Talk:History of Asian art/Archive 1

Untitled
This page should have a section on Korean art and art history. An article on Eastern art history would not be complete without discussion on Korea's role in the cultural development and transmission of culture in the Sinocentric ancient and pre-modern world. In over-simplified terms, the vector of culture transmission went from China to Korea to Japan, as well as China to Vietnam (the Sinocentric world included China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam).

Eastern art
Art history v. History of art. I recommend the move of this page. Its current title Eastern 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 Eastern art. I am making the same recommendation with regards every article in the series.

--Amandajm 05:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
In its current form this article is totally out of line with Wikipedia standards. First of all, I have never seen a picture (ever) that comes before the text of the article (especially one at 6000px). The Manual of Style states that articles should "start with a right aligned image". Users shouldn't have to scroll down to start reading, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and text should come first.

The gallery on this article is also the largest I have ever seen by far, and looks more like a Commons page. The massive number of pictures takes forever to load on my computer and wastes an enormous amount of bandwidth. People with older computers might not even be able to load this page. The person who collected all these pictures should be aware that many users don't have fast computers.

My removal of images from this page was not based on opinion but rather on Wikipedia standards. The pictures should be removed again. Yemal 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This article also has too many categories that are mostly redundant to Art by Region. However, categories are not that important so if you really want to keep them its ok. I also fixed the grammar of the first sentence, that shouldn't have been reverted.
 * Anyway the picture on the top absolutely needs to be removed. We can discuss how many pictures should be in the gallery. Personally I would prefer 4 but I suppose more (maybe 8?) would be alright too, its just now there are way too many. Also, Modernist, I'm sorry for reverting you, I can see you spent a lot of time gathering all the images together, but there are really just too many. Yemal 02:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I am going to move the lead picture in respect of your request. Unfortunately while some computers may not load this article well, it is important to visually represent the imagery presented from so many eras and countries. The picture above the article is one of the most amazing masterpieces of Chinese painting, it is there in the spirit of WP:IAR because it is a brilliant lead into Eastern art. This is an article that is primarily about the visual arts, consequently this article has important images that cannot be described in words.

There are many important articles of top quality with even more imagery. I recommend Haystacks (Monet). Please also be mindful of the WP:3RR, you will be in violation with your last revert. We are both better served discussing things here. Modernist 02:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way if there are suggestions that you have about the removal of specific images, or categories I'm open to your views. Modernist 02:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, the wide image is fine in the Chinese section. But the gallery is really still too large. I would simply request that you trim it down as much as possible, you can decide which pictures remain. Personally I think there are too many Buddha pictures, this looks more like a Buddhist art gallery (I know how important Buddhism is to Asian culture, but having so many Buddhas is a bit redundant). And the terracotta soldier picture is not very clear. I think it would be possible to reduce the number of images to 4/8/12 and still provide an good overview of Eastern art. Yemal 02:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I removed six images. The article definately needs text and work, when I have time I'll work on the text and give more context to the pictures. Modernist 03:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for understanding. The article certainly needs text expansion, when there is more text the pictures can be moved out of the gallery and into the body of the article. That would look much better. Maybe if I have some extra time I will help with this also, it shouldn't be too hard since some content can be borrowed from the main articles. Yemal 03:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Text
I added a little text the other day. This article needs fleshing out. Each category needs elaboration. I will add something when I can. Modernist 02:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Move?
I think maybe this should be moved to Asian art history. This seems to be the more common term about the subject covered here; "Eastern art" usually refers more to art of the near/middle east, this article covers art of the far east. Yemal (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Asian art
This page is close to Asian art where I did some editing. Should they be merged?

dino (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger_proposal
This article has much more detail, but the name Asian art somehow makes more sense.

dino (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

 * I positively do not support the idea of Asian art being incorporated here....or vice versa....Expand Asian art, create a good article there. I will help you, if you get it off the ground..Both of these articles have the potential of being important. Asian art implies contemporary, and contemporary asian art badly needs representation on Wikipedia.

Currently there isn't much there beyond images and lists, and while this article also needs much more substance and text it corresponds with Western art history...Eastern art history is more directly historical.

I like the idea of separate articles, Asian art includes Turkey, Persia, Iran and perhaps needs expansion to Malasia, and Micronesia perhaps it should emphasize the cultural diversity of all of Asia. Both articles need expansion. Modernist (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * disagree to merge the articles. The Middle Asian art is quite different from that of Eastern Asia. --Appletrees (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Art page needs help
Hi all, I don't have the expertise to do it, but wanted to point out that the main History of Art page could use your help. There is little more on Asia, except for a link to this page. A paragraph or two would be a good addition there. --TravisNygard (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. despite one or two dissenters, there does seem to be consensus that the proposed title is more accurate and precise. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

History of Eastern art → History of Asian art – – Less Westocentric name, matching modern terminology. The article covers all of the Near East aas well as the Far East (East Asia), which the current title may suggest is the only subject. This has been proposed before here. It should be combined with "merging" - actually redirecting - the useless stub Asian art to here. All that does is repeat the "Art of Asia" template links, but it gets over 20,000 views annually. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment; While i agree that the title is fairly Eurocentric, this is english wikipedia. Also, not sure if islamic art (currently part of this article as 'eastern art' is considered to be 'asian' art). I'd like some more opinions on the difference between 'asian' and 'eastern' art from someone more knowledgeable on the topic and whether changing the title would indicate a need to change some of the article content. InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere 23:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They speak English in Australasia, not to mention Hong Kong. The majority of the more important Islamic art is Asian, and that of Al-Andaluz is very dubiously described as "Eastern". The article contents needs a lot of changes for all sort of reasons, but the title move would not affect them. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * . I'd rather move this to Asian art, since the current article does not purely describe history in most sections. Deleting the current content at Asian art does not seem very worrying, considering it is just a list of links and a small image gallery. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Which countres are you thinking of? I've looked again, and it seems to me the current article does "purely describe history in most sections". There is nothing about the very large contemporary art scenes in China, Japan & India, or much on any others. Some surviving art traditions are briefly mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm making a distinction between "history of art" and "historical art". The Balinese section for example is really a description of its art history, but sections like Bhutan, Laos, Thailand, and Tibet are more focussed on describing several art forms. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Describing "historical art" is art history, it seems to me. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: To Americans, "Asian art" might well suggest East Asia even more strongly than "Eastern Art" does. To some Britons, it will suggest South Asia, which is barely covered here. Moreover, many readers would not immediately think of Oceania as being part of Asia, nor would they necessarily follow an arbitrary split of a "Asian part" as exists in practice in the article now. I agree that "Eastern" is not sufficient, but any replacement term needs to be carefully drawn, possibly with a slight tweaking of scope. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree Oceania is not part of Asia on any but the widest definition, and (when strictly defined) probably not "Eastern", and might need dropping - it is very little related in art-historical terms, unless the South East Asian parts are included (they should certainly stay in the article). Where do Americans think India is, if not in Asia? The many deficiencies of the present contents should not dominate the choice here. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Americans think that India is in Asia, but nonetheless the term "Asian" on its own suggests the Sinosphere first and most strongly. I'm not saying this is good or bad, only that it is true. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Clearer geographic scope and much material to cover since antiquity. Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title is sufficiently broad to encompass the subject. The article was never intended to be limited, but rather to encompass a large historical area not covered by the articles we have regarding western art...Modernist (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Broadness of scope is not really the issue except at the margins, though I accept the various comments have focused on it. "Eastern" is really an unacceptably old-fashioned way to title such an article nowadays. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be 'old fashioned' but it gets the point across. There is nothing wrong with 'old fashioned' by the way - this is an historical article...Modernist (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support everything proposed. "Eastern art" is a Western name. And we don't need both articles on the same topic, so the merge with Asian art is a good idea. In fact, the merged article should probably be moved ultimately to Asian art.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. "Eastern" is ambiguous.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2016 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Asian art. 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/20100304044904/http://vietnamartist.com/ArtHistory/Arthistory5.aspx to http://www.vietnamartist.com/ArtHistory/Arthistory5.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306013739/http://www.thegioipublishers.com.vn/en/magazines/detail.php?cat=1&idmagazines=267 to http://www.thegioipublishers.com.vn/en/magazines/detail.php?cat=1&idmagazines=267

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Asian art. 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/20091024061549/http://www.netreach.net/~nhojem/jung.htm to http://www.netreach.net/~nhojem/jung.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:02, 30 December 2017 (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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Filipino Painting 12.jpg

Subject of article? Visual arts, or all Asian art forms?
With only a few exceptions, this article seems to be focused only on Visual arts. If that is the intent, then that should be clarified in the title and/or lead. Art is not my focus on Wikipedia, but I decided to take a look at this article since it was listed as an article for improvement. I think it is important to first clarify what the focus of this article is, i.e. visual arts, or all forms of Asian art. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Art" in English, and on Wikipedia, means visual art. "Arts" means visual art, performing arts, music, literature. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I agree the term "art" (without an 's') is commonly used to imply "visual arts", it isn't always the case. The entry for art in Wiktionary contains a wide variety of definitions. I think it would be good to have some type of clarification on the matter, especially for those that might not be familiar with the subtle difference between "art" and "arts". I added the "about" template at the beginning. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been raised many times before, but without adding a "visual" before every mention of "art", there's no way anyone has been able to suggest for doing it. Like many words, "art" has lots of meanings. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It's strange and odd
When I got diverted from Asian art title to History of Asian art I found it quite strange and odd. How any one will add any contemporary status of Asian art content to History of art article? How one is supposed to make sense?

I visited merge discussion archived talk page, it seems Asian art page was lesser developed than History of Asian art so they merged page here than merging History of Asian art in to Asian art. If at all Asian art page lacks in content. Actually rather than wasting time in merge discussion a little time on making summary of all Asian art countries related would have done the job. I do always find it strange the most times Wikipedia decision making functions as democracy sans logic. Bookku (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are pages on Chinese art, Japanese art, Islamic art, et al. These pages discuss historic and contemporary works from each country/culture. Also, 'history' includes the contemporary period, so contemporary artists should be discussed here. In any case, this page is an overview - the more specific sub-pages should be used to more fully understand the arts of Asia (which is a broad geographic label). I don't think it's an issue that there is not a page on Asian art as I cannot see what content could be included there that would not fit here.  ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  19:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I added the "About" template at the start of the article to read "This article is about the history of visual arts in Asia. For other Asian art related topics, see Culture of Asia." Hopefully this helps address part of the issue. I will leave it to others to determine if "Asian art" and "History of Asian art" warrant separate articles. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)