Jump to content

Talk:The arts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Vital article



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Core Contest

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]

Culinary art / Gastronomy

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, so I changed it. Hope that helps a bit resolving this. Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit @Arnoutf: it looks very good to me. Do you think I can edit the second sentence of the article too? As applied art and following what I wrote, I don't think Gastronomy qualifies as major, so I would remove it (and of course leave the section). Ffaffff (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnoutf @Ffaffff I think the reason they are at chapter level is that neither fit into any category. Yes, video games are rarely more than an applied art, but food often goes beyond its nutritional function and is prepared only to be appreciated, visually and gustatorily. In this sense, it counts as a visual art. I don't think gastronomy having its own section gives it undue weight, as weight is about section length, rather than section placement (I think). — Quasar G. 19:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Quasar G.: I agree with you when you say "just because two reliable sources do not mention it in a restricted list of art forms, doesn't mean it isn't one", but then can you please provide a reliable source which a) lists art forms and b) includes Gastronomy in it?
If (hypothetically) both Britannica and the US Congress forgot to include 'music' in their lists I could come up with hundreds of other reliable sources listing art forms and having music included in those list, or books talking about art in general having a chapter dedicated to music (e.g. van Loon's). Could you do it with "Gastronomy"?
I thought Arnoutf's edit was very good! Ffaffff (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict)@Quasar G. Just wondering how you can eat anything without ANY nutritional function? You would need a dish with 0 protein, 0 calorie, 0 vitamin, 0 mineral, 0 water to be bio-actively available after eating (granite might come close but would still probably give some nutritional minerals in the intestinal tract). Do you really think any restaurant would survive that offers such non-food? And if not, I think the case is obvious: Gastronomy IS an applied art as the food is functional. But of course you may provide a reliable, neutral mainstream source claiming it is actually fine art (which by the way your provided source does not claim, and it can be debated whether a journal with the title Gastronomy can be considered fully neutral in this specific debate either).
Re your second idea about hierarchies in texts. I have written multiple professional and scientific texts in real life and in all cases hierarchy of the structure provided exactly that: A hierarchy with equivalently important issues at similar levels. Can you please point me to the Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay that supports your claim that Wikipedia deviates from that and uses the rule that hierarchy of a structure does not matter but only length does.
@Ffaffff I put the applied section in as an effort to come to an initial compromise. But I agree, other applied arts like industrial design and fashion are probably more important than gastronomy at this level. Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnoutf: it's all about the intended function, when it comes to art. When you see high-profile cookery programmes on television, are the judges eating the food to give them their five-a-day and their recommended daily intake? No. They are eating it to appreciate its taste, after noting its visual appearance – how appetising it looks on a plate. The food does nourish their bodies with vitamins, minerals etc., but that is not the point of it.
Section-wise, it does look out of place to have two of the 'arts' on their own while the others are in subcategories; maybe we could categorise culinary and video-games under a section called 'outliers'?
@Ffaffff: there aren't really many sources 'listing' arts, as nobody writes a book or a website simply for a list of art forms. I have provided separate evidence that gastronomy can be considered an art, and there is more available. — Quasar G.</spanw> 20:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Quasar G.: I really do not get your remark up there. Either you mean the food is not meant to be eaten (which is plain odd), or you just unambiguously defined gastronomy as an applied art.
In addition your argument seems to be logically flawed as design classics like the Red and Blue Chair are also primarily intended to be an object (hence visual art). Yes you can sit on it, but it is not very comfortable. Yet design is universally listed as an applied science. But again, if (and only if) you can provide a source listing gastronomy as a fine art, I am willing to reconsider this. Arnoutf (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Quasar G. "there aren't really many sources 'listing' arts, as nobody writes a book or a website simply for a list of art forms". Any treaty discussing art in general will do: Van Loon's The Arts as an example isn't merely a list, but in its 600 pages includes (among others) lengthy descriptions of painting, architecture, music, theater, fashion, industrial design, etc. without any appreciable mention of gastronomy. Could you find a similar treatise (in breadth, outlining a panoramic view on the Arts) which includes Gastronomy in it?
I will not comment on your personal views on a specific subset on TV programs because I believe it is WP:OR or on the quality of your sources (I agree with Arnoutf said). I will restate the proposed (by Arnoutf) edit was very sensible as it overcame the impasse and managed to give a fair and inclusive view on the matter. 'Applied' is more descriptive and correct than 'Outlier'. Ffaffff (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnoutf: I'll try and make my case clearer. As mentioned at the start of this discussion, an art is "an expression or application of human creative skill, generally in a visual form, to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power". Creative skill is certainly present in food preparation. Fine food has visual elements (as well as gustatory). And it is appreciated for its beauty (stretching the definition of 'beauty' to mean 'taste' is also valid). Hence, preparation of food can be a visual art. It is obviously not always an art form; I certainly don't insist that every one of my meals tastes and looks perfect.

Our argument is summarised perfectly in this source. On page 48, it says food cannot be a fine art, but could possibly be considered a 'decorative art' or an applied art, as you say. This is essentially the point. It is a relatively new form of art (or not) and there are varying opinions as to what category it fits under. — Quasar G. 21:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ffaffff: you could consider my mentioning TV programmes original research, but you cannot deny that they exist, and that they serve to showcase the taste and look of food, rather than its nutritional value. Van Loon's book was written 80 years ago at a time when gastronomy was not generally considered an art. Times have changed. — Quasar G. 21:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quasar G.So if we and the source agree it is an applied art. What was the problem with my edit?
While nobody claims the shows do not exist, interpreting what they do as art is original research. The TV show is an observation or at best a primary source. We need a secondary source as synthesising conclusions from primary sources is original research (per WP:SYNTH). (I won't even go into your idea that gastronomy is relatively new as recipes from ancient Rome are know that can only be classified as gastronomy)
All in all I am now getting really confused. You seem to agree with all our arguments and all our reasoning but yet you vehemently reject our conclusions. Arnoutf (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnoutf: I don't particularly agree with your reasoning. As I understand it, you're saying that all food is eaten for its nutritional value, so therefore it is definitely not visual art. I disagree, having put forward the source above (and a few others re Masterchef etc.[3], [4], [5]) which suggest there is a visual element to eating.
I'd say it is you who are improperly interpreting sources, by pulling one distinct conclusion from a source that explicitly states there is confusion surrounding gastronomy's status in the world of art. To label it is any single art form in this article would be misleading. Rather, I propose we (as writers of a tertiary source) objectively comment on the debate and mention that food fits in no single category. Not sure how we'd structure this, maybe gastronomy does require its own section. Who knows. — Quasar G. 21:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that you rejected my original proposal to list gastronomy under applied arts - putting in a statement that sais it is not an applied art quoting you: "rarely more than an applied art, but food often goes beyond " yet you now claim "food cannot be a fine art, but could possibly be considered a 'decorative art' or an applied art" - which is actually my reasoning from the very first start - with which you evidently (by your own comments) agree.
Secondly, we as writers of a tertiary source are bound to use mainstream reliable secondary sources as main input and should refrain from synthesis from primary sources and observations. Much of what you are suggesting strongly depends on such synthesis which is (as Ffafff stated before) original research. Arnoutf (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnoutf: I never stated it was a fine art, I simply said that food sometimes transcends functionality and nutrition. Decorative art seems to be the right term for it, or failing that, we should use no single term at all and say it falls under multiple possible categories.
I provided sources for my claims about TV shows like Masterchef. Not sure what it is I've said that is original research or improper synthesis. — Quasar G. 22:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated it was no art at all (only that listing it at par with visual arts is odd).
Your masterchef sources are either primary sources (giving an opinion and not an analysis) or are using quotation marks around the wording of art. Interpreting these as evidence is (at best) synthesis. Arnoutf (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defining Gastronomy as Decorative Arts is contrary to nature and reason. Nowhere in the +1200 pages of The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts (2006) we find the tiniest shred of gastronomy, neither in The Dictionary of the Decorative Arts. As proposed by Arnoutf, Applied Art ("the application of design and decoration to everyday objects to make them aesthetically pleasing") is far more fitting category for food matters (if not exceedingly charitable, some might argue). Ffaffff (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod:, what about "culinary arts such as baking, chocolatiering, and winemaking;" (first paragraph of the Article)? Do you mind if I remove that too? I'd ditch them on "they are not art" basis, but even if they were, for sure they are not major. Ffaffff (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course. People can talk about "the art of" almost anything, but it doesn't make it one of "the arts". 11:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll be bold and take it out. After all mentioning chocolatiering (which is a subclass of food preparation) in the lead, while pe.g. music or painting have no subclasses is clearly putting undue emphasis on the topic. Arnoutf (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A New Opinion

I generally support including gastronomy in this article, but don't believe it should be a section-level topic heading.

There's a section called Applied Arts, and there is a proposal to put Gastronomy and Video Games under it. I'm not sure how "applied arts" is accurate here. I would support putting culinary arts under "Modern art" as a non-controversial catch-all term (with no intent to imply a relation to any movement of that name in the 19th/20th century). I might support a heading of Culinary art, with things like Oenology also mentioned.

As an aside, the Culinary art article needs significant improvement at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Power~enwiki, thanks for offering a fresh opinion. I like the idea of using a 'Modern art' section (maybe rename to 'Modern art forms' to avoid confusion?) in order to fix the undue weight issue with gastronomy. What do you think the gastronomy section should include? Should we try and categorise it under specific types of art (applied, decorative etc.) or offer a broader interpretation of the debate? Thanks — Quasar G. 00:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this level, a one-sentence definition of gastronomy may be sufficient, specific examples of its treatment as art (with references) could also be useful. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I'll bash something out tomorrow morning if no one else has by then. — Quasar G. 00:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[6] and [7] might be suitable, though I suspect there are higher-quality sources. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Intangible cultural heritage" as UNESCO calls it is something entirelyy different. Note the final sentence on the first link: "Other admissions to the list include China's traditional art of Peking opera, oil wrestling in Turkey's Kirkpinar region and falconry in 11 countries." Minority languages also feature heavily. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you said yourself above: modern art is a term reserved for a specific period in the fine arts. Using that term in the context of this article will imply such a relation. (PS I still think both gastronomy (primary function - preparing food) and video game art (primary function - a playable game) are applied arts.) Arnoutf (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnoutf: we've already discussed how food can transcend applied arts, as it doesn't always serve the function of nourishment, and is prepared solely to be tasty and look nice. To remove the confusion, we could possibly call the section "Modern forms of art" or similar. — Quasar G. 09:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have indeed repeatedly stated that. But so far you have not provided any reference that unambiguously supports that rather extreme statement. Which would be appreciation of taste independent of hunger, appetite or satiation - as these are functionally related to food. Can you present mainstream (as this is a tertiary source) reliable sources that support your claim. Your sources so far can be interpreted as evidence of applied art - but not as transcendence thereof. Mind you, I do not object to list gastronomy as applied art - that is an art form to aesthetically enhance (I list taste among aesthetics here) a functional object. Arnoutf (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example:
  • [8] – "ElBulli's "art" goes way beyond the calories it delivers." (also this – I can't find a preview but the summary states "Has the art of cooking become a high art, thanks to Adrià and his contemporaries?", so it could be useful)
  • [9] page 104 – "the analogy of food as an art form", "it is important in gastronomy and study associated with it to develop the notion of an aesthetic attitude"
  • [10] page 48 – "commonalities between food and art", "[some foods and drinks] are sometimes but not invariably a part of the most important aesthetic experiences of eating and drinking" (I bring this source up again because it really is a good one; it holds food in a neutral view of decorative/applied)
— Quasar G. 11:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of these quotes are unambiguously stating that the function of nourishment is not central. In fact stating it goes beyond merely calories does put the calories on a central place in the experience; but states that it is more than merely that. Arnoutf (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnoutf: I think you've lost the plot a bit here. Do you honestly believe that eating food is always all about nourishment? For most people it is, but it seems obvious to me that on high profile cookery shows, the cooks do not consider what nutritional value their food has, and the judges do not fret over how much weight they'll put on as a result of eating it. To ask for sources explicitly stating that is pedantic, because none do. It's just too obvious.
Anyway, let's switch things up a bit. Can you provide any sources which suggest food cannot ever be more than an applied art? — Quasar G. 18:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You keep suggesting that I claim it always ONLY about nourishment. I do not and never have. I do however claim that nourishment is at the heart of food consumption indeed. Can you please try to listen to what I am actually saying.
Secondly, if you want to add something - it is up to you to provide the positive evidence. Asking to provide evidence of the rejection of food preparation as art for art's sake is as impossible as asking me to provide evidence Russell's teapot.
Regarding the obviousness you may call something obvious but it is not to me (or several other in this thread). To call my request to act by one of the core policies of Wikipedia "pedantic" is getting pretty close to personal which is a violation of another key Wikipedia policy. Perhaps it is best to drop the stick and back slowly away from this horse carcass. Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you honestly believe that eating food is always all about nourishment?": no, and I don't think User:Arnoutf believes it either. I do believe food can be enjoyed as nourishment and as pleasure (full belly, satisfaction, etc.). This is the non-artsy part, let's call it functional. A crappy candy bar provides (bad) nutritional value and a shot of dopamine-induced feel-good sensation, and it is of course not art: do we all agree on this?
Apart from and in addition to this functional factor (nourishment and primitive pleasure), some cooks try to provide a more challenging experience to the eater, with various techniques that apply a body of knowledge (decoration, composition, structure) coming from fine arts. Do we all agree on that? Just to see where we all are standing. Ffaffff (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In part, I agree. But in many cases, the 'nourishment and primitive pleasure' is discounted entirely, with the fine arts element of food taking centre stage. This is why we cannot always describe gastronomy as functional, applied art.
Arnoutf, apologies if being called pedantic offended you, perhaps I went a bit far there.
I don't have time right now, but I would like to make some progress with the article rather than going round and round in circles here. Power~enwiki's suggestion for the sections was good, so I'll probably use that. If possible, rather than reverting the edit, try to tweak it to your satisfaction. Thanks — Quasar G. 19:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a long break from this article because I am getting pretty burned out; let me just note that "[b]ut in many cases, the 'nourishment and primitive pleasure' is discounted entirely, with the fine arts element of food taking centre stage." is a really really really a strong statement to make; I wonder if even the most posh of the gourmets would agree.
I any case, I am off cooking some soup. I can't promise it will be pretty, but for sure it will taste delicious! Happy editing and see you at the dining table, Arnoutf & Quasar_G.! :P Ffaffff (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See you later, Ffaffff, thanks for a very interesting debate. And I hope your soup was nice. Regards — Quasar G. 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a new "Other art" section as a catch-all, and a few other minor changes as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gastronomy reloaded

The new Gastronomy section is in my opinion even worse than the previous one. There is absolutely no debate: one provocative article (the other are from sources closer to culinary/cooking scene, impossible to consider them neutral and reliable in this instance) doesn't form a debate whatsoever. Moreover citations are wrong: "[a] debate exists as to whether gastronomy can be considered a fine art" <-- I have read the article and this is literally nowhere to be found in the text. For the nth time, it cannot be defined Decorative Art. One article vs. the entirety of every other scholar not mentioning it is revealing enough where academic consensus (everyone - 1) lies.

Last thing: if we check the citations of Arguing about Art (71 citations), only one refers to the first two (food) articles, and it is for a MsC thesis. Nobody in Academia (nobody!) even took notice of the article, it went unnoticed. Giving more than 10 words of space is unwarranted as WP:UNDUE. I am reverting now. Ffaffff (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we just don't need anything on food here. At all. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you both (Johnbod and Ffaffff) please provide some sources to suggest food is never considered an art? Giving evidence as 'it doesn't appear in lists of arts' is not good enough, as it is WP:SYNTHESIS of sources.
As for the sources I provided, the one about Japanese cuisine is not a cookbook of sorts, rather a commentary on the subject, and so its reliability is not compromised. The other source may be undercited, but that does not mean it is unreliable. The three sources there are certainly more reliable than no sources at all, which is what you are using to back up your claims. — Quasar G. 16:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest - I think it is important to frame gastronomy in comparison with other applied arts. Personally I think that industrial design with names like Raymond Loewy Philippe Starck Gerrit Rietveld and Charles and Ray Eames; or graphic/commercial design with names like Jan Toorop are much more important and lasting than the current fad around food preparation (and video game art). So indeed I think placing more than passing reference to gastronomy is undue indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Can you both Johnbod and Ffaffff please provide some sources to suggest food is never considered an art?" Picking your nose hasn't got a vast literature of researchers refuting it as art, too. Giving several, authoritative, vast (1200+ pages), comprehensive work about arts, applied arts, etc. which do not make a single mention of Gastronomy is more than fair and the fact that you cannot find any other of such big/reliable/comprehensive works that support your thesis and have to resort to a scholarly article which got 0 citations in academia (1, if we consider a Master of Science thesis as Academia) is indicative of the strength of the sources supporting your argument.
On the other two sources: Michael Ashkenazi is (from his bio) "a scholar specializing in Japanese food and culture", so he doesn't come with reliability when talking about the artistic merits of food. The other source which you consider "undercited" literally never says what you want it to say (that there is a debate about food being fine art).
I am reverting it on Wikipedia:BRD basis: you made your bold edit, I made a revert, I suppose it is your turn to "think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs". Pushing anything new without consensus seems to me to violate WP:NOTSTUCK‎. I agree with what Arnoutf said above and probably could be a way to reach an agreed upon solution. Ffaffff (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Can you find any colleges etc where culinary training is treated under arts? Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ffaffff: infuriatingly, you're incorrectly implying reductio ad absurdum to my argument. I have proven with sources that there is a debate surrounding gastronomy as an art form (if you don't believe me, check the pages and pages of results on Google); to compare it to 'picking your nose as an art form' is frankly ridiculous.
You have still not provided any sources to suggest food is never considered an art form, and are still performing synthesis of sources to make your claim (a form of original research). Regarding the sources I provided:
  • The Japanese cuisine one, as you say, was written by a scholar. It is not a newspaper; the author is not trying to push a POV or promote Japanese culture in any way: it is purely objective. Also, I don't think you'd find an essay/book talking about food, that wasn't written by someone without gastronomic expertise.
  • I'm not sure which source you are referring to when you say "undercited"; I thought you were talking about this one when you said "nobody in academia" took notice of it. It is in fact a scholarly paper, meaning it went through rigorous editing and checking for factual accuracy and neutrality, and so can be considered a reliable source.
As a sidenote, Johnbod, I don't know how sifting through college courses would help here, as they do not really show anything and would not be suitable to use as sources.
I know my new gastronomy section wasn't perfect, but can we at least try and reach a compromise? It seems to me that if video games deserves a paragraph, gastronomy does too. — Quasar G. 22:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly blunt. I seriously doubt whether EITHER (emphasis intended) video games or gastronomy deserve a paragraph (In my view their claim to inclusion is similarly weak). But if they do I would argue that (at least) industrial design deserves a section too. Arnoutf (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not all three? It's not as if the article is too long or anything, and it definitely needs expansion as one of the level 1 vital articles in 'life'. If good sources can be found suggesting something is an art form, we should consider including it. — Quasar G. 09:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse importance with length. A long, everlasting article is probably worse that a focussed to the point article, regardless of important. A top journals such as Nature for example has an upper limit of 3000 words - to force the author to say what needs to be said and nothing more. This article seems to be of decent size: see the guideline (Wikipedia:Article size), so let's not bloat it. Arnoutf (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2018

New Dreams (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the section title 'literary arts' with 'language arts'.

 Not done Please explain why you want to make this change. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

I have edited the document due to it needing a citation of the definition of 'the arts'. Although having many hyperlinks to words in the definition it fails to prove its statement and would require a reader to look at many sources in order to fully conceptualize 'the arts'.

Manon1998 (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018

I would like to link 4 items in the 1st paragraph under the HISTORY section:

Last sentence of text reads: "This is evident in, for example, the art of India, Tibet and Japan. Religious Islamic art forbids iconography, and expresses religious ideas through geometry instead."

"India", "Tibet", "Japan", and "Islamic" link to general articles about each, rather than relating to the actual topic (i.e. "Islamic art", "Tibetan art", "Japanese art", and "Islamic art"). Linking directly to those 4 specific subcategories of art forms from this page would be more helpful to the reader, in my opinion.

Source text would thus read:

This is evident in, for example, the art of India, Tibet and Japan. Religious Islamic art forbids iconography, and expresses religious ideas through geometry instead. Johnrobinrt (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

In the "Classifications" section under "HISTORY", the first sentence, where it reads:

"...were taught in universities as part of the Trivium, an introductory curriculum involving grammar, rhetoric, and logic..."

Recommend you append after logic, "(also dialectic)".

Justification:

The word "logic" is hyperlinked to the article on logic. However, in the article on the Trivium (also linked here), the logic originally part of the Trivium is called dialectic. In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium, under "Description" section, the division "logic" is introduced with "(also dialectic)", so my suggestion is based on following the same style as that article so the reader can see the link between "logic" as a broad field and the specific topic as it was originally known within the Trivium. Johnrobinrt (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I narrowed the Logic Wiki-Link to point to the Logic article's History section on informal reasoning and dialectic.  Spintendo  09:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dggbbfbfnbffnbfrbrjdngbffdnbnbnbdbfnbnfbnbfbnfbbfbnbfbnbfbfnbnbbfnbbgtbfbnbfnbgnbtnbgbtbnfbtjbrfnrbjbhbnbrdbbbrbdnbbfbfbnbfnbnfbnfbtbfnbtnrbfntfgNbnfn fnbfnnnnfbfjn

fbnfbrnbtnbrnbfbfgbbgvbvvgfbvgfbvbvbvbevbgvbvewvvrgbvbvghvvrbvgbvfbvgbvbvfbvgbvgbvfbvbvbvvvvvvbfbvfbvgbfvbfbvbfbvvbvvfbgbggngngknggtnfbgnfnbffgbngfngnfbngnfbg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.39.247 (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_arts&oldid=953983474"