Mountshang (talk | contribs) |
Encyclopedist (talk | contribs) →Explanation for reversion: Dude? |
||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
:::[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art&diff=38000492&oldid=37828357]] |
:::[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art&diff=38000492&oldid=37828357]] |
||
:::Thankyou all for your participation. [[User:Mountshang|Mountshang]] 21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
:::Thankyou all for your participation. [[User:Mountshang|Mountshang]] 21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
::::Dude, you just don't get it. [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#000000">'''''ε'''''</font>]][[User:Encyclopedist|<font color="#000000">'''γκυκλοπ'''</font>]][[User_talk:Encyclopedist|<font color="#808080">'''αίδεια'''</font>]][[Wikipedia|<font color="#808080">'''*'''</font>]] 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Neutrality of the Article is Disputed == |
== Neutrality of the Article is Disputed == |
Revision as of 20:42, 8 February 2006
See also: /Archive 1: all talk through December 2005
==Brenneman|brenneman]](t)(c) 08:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Essays
- www.centrebouddhisteparis.org/En_Anglais/FWBO/The_Arts/the_arts.html Art and the spiritual life
- samvak.tripod.com/artist.html Art as a private language
- www.
- www.smdblue.com
- Let's bring back the essays. Resources (websites) for artists belongs somewhere else, if anywhere. >>sparkit|TALK<< 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Roger Ebert and Hideo Kojima
Recently, Rogert Ebert has stated that he believes video-games are not art. Hideo Kojima in turn responded, to my surprise, by agreeing with Roger Ebert (this interview could easilly be found by googling "hideo kojima games not art"). Should these recent discussions of gaming as an art form be noted or referenced in the article?
Yet another attempt at opening paragraphs
Persuant to TheNugga's critique, I have changed the format of my entry to better conform to the standards of Widipedia, and he has now approved the format (if not the content)
I've eliminated all the forms of art because art can take any form -- it is not limited to any list of any forms. However, we might consider making a separate section that would begin to assemble an exhustive list of the thousands of art forms current and past.
Regarding the content --- I am sure that sooner or later (probably sooner) my entry will be dumped in favor of something else.
But if you are going to do the dumping -- please replace it with something that does not have the following text :
"Art (or the creative arts) commonly refers to the act and process of making material works (or artworks)"
(because this excludes conceptual art)
" which, from concept to creation, hold a fidelity to the creative impulse"
(because this excludes all the work in art museums which done, on demand, by artisans fulfilling specific requirements)
"excluding (in art-purist contexts).... any undisciplined pursuit of recreation."
(because this excludes many things that "hold a fidelity to the creative impulse")Mountshang 15:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
This article has many POV remarks and personal opinions, and the tone sounds more flowery than encyclopedic. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your comment. Would you please identify those remarks which you consider POV and those phrases which you feel are flowery rather than encyclopedic. (thanks to Wikipedia, I recently read the entry on art in an 1852 American encyclopedia. Now THAT was flowery) Mountshang 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- "Art is a superior way..." The term "superior" is subjective, and that's the lead. Then again, can art be described non-subjectively? >>sparkit|TALK<< 08:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thankyou for your comment. Would you please identify those remarks which you consider POV and those phrases which you feel are flowery rather than encyclopedic. (thanks to Wikipedia, I recently read the entry on art in an 1852 American encyclopedia. Now THAT was flowery) Mountshang 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote "a superior way" instead of "THE superior way" to allow for a variety of opinions and a variety of arts that attempt to accomplish similar goals (for example: the multiple arts that attempt to restore human health) Wouldn't this get me off the POV hook ? I've also considered adding the word 'demonstrably' in front of superior -- because I think that anyone who claims to be practicing an art is claiming that their art can be used to be produce demonstratably positive results.(so it's not just a matter of faith) Mountshang 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I understand. The essence, to me, is the quality or elegance of the product or process. Though those terms are also subjective and don't leave room for what some call "bad" art -- Kitsch and the like. If quality, elegance or a superior way were essential to art, then what is called "bad art" couldn't even be called art. >>sparkit|TALK<< 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Art...hmm
Has it occured to anyone that an article on art should have pictures? Seriously...come on... KI 04:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Pictures might have been appropriate for an article written 150 years ago -- but that would suggest that there is now some visual characteristic that items called 'art' might have in common -- and there isn't. Art can look like anything -- even an empty picture frame. Mountshang 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Defining Art Redux
There are those who believe video games could not be called art (Roger Ebert); but what about pornography? Could that be, if intended to be, art? What is the difference between erotic art and traditional pornography? Where do you draw the line?
Case Against Art
What happened to all the external links / resources; like the essay, "The Case Against Art"? Why did those not belong in the article?
- See "External Links" above on this discussion page. >>sparkit|TALK<< 20:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the following Wikipedia policy would apply:
- "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view."
- A topic as diverse as 'art' must allow for multiple Points of View - some of which can best be articulated outside Wikipedia, in a space where others cannot edit them. According to the above policy, a 'detailed explanation' is required -- so it looks like Sparkit should provide this explanation for any essays which he thinks should be kept -- giving Brenneman the opportunity to refute those arguments. I happen to think that the essay "Case against Art" presented a very weak case - but I'd leave it in until a better one was presented to replace it. Mountshang 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I re-added the essays. The above quote from Wikipedia policy explains why -- mulitiple points of view. >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Explanation for reversion
I've reverted back to my last version, since no response was forthcoming to any of the problems noted in the version which replaced it. Those problems included:
- '"Art (or the creative arts) commonly refers to the act and process of making material works (or artworks)"'
- ( excludes conceptual art)
- '" which, from concept to creation, hold a fidelity to the creative impulse"'
- (excludes all the work in art museums which was done, on demand, by artisans fulfilling specific requirements)
- Patronage, and it's effects on art and artist, seems to me a huge aspect that is not addressed (that I've found) in Wikipedia. I'm considering starting an article. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- '"excluding (in art-purist contexts).... any undisciplined pursuit of recreation."'
- (excludes many things that "hold a fidelity to the creative impulse")
- '"Art, in its broadest meaning, is the physical expression of creativity or imagination"'
- (Creativity and imagination may questionably be necessary for a practice to be called art, but they are definately not sufficient )
- '"The word art derives from the Latin ars, which, loosely translated, means "arrangement" or "to arrange".'
- (what is the source of this derivation ? It seems different from the Latin that I've read -- and - it can't be found elsewhere on the internet. I think this derivation should be put on hold until someone can verify its source)
- Please fix the section, with sources since there might be contention. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- '"Art is commonly understood as .."'
- (how many other encyclopedic entries are concerned with common understandings ? Aren't we more concerned with an understanding based on knowledge ?)
Regarding the version which I've been presenting, it does seem that "effective" is the better word than "superior" in the first sentance, and I've made this change hoping that it will satisfy those who felt that this presented a POV problem.
Regarding the POV problem, I realize that several readers have sounded this alarm, but no one has yet identified the POV issue that is present. Can anyone do this ?
- It seems to me to be an inherently subjective topic, and the challenge is in satisfying many points of view. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I realize that my opening paragraphs do not define art as it is understood by several of you --- but I don't think that it is our job to determine what is the most
popular understanding of the word 'art' --- it's to look for an understanding that best accounts for how art is distinguished from non-art by institutions that specialize in this topic, institutions like galleries, public museums, art schools, and universities.
- Interesting. I wonder if there is consensus among those institutions as to what is or is not art? >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the picture, I've removed it for reasons given earlier - i.e. it is incorrect to assume that something is art because it looks a certain way -- so the presentation of pictures is not relevant to an article about art. The picture that was presented -- the Venus of Samothrace -- would have been the perfect illustration for an encyclopedia written in 1800 -- but the notion of art used today is very different. Mountshang 14:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I support the work you are doing on this article, Mountshag.
- The lead sentence neglects the "product" aspect of art, so I suggest;
- Art is the product or process of the effective application of a body of knowledge and a set of skills. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Rv back, the article was better after the line of changes, and you are back to the version that needs a cleanup. All the other articles either have some picture of a Mona Lisa or something, so I think the Winged VIctory of Samothrace should stay, and Mountshang has had little experience here, so it is time for another person to grab the ball - you can't try to slam dunk by yourself. Wikipedia is a team effort.
- The first introduction which Mountshang supports does not meet the manual of style, it is not wikified and does not meet quality standards that should be found on a article featuring art. I feel that it is ridiculous that Mountshang, being an unexperienced user, has become an "overseer" over the article - you need to make compromises. The Winged Victory of Samothrace will stay here if I have anything to do with it, take a look at other language articles and there are plenty of images of art, so the English version should be no different - after all, most people want to see pictures when they think of this ingenious concept known as "art" - we are not interested in your and only your opinion about images or some generalization that pictures are old fashioned. Great, it may be old fashioned BUT it IS art...like it or not. Now I kept you old introduction, but the one from the portal simply is better. I would be more than happy to add in Sparkit's new sentence - and if I am outvoted I'll back down, but I think the article is generally better now. I am sorry, but that revision of yours showed definite mediocrity - someone actually added a {{NPOV}} a few hours- not days- after I added a {{cleanup}} tag here, clearly improvement to the article is needed. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Let we clarify something as well, I don't want to say that you or your writing skills are mediocre - but I think your unwillingness to accept change makes the article suffer, the French, Portuguese, and Spanish versions have images (not necessarily one). I think that those sentences about cultural concepts of art that you added were excellent, but the bad spelling and non Wikification make them look poor - and the article does need other editors. I am sorry to have to get nasty above, but this edit you made to my page accusing me of vandalism made crap hit the fan. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- For example I think the following is excellent:
- As cultural expression, art may be defined as a category of distinction that seeks diversity and requires narratives of liberation and exploration (i.e. art history, art criticism, and art theory) to mediate its boundaries. This distinction may be applied to objects or performances, current or historical, and its prestige extends to those who made, found, exhibit, or own them. There are no necessary or sufficient criteria for the items chosen other than the necessity of originality. It's purpose may be political (such as art for palaces or propoganda) or liturgical (art for cathedrals or temples) or unknowable (prehistoric cave markings) or nothing other than the purpose of being validated as art (contemporary art).
- As self-expression, art has no boundaries, other than to be free from all other requirements. It's purpose is to develop the self-awareness and self-confidence of the practitioner and sometimes also to share that with others.
Response to the above
No, I certainly don't wish Encyclopediast to be zapped by lightning -- and I apologize for connecting this serious, multi-lingual scholar with 'vandalism' -- which, I've since learned, has a lengthy definition on Wikipedia and is a very serious charge in this community.
I guess being a newbie to Wikipedia, I'm still not comfortable with how things are currently done.
Assuming that we would behave like a gathering of serious scholars -- when one person makes an assertion (like "Art is XXXX"), someone who disagrees would attempt to present a convincing argument to explain that disagreement --- something more convincing than "Everybody else thinks that Art is YYYYY" or "I think that art is YYYY" or "Who are you to tell us that Art is XXXX ?" or "Wikipedia in other languages says that art is YYYY"
Believe me, I'm not especially sold on the passages which I've contributed -- I've changed my mind in the past and I expect to change it again -- but I don't think that, other than for for benevolence of intention, an un-explained reversion is effectively any better than vandalism -- and in one sense, it's worse, because the actions of a vandal can be casually dismissed and instantly reverted -- while anything done with good intentions deserves a thoughtful and diplomatic reply.
Let's face it --- the chances are very slim that the Wikipedia article on 'Art' in ten years will still have anything that you, me, or anyone else now reading this has contributed. But we can contribute towards the discussion -- and more importantly, towards an attitude of disciplined discourse that hopefully will develop as the project matures.
That's why I reject the strategy of compromise that attempts to cobble together an article to say "Art is XXXX and Art is YYYY" --- in order to placate everyone who wants to make a contribution.
Maybe the arguments used to justify XXXX will never satisfy those who favor YYYY --- eventually requiring someone to present ZZZZ that makes sense to everyone. But first --- we need to see just what those arguments are.
I've presented mine ---- Encyclopediast, it's time for you to present yours.Mountshang 17:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well I am no multi-lingual scholar: the only argument to the above is that I find someone else should take the ball for a while, you know it is SuperBowl Sunday today. Teams have alternate players, right? I don't see why this article cannot. I want to apologize for sounding arrogant above, but the bottom line is that the article was misspelled and not even wikified. I was only trying to do something for the article, and I did not expect to be dragged in some political forum in the process. XXXX YYYY and ZZZZ is great, but just let someone else have a chance. I am not arguing anymore, and I won't even make changes here anymore. I really don't feel like pulling teeth today, and that is what this argument is like. Bye. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't recall that specifics have yet been offered for either POV,spelling, or Wikification issues -- all of which would be appreciated. The original copy is as follows:
- [[1]]
- Thankyou all for your participation. Mountshang 21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality of the Article is Disputed
I would like to help out, before I get involved, can someone please summarize (50 words max) the issues in regards to neutrality: --FR Soliloquy 15:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)