Talk:Japanese art/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Title

In keeping with such article titles as History of Japan and Culture of Japan, shouldn't this be Art and architecture of Japan? -- Zoe

The question that should be asked is how much portion of Japan related article should be named hogehoge of Japan. For example, people of Japan or Japanese people? I think articles that are not linked directly from Japan article don't need to be named something of Japan. -- Taku 03:55 15 May 2003 (UTC)

The only reason why "This is different" is because you created it, and you're notorious for not cooperating. -- Zoe

And? -- Taku 03:58 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

And give us a reason why it shouldn't be changed. -- Zoe

I thought I already showed "I think articles that are not linked directly from Japan article don't need to be named something of Japan." -- Taku 04:01 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

Japanese art and architecture could be about Japanese-American architects. For clarity's sake, I think it should be moved to art and architecture of Japan. Tuf-Kat

I know what you mean but either one can be vague if we once started to worry about it. Art and architecture of Japan might be interpreted as Art (in general sense) and aritecture that is found in Japan. -- Taku 04:09 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

I second Taku. If one intended to mean Japanese-American architects, the title would be Japanese-American art and architecture, not just Japanese art and architecture. For Art (in general sense) and aritecture that is found in Japan, the title would be Art and architecture in Japan. Either Art and architecture of Japan or Japanese art and architecture means art of architecture of Japanese origin. I would like to know why Zoe is so annoyed by it. -- User:kt2 04:17 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

(Vie edit conflict and possibly not relevant anymore.) I'm not going to express a view either way at this stage, but I think it's worth pointing out (as TK more-or-less did above) that the two terms have different meanings. Let's take a different example and work it through:

• I'd expect an entry tiitled The cooking of France to be about what French people like to cook, how it varies from one district to another, whether it has changed much since the invention of the can opener and cans to open with it, and so on. It should be about the cooking that takes place in France. If the people of France are big on hot dogs and Big Macs these days and have lost interest in Crème brûlée, then the entry should discuss this.
• I'd expect an entry titled French cooking to be about the style of cooking. It doesn't matter if a Fondue bourguignone is made by M. Pierre Larousse in Paris, or by a Swede living in Boston - either way it is "French cooking" and belongs in this entry. Equally, Big Macs and pavlovas don't.

So: is this entry about the art and architecture of Japan? Or is it about the style of architecture and the styles of art that originated in Japan but are now practiced in Sydney, London, Durban, Dublin and Dunedin? (Not to mention Osaka and Tokyo.) Answer that question and the correct title speaks for itself. Tannin 04:32 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

Nice Tannin, You couldn't say it better. User:kt2

Another edit conflict, reiterates some of Tannin's points

I would have assumed that this article would, eventually, include information on art and architecture in Japan. If all, most or some buildings in Tokyo were designed by westerners, I would expect a description of how this differs from architecture in London or New York or Rome, or at least a mention of when and how traditional Japanese architecture gave way to what in where. In addition, using Japanese as an adjective implies (to me) an ethnic component and my impression is that this article is meant to include, eventually, info on the architecture of the Ainu, Okinawans and other minorities in Japan. Tuf-Kat

I see. Now I don't see any reason not to name Art and architecture of Japan. So I will move. -- Taku 16:58 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

Moved the title from Art and architecture of Japan to Japanese art, for clarity, conciseness, and also to keep coherence with the usual convention as seen in similar titles such as Chinese art, Thai art or Greek art. I suppose the reason for this convention is that an art is usually considered as a movement (that does cross borders!), rather than just a narrow set of events defined by a geographical location (in opposition to, say, history). When I did the change, I didn't know there had been so much arguing on the title, so I am ready to revert if there are good reasons. User:PHG Aug 22, 2004

Still thinking about this contentious title issue, and I share many of the opinions above.

1)There is definitely a difference of meaning in the two approaches. "Japanese art" suggest an essence, a culture whole that defines a certain branch of art, which can go beyond Japan as a country. "Art and architecture of Japan" can be any kind of art that happens to be geographically present on the Japanese territory, tending to deny any essence to it. This title could almost be considered disparaging for such a well recognized branch of art as Japanese art. A country such as Ouzbekistan (no offense intended) could have a catalogue-like article such as "Art of Ouzbekistan", but an "Ouzbekistani art" article would require an approach describing the characteristic artistical culture in that country. In a "Japanese art" approach however, an additional segment such as "Japanese art in the West" would be coherent.

2) Regarding the issue of other artistical cultures in Japan (Ainu, Okinawan), I would agree they can hardly be incorporated under Japanese art without precautions (and the article doesn't include them either). It would be (a little) like calling Tahitian art French art simply because Tahiti became at one time part of the French territory. They probably deserve separate articles under the Japan category. The safest view would probably be to let Japanese art coincide with the rise of Japan as a cultural entity (Yamato foundation) with credit to the Jomon and Yayoi origins, which is what this article essentially does.

Sorry for the disturbance, and I suggest we stay with the "Japanese art" title. User:PHG Aug 22, 2004

Copyright violation

• Some sentences of the article are directly copied from [1]. This is a violation of copyright! The article needs to be changed! Ben talk contr 11:18, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think the site you named is a mirror of Reference 1 at the bottom of the article. Within that reference, follow the links to License page where you will find the following text:

Subject to the provisions contained herein, the Copyright Holder hereby grants a worldwide, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright), non-exclusive, royalty-free License to use the accompanying proprietary Documents.

I hope that and the rest of the license page helps clear up the copyright issues. Fg2 11:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what that means, INAL, but I am sorry if I made unjust accusations. Still, I think, it would be better not just to copy the sentences. We should try instead to improve on them. Ben talk contr 09:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Modern Japanese art

I'm curious as to why Japanese modern and/or popular art (you know the drill, manga, anime, video games, etc.) is practically not in this article. I think it's really imnportant -- individual Japanese popular artist studio websites are spread liberally all over the internet. It's a big thing. I know that these new forms have huge pages dedicated to them, but I'd still like a justification of their large abscence from this article. Thanks. --Zaorish 22:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I simply took it upon myself to clean up the spelling, grammatical, stylistic, and formatting issues of the article, and I consider it very much a work in progress. Also, while I definitely agree that modern art deserves a section, there is really nothing to be said about Japanese modern art that covers the entire movement - no broad, sweeping generalizations that one might use to analyze the "modern" type of art. We can certainly provide some examples, and some links, but for every style or artist we name and discuss, I can practically guarantee there's going to be someone else who's doing almost exactly the opposite. LordAmeth 22:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason for their absence from this article is that Wikipedia is written by volunteers who add and edit content based on their interests and expertise. Wikipedia welcomes on-topic encyclopedic contributions. If you have knowledge about the areas you mention, readers would be very interested in learning from you, either in this article or in a separate article where there's more room to expand on a particular period. Fg2 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2020 and 23 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ConnorReidVinson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)