Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Culture C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WP1.0

Thank you for remembering to mention that whether or not video games can be considered an art is an ongoing debate.

Seeing as how you were so thorough in that regard, I was disappointed to find that you overlooked film. It is mentioned in the introduction, but it does not have a subheading of its own, and is not lumped in with theater. Seems like it was simply forgotten.

As another mentioned, photography is similarly forgotten. These things should be fixed, but as this is my first post on Wikipedia, I do not consider myself qualified.

Thank you.

Jswifteye (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 110% with Jswifteye's comment above, and it's about the same for Sculpture, which, in some historical periods, was more important than painting. About video games... lol –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video games should not even be mentioned in the article. The fact that most people consider it debatable whether or not video games are an art, I think, excludes any mentioning of video games as art in "the arts" section on the wikipedia. I take (and I think most would agree with me on this) that a wikipedia article on anything has to give a description of a topic almost anyone with expertise on the topic would agree with. The fact that video games are mentioned gives the reader the impression that "video games are art" is a controversial, yet legitimate claim, among scholars when it isn't. The vast majority of art scholars don't the claim seriously, and neither should the wikipedia. Rather, there are just a few loud voices. Should there be a "creationism" section on the biology article just because there are few fringe people arguing that it's a legitimate scientific enterprise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unisype (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

"Fans also overrate the contribution of video games to storytelling as an art form. Video games are complicated and visually arresting forms of make-believe that allow the viewers to jump into the stage and participate in the action. This is regarded by the video-game enthusiast as an earth-shaking advance. In a way, it is less an extension of storytelling art than a regression to its precursors. While the themes and content of the video game may be complex and adult, the logic of viewer participation in the story reverts back to the child's tea party with teddy bears." Dutton, Denis (2009). The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution. New York: Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 1-59691-401-7. page 133

FigureArtist (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section on videogames is currently grouped under "Visual arts". This does not seem accurate to me. The entries under "Visual arts" should match the entries found in the corresponding article. As mentioned above, there is currently no consensus that videogames are an artform. The section should be moved from "Visual arts" to the end of the article. I will take the initiative to do so. Any objections can be further discussed. - The Aviv (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that videogames as an art form is questionable. But the videogame section in the article is well below the general standards of the rest of the page. Videogames have been included in the Arts article but almost the entire section is devoted to trying to claim why it should not be there. Additionally, I feel the inclusion of the above quote is a violation of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The opinion of an expert is still an opinion and it appears to be used to try to persuade readers to take the side of those who would say the section doesn't belong. I will be removing it from the section. If you want to return it, please explain your reasoning here. The Arts page has already been under fire for being inadequate for its importance. Having a weak section does not help. I do not have the necessary experience in either the arts or videogames as an art to make detailed edits myself, but for the sake of the page as a whole, this section should either be omitted or brought to the same standards as the other sections in the page. DAHillis (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've been working with several groups to improve some of the high-importance articles on Wikipedia. This article is rated as a level-1 vital article, one of the 10 most important articles on Wikipedia. It is the only such article that is rated as a start class. I believe it is already a C-class article, but I'd like to hear from those of you that are watching this page, what does this article need to meet the B-class or C-class criteria as outlined in Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment? Remember that these criteria are weaker than GA criteria and much weaker than FA criteria.Brirush (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could get rid of the poor rating by merging this with the article "Art"? Has anyone else thought of that? Much of this article seems pretty redundant to me.1Halpo1 (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with the user above, this article needs to be merged with "Art". I can understand there are certain nuances about "art" as the end result and "the arts" as the processes of creating various type of art. This makes sense in the same way that "Building" and "Construction" are two seperate articles, but in this case I do not think people visiting this article will care as much. Also most of the language in this "The arts" article actually seeks to define "art", not "the arts". Strong proponent of merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.71.13.2 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every single illustration on this page is from a Western culture: a German painter, a Belgian painter, an Italian painter, a Greek building, an English encyclopedia entry, an English writer, an American building, a German composer, and (in the closest we have to non-Western art) a tango, but the image is from the Czech Republic and the dance is just as much American/European now as Argentine.

Since this isn't a Western Arts article, let's get illustrations from the other 2/3 of the world. Runner1928 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The classification of the arts that the article sets out was essentially developed for Western cultures, and won't always work with traditional cultures, though it will do so reasonably well for eg Indian, East Asian & Islamic historical cultures, and most contemporary culture from anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working on this article as part of Wikipedia:The Core Contest. It seems to be mostly a taxonomic article that attempts to summarize many topics at a high level, so I'm going to focus on aggregating high-quality, but high-level material from each of the represented topics. I'm going to start in Performing arts and Literary arts and move around from there. If anyone else is interested in biting off a chunk (maybe Johnbod or anyone else knowledgeable in visual arts) let's try to loosely coordinate here. If not, I would appreciate just a sanity check if anyone notices me doing something untoward. --Laser brain (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I've modified the opening sentence; I'm not interested in making any further edits myself but would be happy to give feedback on yours. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that they should be in the same article as "art".

Regardless of what I think, no sources are provided and a cursory search returned empty handed. I'd erase this section, does anybody mind? --Ffaffff (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will focus my pitch on "gastronomy". I consulted the definition of "the Arts" in various sources (Britannica, US Congress among others). Nowhere is food or gastronomy mentioned. Ffaffff (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ffaffff: I would've thought this was common sense, but art is defined by various sources (wording varies) as "expression or application of human creative skill, generally in a visual form, to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power". Hence, since part of gastronomy is the preparation of food to be enjoyed by others, and there is both a visual and appreciatory element to it, it qualifies as an art. Just because Britannica doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it doesn't qualify; it doesn't mention origami, but is that not an art?

If you want some sources, a thirty-second search on Google books reveals books whose titles refer to gastronomy as an art ([1], [2]). I don't think these need to be added to the article to prove cooking is an art form, but you can put them in if you see fit. Thanks — Quasar G. 18:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quasar G.: If we go by the criterion "there is a book with the name X and Art" in it, sure, Gastronomy is an Art. Sleeping is an art too, similarly Camping is an art and Risk management is an art.

In all those examples the word art is obviously used in it "skill, dexterity, or the power of performing certain actions, acquired by experience, study, or observation". As I stated, Britannica doesn't include Gastronomy is its definition, US congress definition doesn't mention it (or food, or cooking), Van Loon's The Arts neither. I have searched other authoritative lists finding no mention of Gastronomy, so I would say that yours is WP:OR.

If you do not think this is the case, can you please find scholarly article (or other reliable source) which enumerates various art forms and includes Gastronomy in it? If it is common sense, it shouldn't take much. Thanks. Ffaffff (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ffaffff: admittedly, yes, the inclusion of art in the title does not entirely prove that gastronomy is an art form. But just because two reliable sources do not mention it in a restricted list of art forms, doesn't mean it isn't one. There are hundreds of different art forms; to list them all would be impractical.

There is a debate around whether food is always an art form, but it seems pretty clear that it can be (as seen in the abstract of this article, from examples given here, and also evidenced here). — Quasar G. 19:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The provided source seems to challenge the distinction between fine Arts and applied arts, and craft to some extent. However, if we accept the argument that gastronomy is an art it would be an applied art.

To overcome the current discussion I would suggest to create a section applied arts (with as main article applied arts) and move bot gastronomy and videogames there.

In any case I think it is bizarre that gastronomy (and video games) is currently at chapter level (implying relatively high importance for the whole topic), while arts like painting and music are at a sub-chapter level. That seems unbalanced in any case. Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]