Talk:Art history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | Class: This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
Major points in this edit are:
Is there a significant difference between History of Art vs Art History? Is this semantic nonsense? Or a reference to too fine a distinction between academic subjects? Leading to.... should the two Wiki articles H of A & A.H. be merged? Is our further subdivision "historical develpoment of art" or history of art history"(!!!) going too far?? Can we keep the discussion of Art and Aesthetics apart? Let me know what you think... talk here, at my user page, or email me. Looking forward! Julie Martello 14:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have so far stayed out of the big picture sort of art articles, and have not yet tried to absorb the differences between AH and HofA, but it seems to me that one article should be enough. I'll check it out in more detail. [like actually READ the articles?] Carptrash 15:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- PS I added links in your posting [hope you don't mind] to make my navigation a bit easier. carptrash
I think the 2 main ones should certainly stay separate. I would remove the "study of history of art" section in HofA to here too - of stick it down at the end of the article. Few if any main articles on academic areas of study include as section 2 the history of the academic study itself. Johnbod 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a linked reference worked in to aesthetics preferably in para 1, or in the definition. Thxs for the links carptrash!
Johnbod 00:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Done! Jules Julie Martello 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Expansion
Hey folks -- I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes here, but I've essayed a major expansion of the historical development section, in an attempt to start bridging the gap between Woelfflin and the present day. There are still a few more steps to be filled in, but I hope this is a good start. Sources are mainly the individual entries in the "Biographical Dictionary of Art Historians" and in wiki itself. Best regards, --Javits2000 15:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Images of the works of art being analyzed are needed for comprehension
When discussing art history, the images are really vital for comprehension, and even when discussing art historians too.Mark Faraday 04:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Structure
I find the treatment of the history of art within the Wikipedia to be mystifying. It seems as if the history of something is being treated as a subset of a type of art form rather than something which runs across different forms of visual art. Very,very odd!
Anybody coming here would expect an introduction to what can be found on wikipedia - in terms of the history of painting, different art movements etc. Instead we get
- an article about the study of art history and no introduction to the history of art.
- a different article about the history of art - with no introduction to what is available on wiki as it is incomplete as to art movements etc
- To cap it all - on initial inspection - a page identifying the full scope of art history covered by wikipedia appears to be missing from Visual Arts as neither of the articles start by making reference to the category of art history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Art_history
As I said - completely and utterly mystifying...... IMO the current arrangements make research very difficult for people consulting wikipedia for information.
Cosmopolitancats 16:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly Wiki's coverage of art history is somewhat underdeveloped at present, and anyone looking for a comprehensive introduction will still be better served by print sources (for example, a survey text, or the Grove Dictionary of Art.) However, the art history and history of art are prominently cross-referenced, and so far as I can tell history of art does, via a tree structure, lead the user to the individual articles covering most all periods, styles, etc. The category, art history, is linked where categories are always linked in Wiki -- at the bottom of the page. None of this is to say that there is not a great deal of room for improvement, and should you wish to try your hand at making some improvements yourself, I'm sure that your efforts would be most welcome! --Javits2000 19:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bah Humbug! No Wikiproject tagging!
- Drat! Was expecting a projects link on this talk. Need an answer to a general question of sorts about historical fact.
- re: Pieter Paul Rubens trying to verify this quote: "His first wife Isabella Brant had died in 1625, taken from him by disease, at the age of thirty-five, in the prime of her life.
[edit] Added sections: Divisions by Period and Methodologies
I have added two sections to the article. I believe that the article as it was gives an interesting perspective on the development of Art History as a discipline (the "history of art history," as it were), but it does not offer much information on what an art historian actually does or how the discipline functions.
These two sections help to amend this somewhat, I believe. The first is an attempt to show the divisions into which the discipline is traditionally broken up. This is an important consideration, because art historians are all specialists, and their work focuses not on art as a whole, but on a particular field of study.
Also, the section on Methodologies gives a brief survey of the more popular modes of inquiry used in Art History. I believe this helps to focus the article a bit more on what sorts of things Art Historians are attempting to discover, which goes a long way to describe what Art History is all about.
Thoughts? ~TScott01 15:02 EST, 2-13-07
[edit] Globalise?
Have removed the "globalise" tag as I see no discussion here of how the article might become more "inclusive." But if anyone feels strongly about this, by all means please post your suggestions here! --Javits2000 12:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
