Talk:The arts/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Sculpture, film, photography... and video games

Thank you for remembering to mention that whether or not video games can be considered an art is an ongoing debate.

Seeing as how you were so thorough in that regard, I was disappointed to find that you overlooked film. It is mentioned in the introduction, but it does not have a subheading of its own, and is not lumped in with theater. Seems like it was simply forgotten.

As another mentioned, photography is similarly forgotten. These things should be fixed, but as this is my first post on Wikipedia, I do not consider myself qualified.

Thank you.

Jswifteye (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree 110% with Jswifteye's comment above, and it's about the same for Sculpture, which, in some historical periods, was more important than painting. About video games... lol –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Video games should not even be mentioned in the article. The fact that most people consider it debatable whether or not video games are an art, I think, excludes any mentioning of video games as art in "the arts" section on the wikipedia. I take (and I think most would agree with me on this) that a wikipedia article on anything has to give a description of a topic almost anyone with expertise on the topic would agree with. The fact that video games are mentioned gives the reader the impression that "video games are art" is a controversial, yet legitimate claim, among scholars when it isn't. The vast majority of art scholars don't the claim seriously, and neither should the wikipedia. Rather, there are just a few loud voices. Should there be a "creationism" section on the biology article just because there are few fringe people arguing that it's a legitimate scientific enterprise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unisype (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree

"Fans also overrate the contribution of video games to storytelling as an art form. Video games are complicated and visually arresting forms of make-believe that allow the viewers to jump into the stage and participate in the action. This is regarded by the video-game enthusiast as an earth-shaking advance. In a way, it is less an extension of storytelling art than a regression to its precursors. While the themes and content of the video game may be complex and adult, the logic of viewer participation in the story reverts back to the child's tea party with teddy bears." Dutton, Denis (2009). The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution. New York: Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 1-59691-401-7. page 133

FigureArtist (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The section on videogames is currently grouped under "Visual arts". This does not seem accurate to me. The entries under "Visual arts" should match the entries found in the corresponding article. As mentioned above, there is currently no consensus that videogames are an artform. The section should be moved from "Visual arts" to the end of the article. I will take the initiative to do so. Any objections can be further discussed. - The Aviv (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that videogames as an art form is questionable. But the videogame section in the article is well below the general standards of the rest of the page. Videogames have been included in the Arts article but almost the entire section is devoted to trying to claim why it should not be there. Additionally, I feel the inclusion of the above quote is a violation of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The opinion of an expert is still an opinion and it appears to be used to try to persuade readers to take the side of those who would say the section doesn't belong. I will be removing it from the section. If you want to return it, please explain your reasoning here. The Arts page has already been under fire for being inadequate for its importance. Having a weak section does not help. I do not have the necessary experience in either the arts or videogames as an art to make detailed edits myself, but for the sake of the page as a whole, this section should either be omitted or brought to the same standards as the other sections in the page. DAHillis (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-Western arts

Every single illustration on this page is from a Western culture: a German painter, a Belgian painter, an Italian painter, a Greek building, an English encyclopedia entry, an English writer, an American building, a German composer, and (in the closest we have to non-Western art) a tango, but the image is from the Czech Republic and the dance is just as much American/European now as Argentine.

Since this isn't a Western Arts article, let's get illustrations from the other 2/3 of the world. Runner1928 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The classification of the arts that the article sets out was essentially developed for Western cultures, and won't always work with traditional cultures, though it will do so reasonably well for eg Indian, East Asian & Islamic historical cultures, and most contemporary culture from anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)