Talk:Economics of the arts and literature

I took this text from the French WP, although I think it needs some depth.

I put the cultural industries section before the labour market section, because the latter section supposes that you have read about cultural industries. Its most logical place is right after the artworks section.

I realize that there is regional bias left in the Molière/Tartuffe example. I would have liked to replace it by a Shakepeare example, but could not, because you really need the historical fact that performing the play in the 17th century took as many people and as much time as today, which, of course, also depends on the way they used to perform it. Well, at least there is a Wiki entry for Tartuffe.

Hello. I am the main author of the French article. I got little feedback about it, so I would gladly have yours. What do you mean by "needs more depth" ?.--Bokken | 木刀 14:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Name change for this article

"Cultural economics" is the name of a category in the Journal of Economic Literature classification system. The article erroneously identifies the name with subcategory JEL: Z11 - Economics of the Arts and Literature in JEL classification codes#Other special topics (economics) JEL: Z Subcategories. The broader Wikipedia:Verifiability usage trumps the current article usage. So, I'm rewriting the article and changing the name to reflect verifiable usage from a standard source and linking the article to JEL: Z11, where it should get more attention. --Thomasmeeks 14:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the name of the article should reflect its contents, rather than that the article should explain what is behind a JEL classification. It should use the definition of cultural economics in the bibliography, because it reflects the contents of that bibliography. It is a nice aside to mention what classifications the JEL has, but that is just an aside. I propose to leave the title "cultural economics", and even to put the JEL classification thing less prominently in the article, somewhere at the bottom. 80.127.235.134 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed a possible confusion. In economics, "economics and culture" can refer either to the economic analysis of social norms (defining cultural or social groups) or to the economics of arts and culture. The common usage (Journal of Cultural Economics, Handbook of Cultural Economics) is at odds with the JEL classification (which, at Z11, is almost an afterthought when it became evident this field had some relevance). On the French-speaking Wikipedia, the reference to the JEL classification was moved into the body of the text. Bokken | 木刀 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, leave it to the French to get it right again. The change-of-name Edit summary of the article is as follows:

15:48, 22 May 2007 (moved Cultural economics to Economics of the arts and literature: See Talk page: JEL classific. sys. uses old name more broadly. New name attested by JEL for subject of the article)

The point noted there is that the present article name more precisely fits the content of the article. The article itself uses "cultural economics" as shorthand for the subject covered. And the shorter name is good, acceptable usage in addition to the broader usage (just as a dictionary can have different definitions for the same term). Anyone searching Wiki for "cultural economics" will be directed to this article. If the subject of this article is indeed in economics, is it not reasonable to use the most precise WP:VER title available for the name of the subject? The article title does not preempt the narrower common usage of "cultural economics." --Thomasmeeks 14:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC) (m ed.)

Update: The article Edit 16:15, 2 September 2008 reads:

Lead fn. revised: In the JEL system,'Cultural economics' is a broader category than used in this article.

That Edit reflects recent creation of the Cultural economics article. 'Cultural economics' cf course contnues to be good shorthnand for the content of the present article. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Related articles

If someone with some skills in French is looking for related articles to translate, economics of museums is a Good Article on fr:, and significant work has been done on Payola. Most of the references are in English, and most of references in French are not crucial. Bokken | 木刀 09:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius and Raimundo57br:

Seria bem vinda uma tradução desse artigo pro português? att 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:E91B:8F51:53BF:66B5 (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The Thinker is inappropriate example

I've never edited a Wikipedia page or added a topic to the talk, but I wanted to flag something. The pages says "only one example of Rodin's well-known sculpture The Thinker." That's not true. The Thinker is a poor example of uniqueness, because multiple versions were created under Rodin's supervision, both in the original size and the later monumental size. There's actually a whole Wikipedia page about them: List of The Thinker sculptures. Is there a better example that could be used? RenaissanceM (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)