years. People who buy "figurative" art must beware that they not may be getting figural art, but a metaphor expressed in the media instead. 72.179.63.75 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Eric

The 'proper' word for what, exactly, do you claim to be 'figural'? Clarity of expression is as important on a talk page as anywhere else in an encyclopaedia.

If the technically correct term for art that includes human figures is figural rather than figurative, then the misuse has gone uncorrected for so long that it is now an alternative meaning of the word. For example the Los Angeles Academy of Figurative Arts has a program that is almost exclusively drawing and painting the human figure. It is not surprising since figure in art generally means human figure (often as a euphemism for nude) rather than merely a generic object. Those that call themselves figurative artists are saying not saying they are being metaphorical, nor are they saying their work is representational. They are drawing, painting or sculpting people.[1] FigureArtist (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Figure" in art does not "generally" mean human figure, although it often does. Those that call themselves figurative artists in the way you describe are simply demonstrating that they do no comprehend what "figurative" means in art. There are many such artists, whose academic knowledge of art is somewhat limited. Because they misunderstand and misuse a term it does not mean that their ignorance should be propagated by an encyclopaedia.

Pablo Picasso

The inclusion of Picasso was disputed on the basis that he was not a figurative artist. However the definition quoted from the Tate Gallery states:

Since the arrival of abstract art the term figurative has been used to refer to any form of modern art that retains strong references to the real world. "Glossary: Figurative"

Quite clearly his work does retain such strong references and therefore makes him a figurative artist. He is also shown on the Tate page as an example of a figurative artist. This is a verifiable source.

I dispute the inclusion of Odd Nerdrum in this list as he does not have a worldwide reputation of equal standing to the other artists and seems an anomaly.

Tyrenius 23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Slowly becoming accepted?

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.37.166 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) How many decades have to go by before we admit that figurative art is completely accepted in the contemporary art world? When I started art school 15 years ago they were talking about the "return" of figuration. At that point Francesco Clemente had already been an art world darling for 10 years, and 10 years before him there were the "new image" artists like Susan Rothenberg and Donald Sultan. Throw in Lucien Freud, Richard Diebenkorn, Francis Bacon (painter), and the pop artists and you have to wonder when figurative art wasn't accepted. In the 1940s? --emw 02:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

-I don't know of any time where figurative art was not accepted. Perhaps realism was not accepted at brief times(60s onwards gerhard richter, 90s 'britartist' mueck, 00s Jenny Saville etc. all bought and displayed by the same dealers at forefront of conceptual movements, john currin, Ken currie, chuck close etc.etc.); they are not synonyms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.64.86 (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Reconfiguration

The article is at a good point now, scaled back to its essence. I would like to take a shot at expansion, sans naming specific artists, if possible, but might not get to it for a while--there is little solid online reference, and I am inclined to dig up my Kenneth Clark books, when time permits. JNW 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that part of the problem is the interpretation of the term, and the subsequent open door to POV as to which artist or school best represents figurative art. In all, a challenge to write with minimal POV. JNW 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think material needs to be properly sourced. A bog standard text like Gombrich might be useful, or, as you say, Clark. Tyrenius 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made incremental additions, on idealism and realism, and formal elements. Please proof read and make necessary edits. JNW 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Figurative Art

As this page appears to be a historical view of figurative art, and the page on contemporary art is pretty non-specific - given the pluralistic nature of the art world today- there should be a page on contemporary figurative art, which is undeniably substantial and growing more-so every year.

So long as the information is properly sourced, so as to not become, essentially, an exercise in promotion or advertisement for a particular school, gallery, or group of artists--see WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Please remember to sign your posts. JNW 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested internal link for this article

I have created a Wikipedia page entitled List of artists focused on the female form (The title was not mine but one modified by an unknown party). It has become a 'redirect' from the search term Women in Art which was my original title. I feel that adding the "Women in Art" link to the links list of THIS article would help those seeking art of the female form using the search term Figurative Art and reaching this "Figuative Art" item, which, though both interesting and educational in itself, does not satisfy all those searching using this heading, making the article worthy of expansion to this end. Point taken on the broader meaning of the term, but the generally accepted narrower understandings should, I feel, perhaps also be included satisfying the reader's current need with the benefit of a wider education to go. The link would need to be Women in Art to reach this list of artists which will grow with time I'm sure. Hope this helps.
--Jdm art (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Kenyon Cox nude study2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Kenyon Cox nude study2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 20, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 19:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

This study drawing by Kenyon Cox shows the allegorical figure of Romance nude, bending her head to read a book on her lap. Romance is one figure in a painting, The Arts, in the north-end lunette of the Southwest Gallery in the Library of Congress' Jefferson Building. Cox was an advocate of figurative art—art that is clearly sourced from real objects—and is therefore by definition representational rather than abstract art.Restoration: Lise Broer

I've moved this deeper into the article. Because it's a nude, its presence at the top reinforces the incorrect definition of "figurative art" as "art depicting the human figure", which is specifically debunked in the article. I'm moving it to follow that explanatory passage. I've packaged instead two landscapes to contrast figurative and abstract treatment of a similar kind of scene. I chose them purely because they had some compositional similarities. Any two paintings that share similar subject matter but show a striking contrast between "figurative" and "abstract" would be fine. I was actually hoping for something simpler, like a bull (thinking of Picasso). Cynwolfe (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gallery

The gallery seems really random, especially since it follows a section titled "Evolution," which implies a chronological progression. I hope no one minds if I sort it accordingly.

Also, I wonder how much thought went into selecting the images, or whether some editors just threw in stuff they liked. The gallery is obviously too large, and the text of the article insufficient for explaining the course of figurative art over the ages. It's also rather non-global; I don't see any Chinese or Japanese art, for instance. Or sculpture, for that matter. Actually what we have is an article on figurative painting. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Even within the Western tradition, medieval art is also underrepresented. We have mostly 19th century examples. The section also undermines the definition of "figurative art" by only showing examples of art that depicts human beings. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing Conflict

This article remains little more than a definition and a gallery that is at odds with that definition. Figurative as the opposite of literal, or figurative = human figure? Is there a definitive sourceFigureArtist (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes!

Whilst the definition clearly, and correctly, states, 'Figurative art is not synonymous with "art that represents the human figure,"' the examples show exclusively art that represents the human figures. It should include other examples of figurative art, such as landscapes, still lifes, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.207.20 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor was correct, and the issue remains current some years later. If figurative can include still life and landscape, then the examples must do the same. I'll make a start but the article is seriously unbalanced on this issue at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've created some smaller galleries to show a bit of the range of what figurative means. There's no reason why these sections should not have cited text and discussion; and other topics probably deserve coverage. I have a suspicion that someone may long ago have merged or redirected something like 'Figure painting' here, it deserves investigation. But at least the article is already somewhat less misleading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Figurative 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006212330/http://www.gombrich.co.uk/showdoc.php?id=68 to http://www.gombrich.co.uk/showdoc.php?id=68

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) 19:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)