Talk:The arts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Embedded links

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)

Inclusion of applied arts

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)

User:Notpietru has kindly allowed this statement referring to the "applied arts" to remain intact, but in another article for "Visual arts", as this is more relevant there. The arts is too general a topic to have excess details clogging up the introduction.

Skol fir (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a merciful editor, yes indeedy. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No Advertising allowed- it is SPAM

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)

Comment

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?

• Uh... To illustrate dance? Most of the other subsections have pictures illustrating them; the ballroom dance picture is there to show an example of dance. --V2Blast 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:No. 5, 1948.jpg

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

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)

Liberal arts

Are the liberal arts apart of the arts? Brad7777 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "the arts"

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)

As the breakdown of the arts into various subsections, such as "Fine Arts", "Visual Arts", "Decorative Arts", "Applied Arts", "Design", "Crafts", "Performing Arts" can be quite confusing, it is refreshing when an artist actually suggests that we "stick with visual, auditory, performance or literary - when we speak of The Arts - and eliminate "Fine" altogether". That is why I decided to include Shelley Esaak's article as a reference at the end of the "Definition" section.

We could all use a better way to subdivide the arts so that is less confusing. The term "Fine Arts" can be so snobbish when it excludes other arts, as if only they are "fine"!

Skol fir (talk) 07:20, 22 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 Various Arts

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)

Sri Lanka is famous for at least one artist. For example, Michael Ondaatje (born 12 September 1943) is a Sri Lankan-born Canadian novelist and poet of Colombo Chetty and Burgher origin. He is perhaps best known for his Booker Prize-winning novel, The English Patient, which was adapted into an Academy-Award-winning film. That is one good reason for being interested in art, right? Also, look at Culture of Sri Lanka. The arts are good for everyone.

Skol fir (talk) 04:24, 5 December 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)

Photography...

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)

Why the delay? Added photography section under Visual Arts, since it is more deserving than conceptual or video games.FigureArtist (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)