This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | → | Archive 5 |
It seems like in wikipedia, Category:Arts and Category:Humanities are separate. Humanities isn't a subcategory of Arts. Arts is architecture, design performance arts, visual arts, crafts,etc . It does not include humanities. If there is agreement on that, Category:Humanities and art should be deleted and Category:Literature moved out of Category:Arts.
From what I can gather from the previous conversations on Category talk:Art, the vote was to keep Category:Art and it might be better to have a more descriptive name. So Category:Art could be roughly the same as Fine art, where fine art is painting, sculpture, dance, theater etc. I don't think I completed understand what was said on Category talk:Art. It seems to me like Art should continue to be an umbrella term with discussions really focused around painting and so forth. And Category:Art should not contain disciplines, just art history, artists, and so forth.
Taking a look at the Yahoo directory structure, Category:Arts may look like this:
This is different that what I put on Category talk:Visual arts in that design and crafts are on the same level and Visual arts – to give better access and to not overweight visual arts, as well as to roughly define visual arts as more of fine arts.
02-15-04 Added Pottery as a category. Although clay work is sometimes considered a "craft" and inclusion with the "arts" is sometimes a contentious issue, I have been developing a tree of pottery articles which, I believe, would not be appropriately grouped under craft as the encyclopedia has defined them. Comments welcome. -W. (an anon)
October 8, 2006- Shouldn't Opera be a subset of theater (right now it's not listed a subset of anything)?
--24.115.80.11 13:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
include:
I have fixed half a dozen disambig links to this page. There were some links in YearInTopic templates that have been fixed, and those links will disappear from "What links here" once whatever magical process that generates the list takes place. Shoehorn 07:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion this is not a ((disambig)), it's an aritcle attempting to define the terms "Arts". Any objection to me removing the ((disambig))? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander Keane (talk • contribs) 22:43, December 5, 2005 (UTC)
This page is just a lite, list-oriented version of Art. I have marked it for 'MERGE. -- fairplay 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
So, from the last comment, and the form it takes in the title of the article, can I take it that the correct form is to always capitalise when referring to 'the Arts'? In which case should the sentence within the article 'A precise definition of the arts can be contentious', be changed?Number36 22:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless of course anybody has a reason or explanation why it should remain 'The Arts'?Number36 23:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
When embedded links are used (preferably rarely) they create automatic numbers for each successive link. However, not to confuse the reader who might associate such embedded link numbers with the normal inline citation numbering, an expanded reference must be entered into a separate list in the References section to identify the nature of each numbered external link. See Cite_sources#Embedded_links for the rules. I fixed the problem in this article by finding those links in the History section (2 in fact) and including a full reference for each one, with title and other required information, which were added to the beginning of the References section, as a bulleted list. Skol fir (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
After looking more into the definition of "visual arts" today, it became apparent to me that the applied arts should also be mentioned, and since Wikipedia already has entries on these, it was appropriate to link them into the introduction. Skol fir (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I had to remove an external link at the bottom of the article because it clearly broke the rules for external links. See the Help section for editing, which lists the type of links that are inappropriate for an article (Wikipedia:External links). In particular: "Item 4: Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming." Skol fir (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Arts is also a collage course, comprising many different subjects!
Ehm, what about deleting the ballroom dance picture. What's the point of it, really?
The image Image:No. 5, 1948.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Are the liberal arts apart of the arts? Brad7777 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I was able to clarify the meaning of "the arts" using various resources both within and outside of Wikipedia, as shown in the new section "Definition". My main purpose for adding this section was that the original version of the overview for "the arts" broached the topic of the term "art" as a separate concept from "the arts", without explaining it. I thought that a section devoted to a definition would help to clarify this difference. Skol fir (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I find 'Visual, auditory, performance and literary' just as confusing as the traditional term 'fine' art (or the plastic arts - which at least has the advantage of including print-making (including photography) and is generally the scope pursued in art education). We read with our eyes, making literature a 'visual' art - we go to watch as well as listen to concerts and other performances, making them 'visual' arts as well! Are there any arts that are not 'visual'? Even when we buy recordings of music these are accompanied by 'artwork' and notes. The folly of trying to align separate arts with the senses is manifest. The distinction between 'Fine' arts and applied arts or crafts was meant to capture some more specialised expertise to, say, picture-making of some kind, or three-dimensional model-making, rather than allow all market or industrial applications the same value. We thus preserve a distinction between a child's plastic duck, as a bath toy, and Henry Moore's numerous bronze castings, for example. Craft is thus understood to make an object competently, while Art is to exceed such standards.
One thing the current entry does get right is of their historical development. They are confusing because they are ad hoc - the distinctions serve for different occasions and quickly run into problems as society progresses, technologies change. It is right to emphasise this and to acknowledge the ongoing problems.--Gerry Bell (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The list of Various Arts on this page seems to have gone a little astray. Would anyone with some knowledge of the subject like to give it a spring-clean, so we have a list of which ones "usually are included"? Or any suggestions on improving this part of the page... - Bobathon (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do people need some sort of art??? Does this have any reason, some one to choose dancing or music or any thing?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.203.90 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone correctly pointed out that Women's Studies is not a subject under the Humanities. In fact, it is an area of interdisciplinary study which includes many subjects in the humanities and social sciences, with the intent of highlighting women, feminism, gender, and associated politics. Skol fir (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Still not included in this discussion? After so much great has been work done? --66.181.79.114 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)