Template talk:Western art movements
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Outsider
I'd hesitate to call outsider art a "movement" or distinctly western phenomenon. Does it really belong on the template? —thames 23:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose you're right, Ive removed it. Cfitzart 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Russian
Made a separate template for Russian art, since its not really western: Template:Russian art movements--- Cfitzart 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Order
These movements should be in succession according to the years they occurred. I moved Pop Art after Abstract expressionism for example. Someone should correctly reorder the movements according to their times. --Ethii 07:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 19th Century Topics?
Why break out only the 20th century topics dm 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removing relational art
Relational art is a movement only theorized by Nicolas Bourriaud, it does not seem to be widely accepted. Most of the movements under its banner are already on the template. I'd like more evidence that the artists themselves claim to be relational artists before it can be on the template. --Jedravent (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- On the one hand, WP:CRYSTAL may apply here, but I think that the term may now be bigger than just Bourriaud's ideas. There's been some acknowledgment by others that the term is applicable to a number of artists. Granted, the actual article on relational art is meager and needs much improvement, but this is something I have been hoping to work on. As for the inclusion of the term in this template, I feel that it is applicable. As for whether the artists describe themselves as part of this movement, that may not be a necessary qualification as it is not unusual for artists to deny a descriptive or categorical framework (i.e. pigeon-holing them as one thing). I've been working on an article for the Vancouver school, a descriptive term that most artists listed within reject. This happens. As for Bourriaud being the sole theorist, even if this were true, I'm not convinced that this would disqualify the term on its own. Having said that, if the consensus is that the term is premature for the template, I wouldn't argue the point further. A quick google search seems to show that term is fairly wide-spread as an international descriptive term, if not outright movement. But the article doesn't reflect that at the moment. Am I putting the cart before the horse? Possibly. I still think it should stay, as it seems odd that there are no 21st century art movements. As an educational tool, wikipedia should include some newer terms (as long as they are legit, referenced and so on). As for videogame art, I feel that there is enough evidence that that is now firmly established critically and theoretically. freshacconcispeaktome 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've been working on expanding Relational Art and feel there is ample evidence that other critics are using the term. The article still needs works, but I hope to continue early next week on it. freshacconcispeaktome 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
