Talk:Horror vacui (art)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Horror vacui (art) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

Are we certain that this entry is spelled correctly? Should this phrase actually be spelled "Horror vacuui"? Regayov (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Regayov Okay. Never mind. Regayov (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Regayov[reply]

Is there a case for including Richard Dadd here? Britmax 10:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not! Johnbod 13:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenism[edit]

Plenism redirects here. Although that's obviously related to plenum, it's not listed in my 1928 OED. Does anyone have a cite for it? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google found this definition, which seems to check out. I also found "Unlike plenism, classical atomism permits empty space" in this result. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems that the derivation is coming from philosophy, more than physics. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's from the time when they were the same thing. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. If it were current back then, I'd expect to see a cite in the OED. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

Shouldn't the section on the philosophical meaning be split into a separate article? --kAtremer (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, & it's physics, not philosophy. Done. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mental patients"?[edit]

From one of the captions: "Former mental patients such as Neil C.K.R. feature elements of horror vacui prominently in their work." Two issues. First, the sentence is a sweeping and unsubstantiated generalization that is assuming the inverse of an idea in the article. The article suggests that horror vacui can often come from or be inspired by mental patients, whereas the caption suggests that horror vacui is a common and prominent feature of any art by any (former) mental patient. It seems like a bit of a logical disconnect.

Second, the artist used as an example is a living artist (unless there is another artist Neil C.K.R. other than this one, which I rather doubt) who, as far as I can glean, does not meet notability. I am aware that notability applies more to whether or not a given topic merits a separate article, but even if the caption is kept, the red link to Neil C.K.R. seems unnecessary. There is no reason that I can think of for the artist to be used as a singular example of the phenomenon discussed by the article. The artist is but one example of an artist that fits the statement (in theory, anyways) and is not particularly useful for providing context. I mean, I'm starting to trip over my words here, but you probably get what I'm talking about, right? Is there any reason that the picture/caption should actually be kept? Even if it isn't found to be otherwise unencyclopedic to include Neil C.K.R. as an example, the statement itself seems to be a fallacious assumption, based on ideas from the article but not really related. And even if the statement proves to actually be the case, there should be more (and more notable) evidence of such included in the article. In fact, I would even go so far as to say the article on the whole needs more evidence of horror vacui frequently being the art of mental patients. (Did that sentence make sense?) ʎəɹSquared^Ⓣ_Ⓒ 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've cut that pic as too obscure & in B&W, & softened the claims. I believe the connection is documented, though we could do with refs. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gombrich[edit]

Does anyone havce a source for E. H. Gomrich's statement that horror vacui is a misnomer, particularly for more primitive art? If I remember rightly he suggests that the quality in question is not a fear of empty space, but rather a love or delight in drawing. Mddietz (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC) 22:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Turned up the following from a quick internet search: Gombrich adds that with “this method of successive enrichment or elaboration…Maybe the term amor infiniti , the love of the infinite, would be a more fitting description.” 1 In discussing this desire for “richness and splendour” Gombrich remarks, "that inner worth should be acknowledged by an appropriate display of outward show. Not only the splendours of kings and princes, but also the power of the sacred has been universally proclaimed by pomp and circumstance…there can never be too much of love and sacrifice expended on respect and veneration…[here] decoration is seen as a form of celebration…2 1. E.H. Gombrich, The Sense of Order: A study in the Psychology of Decorative Art (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979), 80. 2. Ibid., 17. (http://www.rochester.edu/in_visible_culture/Issue_11/duggan/duggan11.htm) Mddietz (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

law of horror vacui[edit]

I dont think this has much do whit art at all, minor topic in whole thing. This is all about VACUUM, what is phy-sics.(!!!)Claustrophobia has nothing to do whit physics, sound silly to call phobias some latin based phycal law, what much higher science, highly developed atomic theory already at ancient phy-sic(!). More about criminology where evil fills empty please in soul,how criminals describe systematically automatism (pattern what they all repeat) in psyche when they do bad, example planing murder, and process it. But still language how you talk about it is not from physics, it is from medical science and sociological fact. Phy-sic(!) knows horror vacui as law of empty space what is filled by (matter's quality) phycal law. Classical example is water, when object hits to water it makes empty space above it, it is filled by water around, object doesent leave empty space above it when it drops to bottom of vessel, and water level rises same amount than object takes please. Sand and water is easier to understand, you take hand full of sand from ground and empty what it leaves pl is filled by water and sand. In atomic physic this is meaningful actual fact, you cant take away and leave empty space because horror vacui - law stops it. Law of filling empty space undone emptiness, when we go atom theories we really dont have such thing than empty space only in vacuum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.204.169 (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 December 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The arguments for moving the article outweigh the opposition; as the reasoning for there being no clear primary topic is sound. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horror vacui → Horror vacui (art) – No clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, per pageviews. Taking into account that this page receives some of the traffic intended for horror vacui (physics), it may very well turn out that the latter is getting more views once the dab page is here. Paradoctor (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the physics article was an unnecessary split from this one. I would rather support the physics article being merged back into this article instead._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIA A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name

A physics theory and an aesthetical concept are not of the same specific type. Paradoctor (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I simply have to refer to the dictionary to see that it is the same thing. Merriam Webster defines it as "horror of empty spaces (especially: an aversion to empty spaces in artistic designs)". I have no idea what you are talking about saying they are different things. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle never ascribed emotions to nature. "Horror vacui" is an alternative name for plenism, applied centuries after the fact. Paradoctor (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support unless the art is a broad-concept article 346,122 views for this v 299,397 for the physics meaning seems too close. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.