Talk:Art of Europe/Archive 1

Surrealism ≠ an art period/style/movement?
I see that it says here that Surrealism is not an art movement, and I have seen this elsewhere on Wikipedia, but rathers than saying something to the effect that Surrealists don't consider Surrealism to be an art period, it would be better to cite a specific Surrealist who says Surrealism is not an art period. Theshibboleth 21:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying there was a Surrealist movement that became particularly defined in a certain historic period isn't the same as saying there was a Surrealist art period. After all, nobody would claim that practicing Realism is confined to a certain era in history, even though it refers to a specific development of a "movement" in the late 19th century, just like Symbolism, or Naturalism, which refer to specific movements. So, I don't quite see the point of any objections. Most articles on artistic movements note that there is a more general meaning and more broader history to the specific styles in art. The understanding and appreciation of different styles in art usually is defined by historical movements which gain currency in their time because of intellectual focus, just like Surealism did. Why deny this. Brianshapiro

Two Western Art Navigations
There are two Western Art navigation boxes, each not with the same articles linked. The Western art history series nav box at the top and then the Western Art Movements at the bottom. Is this just oversight...? They seem to be meaning to achieve the same thing... Bluefruitbowl 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Art history/History of art
I recommend the move of this page. Its current title Western art history, is not appropriate. Art historians tend to make a definition between Art history and History of art. The former, briefly described, is a study of History through art, using artworks as visual documents. This present page is about the History of Art, its stylistic progression. I recommend that the page be called either History of Western art or Western art. I prefer the latter. I am making the same recommendation with regards every article in the series. --Amandajm 05:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Innaccurate, and Biased
Reads like a school text book, full of unsubstantiated opinion.93.96.154.200 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

European art deserves its own article
If American art has its own article, then European art most definitely should to. This is otherwise giving undue weight to American culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.118.137.186 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * European art has many articles - see French art, Italian art, Spanish art, Art of the United Kingdom, Irish art, Russian culture, Norwegian art, Swedish art, Danish art, Portuguese art, Icelandic art, Romanian art, Scottish art among others...Modernist (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Still there is article for African art. European history and arts have been more interconnected than in Africa. European art deserves its own article. FonsScientiae (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is 95% about European art and should be moved to European art history. There should be a separate article for Western art. 64.189.101.46 (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 18:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

--- European art history → Art of Europe –
 * More straightforward and common name FonsScientiae (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request
Asian art and African art are not called Art of Asia and Art of Africa. To conform it with other articles, I propose that this article be moved to European art. Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 00:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support not to "conform it with other articles" but because it is at least as common a term for it, & less pompous. The move to this title in January slipped under everyone's radar after New Year apparently. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The title 'European art' implies that European art is single and unitary, in contrast to the diversity of art of Europe through history and geographic regions. I believe rather the other articles Asian art, and African art should be renamed according to this sample. 50.12.57.58 (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Art of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310045105/http://www.colorado.edu:80/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html to http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607140521/http://www.aiwaz.net:80/panopticon to http://www.aiwaz.net/panopticon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic
This article is not exclusively an article on the Hellenic style, and thus the paragraph should get removed; it also compares apples with oranges.112.200.229.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Contains criticism of Non-Classical art and outs it forward as uncritcisable fact, and is decidedly POV. It violates both WP:POV and WP: Relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.229.227 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop vandalizing the introduction to this article. The paragraph that you object to is perfectly appropriate in explanation regarding high realism as it relates throughout time. The paragraph is perfectly appropriate and understandable...Modernist (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this article is not about high realism, and the art of Europe is not limited to just high realism. Your user name is "Modernist"- you of all editors should acknowledge this. By "vandalism" you mean "removing off-topic paragraphs".112.200.229.227 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 4 Reverts you are way over the top! Stop edit warring! That paragraph speaks to one aspect of European art; it is one paragraph among many...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to object to the assertion that the influence of classical art (not just limited to "the Hellenic style", and in fact mainly felt through Roman art) has been a continuing factor in European art, though waxing and waning, throughout subsequent periods. This is by no means limited to "high realism". I've no idea what the "apples" and "oranges" are supposed to be. Where is the "criticism of Non-Classical art"? That the "article is not exclusively an article on the Hellenic style" is certainly true, but does this mean all mention of it must be removed?  Frankly the views you seem to expressing go so against any conventional art history that they appear to be a combination of WP:OR and a high degree of ignorance of the subject. You have now been reverted six times, by three different editors (on 2 different isps, since 24 April). It's time to explain your position coherently, rather than just keep removing the paragraph.   Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Modernist, where is the paragraph on anti-realism? Where is the paragraph on modernism? Johnbod, by "original research combined with a high degree of ignorance on the subject" you mean "so knowledgeable so as to assert that Baroque art, despite not being comparable at all to classical art in what it is trying to be, is being done a disservice by being meeted out with standards that only should be used when judging art that is even trying tk be realistic in the first place." This is what I mean by comparing apples with oranges. And for someone accusing me of "not explaining my position coherently" you sure do make a lot of stuff up, such as me "removing all mention of it".112.200.229.227 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, don't fool yourself. The views I express do not go against standard art history because I myself said that the paragraph is very much informative- I'm just saying that it does not belong here in this article.112.200.229.227 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't provide a sound, rational argument for why classical antiquity art should be the only one given this extensive a paragraph in the lead, I'm afraid I will have to move this content to the article it belongs to.112.200.229.227 (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd better look at this Yale video on "Baroque Architecture in the Roman Empire". Or this.  You won't move this material anywhere without consensus. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, we are talking about the Baroque period here, not whatever Baroque-ness existed in classical antiquity and please tell me about what that book contains because I can't access it. And purposedly not participating in a discussion to let it be "no consensus" is extremely atrocious behavior.112.200.229.227 (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No wait, nothing of what that book says in that page (96) goes against anything I intended to say. We're having a serious miscommunication here, it seems.112.200.229.227 (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly can't understand what point(s) you are trying to make at all. Note that the article covers all periods from the prehistoric to the present day. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not removed cited material. Coldcreation (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't even know what I am trying to say here, then it is questionable whether your side has any weight AT ALL. Coldcreation, I thought it as needless to say that I actually think that this is GOOD content-it's just that it should be somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.229.227 (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You remind me of this editor - User:C.Gesualdo...Modernist (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bingo! Coldcreation (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Art-LanguageV3No1-1974.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Front views of the Venus de Milo.jpg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dome of Church of the Gesù (Rome).jpg
 * Ecstasy of St. Teresa HDR.jpg