Talk:Fantastic art

Fantasy art
If we're going to instruct readers that it should not be confused with fantasy art, we should give at least some reason why not. Goldfritha 02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, then -- out it goes. Goldfritha 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree on general principle. I might ask, what exactly is the definition of "fantastic art" that differentiates it from "fantasy art?" If there is no difference, then I would suggest merging "fantastic art" into fantasy art. If there is a difference, it should probably be defined. Anyone have a reference on the artistic difference between the two? Mgmirkin 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "fantastic art" a sub-genre or super-genre of "fantasy art?" IE, can all "fantasy art" be described as "fantastic art?" Whereas not all "fantastic art" fits into the category of "fantasy art," insofar as fantastic art may include horror, the grotesque, non-magical, etc. Mgmirkin 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So what is the verdict after 24 months? From the two articles, I cannot tell how to tell the two apart. Can someone add a section to differentiate Fantastic Art vs. Fantasy Art? Kowloonese (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Though stubby, at least fantasy art has a definition beyond just saying that it is an art genre with rigorously defined parameters. I'm suggesting a merge, as it seems likely that one is a sub genre of the other, if not outright the same subject. Their example art is the same work. —Ost (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge 'em. An unkind person might say that the only distinction between "fantastic art" and "fantasy art" is an attempt to escape some of the low-brow associations of the latter. I am an unkind person. - JeffJonez (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The distinction seems fairly clear to me. Fantasy Art is a subset of Fantastic Art with a bias towards fantasy/SF narrative (and often illustrative of narrative).  That said it seems fair to merge them Chrismorey (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Fantasy painting
Please merge relevant content, if any, from [ Fantasy painting] per Articles for deletion/Fantasy painting. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 08:19Z 

Sculpture and visionary environments
Sculptures, sculpture gardens and "visionary environments" have no less (and perhaps more) potential to qualify as fantastic art than paintings. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Western bias
This section is hopelessely West-centered. Bosch was not the first fantastic artist (as spectacular as he is). He was the first well-known European fantastic artist.

Bunleua Sulilat is an excellent example of contemporary Asian artist who worked with fantastic sculpture gardens. Yet, because of the strong Western bias and emphasis on painting, I was not even sure how to include him in the main text. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * edited (better late than never!) Chrismorey (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

List of artists
This list of artists is in serious need of trimming. At a minimum, I'll remove the red- and non-linked names, and work on some semblance of an alpha sort. Ultimately, it might need to go completely. Thoughts? - JeffJonez (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * can anyone say whether these people are recognised artists or just illustrators/cover designers? The list does seem long, though now I've expanded the list of fine artists it doesn't look so out-of-balance Chrismorey (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite
For an article on a subject of fairly broad interest, IMHO this is what is vulgarly called a b-gger's muddle. It seems to have been cobbled together from the work of at least three authors, with no attempt to harmonise or structure the material. I am trying to improve it - I'm not an expert but have been a gallery-goer for decades and have read round the subject. I'll try to preserve the existing material, or move stuff that doesn't seem to fit down below here.

I've tried to balance the article, which was heavily biased towards contemporary artists and illustrators working in the fantasy/SF genre, also to eliminate anything clearly the product of fandom, and to provide citations (including one which was clearly the source of existing material but was not acknowledged). I've also started to deal with the valid complaint (above) that non-Western artists are ignored, though what I've done is only a stub.

I'm aware I'm laying myself open to the charge of Original Research but would argue that in the case of the visual arts, the true meaning of any piece is necessarily subjective (in the absence of the artist's explicit and honest statement of his/her intentions) and an "authority" is basically only someone who has looked at the work with a knowledgeable eye. With that, I leave it to someone more knowledgeable, with a request that it be edited sensitively rather than reverted wholesale Chrismorey (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Left-over stuff: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismorey (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The parameters of fantastic art have been fairly rigorously defined in the scholarship on the subject ever since the 19th century. - if someone could say what these parameters are?


 * fantastic art often shares its choice of themes such as mythology, occultism and mysticism, or lore and folklore, and generally seeks to depict the inner life (nature of soul and spirit). - I think I've more or less said this, and the "inner life" reference seems tendentious