Talk:Animal style

---

Observations

I'm not sure I can settle this question but the situation is as follows. The animal style is very ancient on the plains of Eurasia going all the way back to the earliest archaeology. It expresses itself not only among Indo-European peoples but among nomads of other ethnicities as well. Whenever these peoples came off the plains and settled they brought this style with them. Thus you find it in the art of Urartu, in Iranian art, and among the Mycenaeans and no doubt among the Chinese as well. It is milti-period, multi-ethnic but it finds its center on the plains of Eurasia. It is also multi-media: the nomads wove the themes into their rugs and tapestries, carved it on their utensils and weapons, decorated pottery with it, put it on their jewelry, and in such cases as they left any stone monuments put it there as well.

To cover this topic in its entirety would be a very large article indeed. These two articles only touch the surface. Speaking for myself I must say I have never seen such beautiful art as falls within the domain of this style. The pieces of Scythian art cause one to gaze with open mouth and as for the rugs it sure makes you wish they were weaving today. They would be very rich people indeed. In any case I do not see much choice but to refer the reader to various subarticles on the manifestations of this style. Now, the two articles in question are not that long and could easily be merged. But what about all the rest? If we do a careful and knowledgeable search of the art articles I am sure we are going to find more hitherto unsuspected by those not familiar with the style. Even if zero more are found, many more can be and I am sure will be created. All you need do is start with any plains culture and follow it forward or back, either one, and you will start uncovering various troves and finds here there and everywhere that illustrate the animal style from Bulgaria to China.

So what should we do? The search? The set-up? Or the quick way out, the merger, which gives the impression that only the Iranians used the style? For myself at this point I vote for the search and skeleton structure. At the same time I would move the generalized material from the Iranian art article and put it in the main article. Once anyone starts seriously looking on the Internet they are going to find reams and reams of art, if they know what to look for. I await your opinions.Dave (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Development on the lines you suggest, whilst desireable, will not be quick; I oppose a merge at the moment. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are talking in this way about two seperate things, that if anything, call for two seperate articles. Perhaps there needs to be an article which discusses that style inherent in many cultures and how it has developed in each way.

I think this article should be left for the people who are looking for information on that specific (OK, splinter, if you will) type of art that is so strongly individual and relevent in its own right to warrant, and be useful as, its own article. Its origins and relationships to other types of similar art can always be poited out in this article, which, in my mind is here for a discussion of one of the specific branches of germanic art that has happened to be named animal style by Salin.

Much later. Apparently the solution to the potential size and content problem that has been started is to have articles on each specific animal style referenced here as main articles. That seems pretty good to me. We only have two here as of this date. I know there is much more on WP. It is a matter of adding them to this article. Some are in the see also. Mycenaean, of major interest in Greek art, does not appear, yet.Dave (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Scythian tatoo.jpg

The image Image:Scythian tatoo.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. --05:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The in-and out burger

This is a somewhat jarring note. It seems the fast food company has their own animal style. I read the article. it looks like mainly advertising to me, but others will have to handle that article. On this article, the hatnote does look like advertising. Apart from that it appears to be a legitimate use of a hatnote. Leaving the question of the legitimacy of the burger article aside, to have burgers advertised at the top of an art article strikes me as distasteful and not in keeping with the no advertising policy. The burger article has one sentence on "the animal style" and whatever that style is there, it has not a thing to do with animals. I recommend we create a 2-item disambig and put the burger and this article in it, getting the advertising off this article. Input is welcome. Remember, unless the public speaks up, the advertisers are going to get their way.Dave (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I find the hat-note irritating too, but that solution seems to make the situation even worse, and the art is clearly the primary usage. I would leave things as they are, or perhaps drop the hatnote altogether. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say what you mean by "even worse." If we leave things as they are we give in to the special interests. WP has considered the issue of paid advertising to raise money this year and has decided against it. Of course a great many commercial interests have found ways to get free advertising on WP if they do it according to WP policy. We've been removing the more blatent ones. They fight like the dickens, viciously attacking any editor who dares to tamper with their free publicity. Why shouldn't they? It means income for them. I was in an issue lately over a pay site where the administrator was going to force me to say it was not a pay site or was threatening to block me. Some persons with ulterior motives are administrators. They shouldn't be, in my view, but how are you going to keep them out? We have a major issue building here as the advertisers learn how to do it on WP. I see it as on a par with the porn sites. WP features porn sites, in case you did not know it. A porn site sometimes lists WP as another porn site. Someone has to stand up against this stuff. My feeling is, if we are going to allow advertising, let's get paid for it! If we give it away a priori, why should anyone want to pay? Of course there is the possibility that some of these companies are making donations. I wouldn't know anything about that. My tendency is to think that if that is so, let's not meddle with income. However, those are not my decisions. For this article, I would much prefer to remove the hatnote. The mysterious burger animal style is in no way explained in the burger article, is only mentioned briefly, and seems to me blatent advertising. At some point I will be improving this article. If nothing else develops since you are a leaving me the option I will delete the hatnote.Dave (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The lede is a mess

Let me see what I can do here. Kortoso (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Any idea what this is supposed to mean: "Animal style is a symbolic^ representation of cultural or religious ideas of significance found in art, ^Jung: Man and his symbols"

This is not, as far as I can tell, a quote from Jung's "Man and His Symbols". Any ideas?

Kortoso (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge?

I suggest that this (messed up) article be merged with Zoomorphism. Votes? Kortoso (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I would presume that since this page still exists mostly unchanged that there is some discussion somewhere that I am barred from it. Good I do not want to know about for a while but I thought wiki posts were openStone Routes (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition: I suggest that Animal Style is defined in broad brush terms on this page with example images, such as those in lede. Then brief descriptive paragraphs, primarily from early examples in each culture, can be links to selected examples in world art. After all as noted on this page in 2008 "To cover this topic in its entirety would be a very large article indeed". Animal Style includes children drawing cats, leopard pattern tights etc etc. This page is merely to define the term.Stone Routes (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Unsure of why merge is in contents. I would oppose itStone Routes (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

please do not forget Roerich on article pageStone Routes (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Cites for the term "Animal Style" point to Scandinavian and Russian sources. This term doesn't seem to be used in art history discussions in English. "Zoomorphic Art" is much more common:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zoomorphic

... in which case, the Wikipedia article Zoomorphic needs to be updated and merged with this article. Kortoso (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense - it is a specific term with a specific meaning in art history. I have removed the recent changes which muddied what the subject was. Zoomorphic is a much wider topic, not specific to time or place. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please furnish evidence. Wikipedia is not opinion versus opinion. Thanks! Kortoso (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see any from you! But work your way through this Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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:

• OrdosAncientCeremonialBronzeFinialWithStandingHorse.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)