Talk:The arts/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Arts Collage.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The arts → Arts – WP:THE gives two conditions which usually have to be met for an article title to begin with "The":

1. If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article.
2. If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text.

Neither of these applies to "the arts" as a term. A distinction does need to be made between the arts and art, but those are already different words. As far as I can see the rationale for this article's title has never been discussed on the talk page, but it seems to have been so that the article titles "The arts" and "Art" would be as visually different from each other as possible. I would argue that "Arts" and "Art" are sufficiently different from each other, and better meet our naming conventions.

This has come about because of this proposal at CfD to rename Category:Arts to Category:The arts – partly for consistency with this article's current title, and partly because the phrase "in the arts" appears in other category names. However, I don't see any inconsistency between "Arts" as the title of an article or category, and using "the arts" where the term doesn't appear at the beginning of the title; WP:THE comes into play in the former case and not the latter. As this article's title is so important to that CfD discussion, I think it at least needs to be discussed. Ham II (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging BrownHairedGirl, Dimadick, El cid, el campeador, Grutness, Johnbod, Marcocapelle, Oculi and Peterkingiron, who've been involved in related CfD discussions; I'll also post this at WT:THE. Ham II (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "The arts" is widely used even when the definite article is not required grammatically. I can see no benefit to readers or editors in deliberately creating ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I would say that the first criterion of WP:THE above is met: "If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article". "Arts" without "the" might in many contexts be used for things like "arts of politics" and so on. In a large number of contexts omitting the "the" is a language error. You can't say "the year in arts" and so on (Bhg is understating this point above, imo) . As the nom says, those not used to the distinction with Art do find this a bit confusing, and removing the article will increase that. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've not seen much use of "arts of politics" myself, with or without "the" – "the dark arts of politics", possibly – and "the art of political persuasion" seems more likely than "(the) arts of" same. So I'm sceptical that there's any distinction to be made between "The arts" and "Arts" as encyclopaedic topics – they should definitely both have the same destination! The distinction is between "The arts" and "Art". Using "the" to emphasise the difference between two non-identical words might possibly be no bad thing, but it doesn't seem to be covered at WP:THE, and absent that "Arts" and "Art" look different enough to me.

  I agree that "in arts" (as opposed to "in the arts") is incorrect, but as I've said I don't see any contradiction between that and an article or category titled simply "Arts"; it isn't correct either to say "in United States", but United States is the article title. Ham II (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Given that we've gone to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, perhaps The Bahamas is a valid counterexample. Grutness...wha? 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  I would never have known before seeing how the name is used in the article text, but apparently The Bahamas satisfies condition 2 of WP:THE. Ham II (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Note that the general concept of art is generally uncountable (unlike Cat/Cats) which is why Arts goes here per WP:PLURALPT that said "arts" does sometimes mean the general concept so the 1st part of THE might be satisfied. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:THE. Starting an article title with the definite article is certainly discouraged. "The arts" and "Arts" are equivalent in English, and there is no need to have "The" in the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The definition section of the article uses "the arts" as the term used in the sources cited: "The term "the arts" includes, but is not limited to, music (instrumental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, film, video, tape and sound recording, the arts related to the presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of such major art forms, all those traditional arts practiced by the diverse peoples of this country. (sic) and the study and application of the arts to the human environment." "Arts" without the is nowhere defined. Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per common sense. It's "the arts". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per general usage. Also, WP:THE should apply, as "The arts" and "Arts" are not completely equivalent in English. "The arts" is the general collective noun; "Arts" is used primarily as a modifier in compound nouns (e.g., "Arts programmes", "Arts funding", "Arts Council", "Arts education"). Grutness...wha? 17:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Are Portal:Arts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts misnamed, then? Ham II (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes. Grutness...wha? 02:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per others, "The" is regularly used enough to satisfy WP:THE - Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Britannica uses "The arts". Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion for article structure

The opening definition makes reference to several constituent parts of the arts. I would suggest that each of those constituent parts receive a section in the article, to keep some sense of coherence. I also suggest the parentheses in the introduction be eliminated entirely, leaving only the overarching constituent parts in the first paragraph and leaving sub-topics to the main body of the article. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that what it does, more or less, just not very well? Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ninth art

[1] There were two mention of the "ninth art" being comic (on French scholarly circle). But there's no mention of what's the "eight" form of art. Therefore the two mention of the "ninth art" would confuse the readers. Bennylin (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bennylin: good catch. I've added it (film) in the Classifications section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Collage update

I'd say the lead collage for this article is due for an update. It's a bit too long, represents only China and Europe, and doesn't have the best balance of disciplines (literary arts isn't the most visually compelling, so should only have one entry). Would anyone like to help compile a gallery of options for a new collage? We could perhaps sample one image each from architecture, literature, theatre, painting, dance, and music, trying to get broad geographic representation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24, definitely an improvement! I agree there's probably some further improvement possible; let's revisit this at some point. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sdkb; originally when I made the collage it was in addition to a second one which somewhat expanded the scope to architecture, India and something else I can't remember. Though when I saw your comment and took another look I have no idea what I was thinking. Indeed it is difficult to find a good image for literature. Ideally it would nice to avoid one by an author as prominent as Shakespeare (because then it feels awkward to have an extremely famous representative of literature, but not famous representatives for the other arts) but I couldn't find any good pictures! Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

Change "Film is sometimes called the "eighth" ". "Cinema" is mentioned as the seventh art, that should cover "Film". I couldn't find supporting evidence for that claim. Thanks Jvalansi (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Page 37 of currently cited source 18 does support this. Cannolis (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Arts to be added

This article is Vital-1 on Wikipedia. That means it is in the top ten articles on Wikipedia that have been identified as critical to the structure of Wikipedia, and is therefore one of the main articles being targeted for improvement. The purpose of the improvement is to get these articles up to Featured Article status, which is quite difficult. Even getting them to Good Article status requires a lot of effort. I'm making a list here of arts/sections that probably need to be added. Feel free to add these to the article, or to add more arts to this list.

Under Visual Arts...

Computer art/Graphic design

Film/Cinematography

Glass art e.g. Glassblowing, Stained glass

Lacquerware (Applied to both woodcarving and pottery, but I'm not sure if pottery includes ceramics)

Paper art including Printmaking, Origami, Calligraphy

Textile arts (See also Dyeing)

Under Culinary arts (which also needs to be added as a section)...

Food preparation and Cooking techniques, including Ethanol fermentation, Baking, etc.

Brewing

Cake decorating

Candy making

Winemaking (See also Wine and food pairing)

Discussion:

LightProof1995 (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• No, too much stuff. The last thing GA, let alone FA wants is an endless bitty list. We do not want a section on Ethanol fermentation. Ceramics includes pottery btw, as you'd know if you'd looked at the articles. They have a section already. Lacquerware is generally applied to neither woodcarving nor pottery. Most of this stuff should be grouped as decorative arts. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hello, thanks for your reply. I stated this list is a list of arts/sections, so it is free enough these arts can be added to the article without making it more bitty. For example, Drawing could be mentioned within a beautifully-written section titled "Paper arts" that also mentions Printmaking, Origami, Calligraphy, Comics, etc. You misread my statement on pottery -- I said I am not sure if pottery includes ceramics, not vice-versa. My confusion is entirely justified. A quick Google search of "ceramics vs pottery" yields this sentence as the top result: "Pottery and ceramics are one and the same. The word ceramic derives from Greek which translates as "of pottery" or "for pottery". Both pottery and ceramic are general terms that describe objects which have been formed with clay, hardened by firing and decorated or glazed."; this as the second result: "Pottery is a type of ceramic, specifically containers made out of clay"; this as the third result: "The distinction is mainly that pottery is a subset of a wider group of materials called ceramics and that ceramics have broader practical and artistic ..."; and this as the fourth result: "Pottery is a type of ceramic, but not all ceramics are pottery.". All of those results are so inconsistent for all we know (unless you are a pottery/ceramics arts expert, which you could be) the truth is "ceramics" is used more in Britain and "pottery" is used more in America (I don't think that's true, just an example of how my statement was Socratic). I definitely didn't think Ethanol fermentation should be its own section, I was thinking the sentence "Food preparation and Cooking techniques, including Ethanol fermentation, Baking, etc." would more or less be a single, well-written paragraph that goes into how cool it is ethanol fermentation is used both in baking bread (yeast) but also brewing alcohol. Lacquer is a resin that can be applied to bamboo, metal, silk, wood,, basketry, and pottery, which you'd know if you'd looked at the article... LightProof1995 (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The google hits 2-4 are all saying the same correct thing; #1 is not very helpful, though true most of the time. "I said I am not sure if pottery includes ceramics, not vice-versa" - yes, exactly. And I put you right. Your US/UK speculation is also the wrong way round - the US uses ceramics much more (especially as ceramist etc). The vast majority of lacquer is applied to wood, with metal runner-up. That's what your references actually say - both put wood first. You have a pretty misplaced faith in random google results. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• LightProof, I think you are missing the point. What this article needs is certainly not more information on individual arts, which will get far too specific far too quickly in this broad overview, but more information on "the arts" as a whole, i.e., expansion of the "History and classifications" section, as well as additional sections, perhaps on the philosophy of the arts, or the impact/uses of arts in regards to society. Please note that this article is not an outline article. Aza24 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ohhh wow I you're totally right, I didn't realize outline articles are a thing, thanks for that, I was essentially making an Outline of the arts mini-list... this article currently reads 70% like a detailed outline article of the Visual arts, honestly, so I guess that's why I started with listing more... One of the criteria for Featured article status is that the article is comprehensive. So while you both are correct these arts shouldn't each have their own individual sections, I still feel as we write out new sections like "Philosophy of the arts" and add more to "History and classifications", we try to at least mention all of the arts we possibly can. LightProof1995 (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have added the arts I listed to the Outline of the visual arts outline, but the culinary ones I listed don't fit -- We may need to create an Outline of the culinary arts page. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Video games

@SnowFire—you reverted my revision of the "video games" section, to which I'd like to explain my rationale for the change. Looking at the rest of the article, it describes different arts, saying what they are. How are video games any different from this? The section on photography, for example, talks about photography as a whole, not whether people consider it to be an art form. Classificatory disputes about art should be mentioned, but making it "strictly" about those disputes is a failure of giving an adequate overview of the arts. This is the article about "the arts", not "definitions of art" or "classifications of art". DecafPotato (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at a compromise, placing equal weight for both video games as a whole and whether or not they are an art. DecafPotato (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I like the revised version—I think it sets up a good scheme for the "other arts" to give an overview and explanation on its status as an "art". Hopefully the section will eventually include physical sports, culinary arts and perhaps even sciences (re the seven liberal arts). It would also be nice to see the sources formatted like the rest of the article (and have a page number for Donovan 2010), but alas. Aza24 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think mentioning that they showed up around 1950 is important, IMO other arts just don't say that because many of them can't really be traced back to a specific date, but yeah, I'll trim the rest. DecafPotato (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey DecafPotato, I actually deleted part of my comment because I reached the same conclusion. I would say any more about history wouldn't make sense, but what's there is okay. You or SnowFire might consider looking at the Kennicott article in the further reading section. Aza24 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with even the revised version, I'm afraid - for all that I'm certainly not defending the old section as perfect! The problem is that "Video games" are simply not associated as being part of the topic "The arts" all that often in my view. Something like "the arts" is such a broad topic that talking extensively about anything that intersects with "Artistic endeavor" would lead to an article five times as long. Let me come up with one clear example: film and "art". Nobody contests that movies can be art and there are books published on movies, yet film is currently briefly mentioned along with comics, and then again in "Multidisciplinary artistic works". This is arguably an area for expansion, but what certainly isn't needed is an explanation of the history of movies or comics, as that is too off-topic. In order to keep this article readable, it needs to be laser-focused on the arts in general and only that. The video games history I presume is copy-pasted from another article (note: if you do this, mention which article in the edit summary to preserve attribution for cc-by-sa compliance) and most importantly is citing a ton of video game sources on video game history. This is just too off-topic; editing an overview article like this requires iron discipline to stay on-topic. If you want to adjust the video-games-as-art section, I think you need to at the very least be citing sources talking about video games as art, and even better citing overviews of all the arts that thought it was relevant to discuss video games to prove that they really are part of the topic. Without that, I'd be inclined to remove mention down to, say, a sentence, that merely acknowledges the "Video games as art" article. SnowFire (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record: none of the stuff is copied from another article—it's all written by me and for this. As for the rest, video games are something that IMO are too different to be explained in a different section. And for the history, the history as a whole is literally just have a history that dates back to when the first video games were created as early as 1950. By the 1960s, arcade video games had emerged—in the following decades, everything else is describing the systems, types, and definitions of a "video game", and the rest is video games as art. I think when video games were invented is something vital to even a very quick overview—like I said above, it's only not there for other arts because people don't know when they first showed up. But I'll work on revising the revised version, largely using sources that discuss video games in the context of "the arts" specifically. DecafPotato (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're working on it, great, just... as stated before, I would suggest that the section be kept short and to the point. A general overview of video games is available at the video game article; interested readers in the basics can click on that to find out. While I can thinly understand the overviews on stuff like painting (which are considered a core part of "the arts"), my strong suggestion is to keep "ancillary" parts of the arts short. Otherwise one of two things will happen: the article will balloon to huge size, or else there will be an unintentional bias in focus if video games get a bunch of text but artistry in movies or art in every other XYZ related topic isn't discussed in similar detail. I would also suggest that video games more cleanly falls under the "multidisciplinary" set, the same as movies, in combining theatre screenplays, music, interactivity, and other stuff. SnowFire (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2023

In the last period of the item "Classifications", it should be "photography" instead of "film": "Film is sometimes called the 'eighth'..." Carolinardias (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)