Talk:Nude (art)/Archive 1

Renamed and Revised Article
The new opening includes: a definition that recognizes the difficulties of saying anything about art that is neutral

a recognition that any discussion of the nude in art must talk about sex, which even the firmly Victorian Baron Clark admitted in his first chapter before going on to talk mainly about ideal beauty

a hint at the history of the nude that needs to be fleshed out

I have also edited the Nude (disambiguation) page. FigureArtist (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Modern Images
Since there are so few images in the public domain, I have added external links to contemporary artists. This does not mean I expect to see links added to any website of nudes. To be encyclopedic, I think that the same rules should apply as to references, only third party sites such as galleries and museums; no personal sites, no self-promotion.FigureArtist (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not at all sure that the copyright issue for our statue by Gaston Lachaise is done adequately to pass the keen eye of our own copyright police. Had I uploaded it the way it is it (opinion) would have been challenged long ago. I believe that it needs Fair USe rationale. Carptrash (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not essential, I will just find another sculpture with similar proportions.FigureArtist (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge or Delete?
The title of this article appears to be an attempt to promote a neologism. The Nude has been a subject of art since there was academic discussion of aesthetics, (e.g. Clark, Kenneth (1956) The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form. ISBN 0-691-01788-3). Perhaps one might add the modifiers Artistic Nude, or the Nude in Art if the audience for the discussion were the general public. There is discussion below about taking the same action, but nothing has been done? The certainly needs to be an article on the Nude, but that appears to be Depictions of nudity.FigureArtist (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think renaming this article Nude in art or Nude (art) would be a good start, and much of the content of Depictions of nudity would belong in this article. Ewulp (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nude in art sounds fine...Modernist (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nude (art) would be my choice of title for this article. Bus stop (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely rename. "Nudity in art" is most apt per Nudity in film's precedent. Alternatively, "Nude in art" is better than "Nude (art)", which disambiguates between all other nudes when the article is about the relationship between the nude and art.  czar  &middot;   &middot;  04:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll add that Depictions of nudity directs here to discuss "the nude" as an artistic genre, or nudes as artistic studies. Otherwise this article might be a candidate for merge into the overall role of nudity in media.  czar  &middot;   &middot;  04:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nudity in art seems less suitable..."nudity in film" is a far more familiar phrase than "the nude in film", but the different arts use different vocabularies. Typing "nude in art" into the google books search window shows how commonly this phrase is used in book titles; "nudity in art" shows only one use in a book title (from 1898) in the first six pages of results. Ewulp (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep title. "Nudity in art" is a different topic from "art nude," and "depictions of nudity" is even broader. "Art nude" specifically means the use of the nude as the main subject of a work of art, often working directly from a model, and is a particular genre. "Depictions of nudity" means any time nudity is depicted, whether the purpose is to create a work of art, or is documentary, or is commercial or pornographic, or whatever. (One can argue that such distinctions break down in our own time, but to ignore them historically would be misrepresenting the topic.) "Nudity in art" would mean any depiction of nudity in something conceived as an art work, whether or not the nude was the main subject: nudity might be incidental, or part of a larger multifigure work (like, The Garden of Earthly Delights has naked bodies, but as a genre it is not a study of "the nude"). So "art nude" seems the correct title to me, because it limits the scope of the article to the nude as the main subject of a work of art as a particular kind of study, like a still life. Not nudity as incidental or for purposes other than a genre study. "The nude" would be an alternative title, but doesn't sit well with usual naming conventions. Just as we wouldn't merge still life into produce, it makes no sense to merge art nude as a traditional genre into general discussions of nudity. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, "art nude" appears to be a neologism, since I have never heard it anywhere except here. "The Nude" is the fine art term for artwork where the subject is the unclothed human body. Terms such as art nude and figurenude are inventions(?) by photographers which I assume are attempts to distinguish their work from porn, but it is unnecessary. Two words can have different meanings in different contexts, or namespaces. Nudity in art is a good title to distinguish the topic of this article from others. Fine art nude photos could be covered, and the distinction between them and other types of nude photos could be explained.FigureArtist (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you overlooked my comment that "nudity in art" isn't the same thing as "the nude" or "art nude" as a genre equivalent to "still life" or such. "Nudity in art" could refer to any nudity in art, not just the genre in which the naked human form is the primary subject. I agree that "art nude" is more often used of photography, and that "the nude" is more common in fine art; however, "the nude" sits a little uncomfortably with WP conventions of article naming (see WP:THE, though this might be an exception like the example [[crown vs. The Crown). An article called just "nude" would need to have the scope spelled out precisely, but Nude (art) might be a compromise, if too many editors objected to "the nude." "Art nude" is not a neologism in any sense that would exclude its use as a title: its usage is well-established (so this can't be regarded as an attempt to promote it), but it may not be the best or more accurate title for the desired scope of the article. It does seem to me, however, that the title needs to focus on the fine-art genre, not the abstract condition of "nudity." Cynwolfe (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the logic in how "nudity in art" precludes discussion of "the nude" figure. "Art nude" is a WP:NEO as it is not referenced by RS. At best, it's barely used and none speak about the term, as WP:NOTNEO requires. I think "the nude" is cited often enough to pass WP:THE. But most of all, "the nude" as a genre is not enough for an article. It really refers to the collection of how artists worked from nudes, or that tradition, and is best used instead as the bulk of an article about how nudity is treated in the history of fine art. czar   &middot;   &middot;  18:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was suggesting "Nudity in art" at the title because it is WP friendly, even thought the content would be "the nude" as a genre defined by a good ref, such as Kenneth Clark. Nude (art) would be ok also, and matches Model (art). Whichever term is the article title, the other should be a redirect. If "art nude" is in general use what is the authoritative source (e.g. a definition in a glossary of fine arts terms in a art historical, aesthetics, or technical book/website)? A Google search finds little other than this WP article, but lots of hits that include "Fine" art nude.FigureArtist (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FigureArtist (talk • contribs)


 * Let me try this again. I understand the subject of this article to be "the nude" as a subject-genre of fine art, beginning in the tradition of Western art with (arguably) the kouros of archaic Greece. In the 19th century, the technology of photography introduces the aesthetic question of photography as a medium {though the potential of photography as a form of fine art by now has been realized long ago), and thus the photographed nude enters the tradition of "the nude", that is, the nude human form as portrayed in art. Model (art) is about the model, who may be naked or clothed—but it's about modeling, not "the nude" as a traditional genre of painting and sculpture. "The nude" is a subject-genre in the same way that still life or equestrian statue is a subject-genre. If that's the scope of the article, then although FigureArtist is suggesting "Nudity in art" because it suits WP conventions, it does imply a broader scope, and could include any art that includes nudity. Above, I gave the example of The Garden of Earthly Delights, which includes naked bodies, but which is not a genre study of "the nude." The question is what to call this genre, which is a much narrower topic than "depictions of nudity" in general—that is a much broader topic not confined to the kind of genre study (taught, for instance, in art classes). Cynwolfe (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are always individual works that are difficult to classify; we are discussing art not science. The Garden of Earthly Delights could be discussed within the general context of nudity in art, but would not be a prime example of the nude; and would most likely be classified as religious art. Is Le déjeuner sur l'herbe a landscape? Not likely, although there is only one fully nude figure occupying a small part of the picture, but it is the focus of interest, and that painting would be included here.

It would appear that what is now Depictions of nudity started out as Nudity in art, but when contaminated by non-art content it was renamed rather than cleaned up. One can hope that this will not be repeated. I was not saying that Model (art) had any relationship to this article, only that the format word (namespace) is one article naming convention.

There seems to be a consensus forming that Nudity in art is the proper title, and The Nude as a fine art genre is the topic. The title is not problematic, given that art means Fine Art. FigureArtist (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The consensus to dump "Art nude" is strong, but the proposed new title may be problematic. If the topic of the article is The Nude as a fine art genre, shouldn't the noun "nude" figure in the title? Consider this: a user interested in art history types "Nude" into the wikipedia search window and is taken to Nudity. A hatnote directs them to a disambiguation page, where the choices will include "a Depiction of nudity in art" and (now) "Nudity in art". The ancillary wording can be changed to make the distinction a bit clearer, but I wonder if "The Nude" as a genre shouldn't be one of the choices. Couldn't cases like Bosch be placed in the existing Depictions of nudity? Ewulp (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Depictions of nudity would have to be re-configured to support the broad topic the title implies. The Nude disambiguation page should no longer say "Depictions of nudity in art" and the article itself should only have a brief section on Nudity in art, and otherwise link to this article now with that title. The problem with having an article title beginning with The (no matter how appropriate) has been discussed.

FigureArtist (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Nude redirects to a music album Chrome (Catherine Wheel album) because one of the tracks has that title. This follows the WP:THE policy. FigureArtist (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with most of what you've said, I never suggested that the title should begin with "the"; on the disambiguation page the definite article would precede the link ("the nude") or exist in a piped link. WP:TITLE says: "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess". I suspect that the word "nude" is likelier to come to the mind of someone interested in Polykleitos, or Venus of Urbino, or Renoir, than "nudity"—just as somebody interested in nudity in film will think "nudity" in film, not "the nude" in film. Titles should be intuitive, and we already have an article about depictions of nudity, so titled. Ewulp (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there are all kind of housekeeping issues that can be discussed and fixed, but I am really only interested in improving the article, so I am going to go ahead and BE BOLD...FigureArtist (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the spirit—and unless something changes, it appears that Nude (art) is the consensus title for the revamped article, as it has broad support and nobody has deemed it unacceptable. Although we don't decide these things by counting votes, this title is the first choice of Bus stop, FigureArtist says it's an "ok" alternative, Cynwolfe calls it an acceptable compromise, and I support it. Runner-up Nude in art is supported by Modernist and myself, and is a second choice for Czar. Nudity in art is the first choice of FigureArtist and Czar, but Cynwolfe and I have argued against it. If there are no objections in the next unspecified interval of time, let's go with "Nude (art)". Ewulp (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I added the photo
and gave it to Wiki to use forever. That release thing. I had no idea where to sign it. sorry. CurtisNeeley (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Shameless Self Promotion?
In looking over this page it seems that ONE person who is posting links back and forth to his own website to drive traffic there is the sole cause of the start of the page Art nude. A Jerry Avenaim link points to figurenude - the photograph depicted is from figurenude - the term art nude is being subverted into the term figurenude. This is turing into an advertisement for whoever Curtis Neeley is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekhead (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The photograph here should be by one of the great photographers mentioned. Not an amateur one as shown. The photo shown suffers from poor lighting, hot spots, lens distortion, camera shake, and low-quality of focus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.43.72 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that these fabricated terms (e.g. figurenude, artnude) are just branding by self-promoting individuals. Aknicholas (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge
I have suggested to merge this article with Depictions of nudity. I don't see any vast difference that requires this to be a separate article except that the author has a web site and a special name for it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no significant distinction between art nude and artistic nude in text, usage, or references that I can find. Consider merging this article with Depictions of nudity and standardizing on the term artistic nude.Aknicholas (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What is a merge?
I am not opposed at all to merging if it doesn't basically erase it. My website is HERE. I was an early adopter of the word figurenude and a figurenude is a particular type of depiction of nudity. I intend to write an article for figurenude. It would certainly be another candidate for merging? It was deleted once before, but Jerry Avenaim's use of the word will give it notability? Depictions of nudity is a very sad looking article in my opinion and I would rather them not get jumbled in there among the rest of that mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtisNeeley (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merging means that the content is added to an existing article. In this case Depictions of nudity.  If someone visited Art nude they would end up at Depictions of nudity.  Rather than having two articles which basically cover the same topic, you could work to improve the Depictions of nudity article.  As far as the figurenude article, it would need a lot of independent support to assert notability (and your web site should very likely be excluded).  I don't think one person's use of the word gives it notability.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
If you would suggest I work on Depictions of nudity I believe I could certainly improve it so much it would basically be starting over and using several things already there. It is a jumbled useless mess. I would use the terms figurenude, art nude, erotic nude, etc. within it as types of depictions of nudity. It would basically be 10+ hours of hard work. It could be reverted anyway. Right? I will just not mess with an article for figurenude. It will not be notable till I am. That may never happen. CurtisNeeley (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any edit runs the risk of being reverted. Hopefully if you put a lot of effort into rewriting an article, you could make an argument to support the changes.  Just make sure to document why changes are made on the talk page so others can make input there instead of just reverting you.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

arguing?

One quarter of the surface area
The following statement doesn't sit right with me: The term figurenude is used for an object of two dimensional art with a nude human figure making up about one quarter of the surface area and is not intentionally erotic. That one quarter figure seems arbitrary and inaccurate. The photo on the right is a considered a figurenude but the subject clearly takes up at least half of the shot. --Subversive Sound (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * does the term figurenude have a range of surface areas? im sure the title is more subjective, does anyone have any knowledge on the subject?Millertime246 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A figurenude requires the figure be a great deal of the image in order for it not to be showing the profile of a nude crossing the line between environmental nude profiles of people and the figure as an object of art. There will be many images that are art nudes that do not fit as figurenude images. The fourth is an attempt to make the figure fill more of the image. It is very hard to calibrate exact numbers to explain the ideal. The nude human as the dominant them may work much better as I just read on the picture of the day caption. CurtisNeeley (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - The Wave (1896).jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - The Wave (1896).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 7, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-02-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 05:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting that this picture was featured with no mention of Bouguereau's modern status as the King of Kitsch.FigureArtist (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Galleries
I wonder whether the galleries should be structured more flexibly. Usually I see the gallery not forced into lines, but just allowed to flow depending on the device the reader is using. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Top image
Could we reach a consensus on an image for the top? I'd like to nominate Michelangelo's David, moving it up from the gallery, as perhaps the most famous nude outside classical antiquity. But this is just the first thing that comes to mind. I like to see an image at the top of most articles, especially one about art. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that. Carptrash (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have moved the Michelangelo drawing up to the top, since it is not a roaring cliché. I put back the code to float the TOC, since the enormous white space without it annoys me as an artist and designer. I made all the non-gallery images the same width. Is the photo a work of art, or just a very old snapshot? The description indicates the latter. There should be nude photo, but I cannot find a good one in the public domain.FigureArtist (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The top image is usually something that conveys the topic in the most common or recognizable way (as a sort of extension of the principle of least astonishment), so one might choose to think of it as archetypal rather than as a cliché. The drawing seems to be illustrating the section on drawing, anyway. I used to force-position the TOC for similar reasons, because I come from a print background. However, a Wikipedia page doesn't work quite the same way. You might want to look at WP:TOC. Keep in mind that people read on devices of varying sizes, like an iPhone. What you see on your screen is not exactly what I see on mine. That's why it's recommended not to force image size (see WP:LAYIM and WP:ImageSize), unless it's a very detailed image that really needs to be blown up. Some people with poor vision will hit the zoom function a coupla times, and that's where layout issues might really start to matter. Remember that the layout isn't static as it is with (for example) an online article of the New York Times. If I zoom in on a NYT page, it just gets bigger, but the line breaks stay in the same place, and the parts of the page stay in the same relation to each other. A Wikipedia page, however, flows depending not only on the device the reader uses, but on individual display preferences. It also flows when you adjust the size of your window. Layout guidelines take all these factors into account. (Pardon me if I'm telling you what you already know; I'm under the impression from your user page that you're new.) For the nude photos, I haven't looked through them, but Commons seems to have quite a lot of historical nude photography (where it's charmingly called "vintage," and may not be art photography per se). Cynwolfe (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I rather like having David up there. Having a male nude is, to my way of thinking, a good thing.  I did the move just because it ws suggested and seemed like a good idea. I added the "snapshot" because she was modeling for a sculpture class and the picture straddled the sculpture & photography sections, sort of a visual pun or something. That shot though, is not art photography.  It was a spur of the moment thing, late last night and I feel no real attachment to it. Carptrash (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Too clichéd for me. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I shared your optimism that readers coming to a Wikipedia article on the nude are jaded from long exposure to classic works of art. I have a daughter in high school, and it's been an eye-opening (not to mention thoroughly dispiriting) experience. This is one of the better high schools in our state (in the U.S.), with SAT scores in the top 10 percentile; an exceptionally high number of students go on to college, with a gratifying low dropout rate after the sophomore year there. And yet for her world history course this semester, they watched Disney's Mulan and the Brad Pitt movie Seven Years in Tibet for the unit on China, and Disney's Prince of Egypt for ancient Egypt. This is for 15- and 16-year-olds. Since it's evident to me from reader feedback comments that students constitute a large percentage of regular Wikipedia users, I have my doubts that many of them have ever seen David or the Apollo Belvedere or any number of works fundamental to cultural literacy that seem tiresome to us. It's a cheering thought, though, that someone getting their art history from Wikipedia might roll her eyes and say "geez, not the Discobolos again." Cynwolfe (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the article on the statue gets over 1M views per year - one of the top 30 art articles - #22 in fact (see if you can guess the 3 individual works that beat it), But after that views decline very rapidly, so I think there are art clichés for a general audience, but very few of them. Apollo Belvedere is more like 70K pa, which is still high for an individual work. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mona Lisa & Statue of Liberty. That's with no peeking. Carptrash (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I peeked, and am crushed (and confused) that the S of L did not make the top 1000. Still I can't actually believe that folks in the USA will vote for . . .... ... never mind, but I've been wrong a lot lately. Carptrash (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it's in the "Public art" project but not the Visual arts one, so isn't in those stats - otherwise it would easily come 2nd, just as you say. I think the PA lot stole it from us - naughty - I'm sure it used to be VA. Mind you, I never would have thought of that (to be top 4) in a million years. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't it be in both? I understand that it is not your business to answer for decisions made by other editors, but it seems to me that all the sculpture should be in one place. I am not familiar with the Public vs. Visual dichotomy, perhaps I should be? Though I do feel that I have been spending too much time on talk pges and not enough of it . . . ..in the trenches.  Perhaps the talk pages are the trenches?  Carptrash (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it should be in both, & I will re-add it. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, David pushed the photo down so it no longer relates well to the Media section. Demote David back to the History gallery or zap the pinup? I am just learning WP syntax so don't know all the image options, although everything looks fine on my ipad. I have coded many websites in standard web technologies, will look at WP:TOC again. But really, should we accommodate someone trying to look at an image-intensive article on their phone? FigureArtist (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * David isn't what caused the drawing to shift down; it's the force-positioned TOC. That's one reason not to force-position the TOC: it can screw up the image implacement in the following section(s). In an article with no images near the top, no problem. But most well-illustrated articles have a top image and an image in the first section. Force-positioning the TOC so that the text flows around it will either bump the first-section image out of place, or sandwich text between the TOC box and an image, which is discouraged (see MOS:IMAGELOCATION). That's why the layout guidelines are different from what we're used to in laying out a static page, either online or in print. And actually, yes, one of WP's goals is to be accessible on a wide range of devices. So the guidelines have been generated to accommodate the greatest range of users, not just those who work or read on a laptop or other larger screen. My husband and daughter do most of their online reading on small handheld devices, as do most of their friends. I use a laptop because I dislike wearing reading glasses, so I use the zoom function a lot. Again, what you see is not what others see. When I'm dealing with a graphically complicated page, I often check the printable view and the pdf format, and various page widths, just to see whether problems emerge that don't show up in my usual view mode. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Took another look at the TOC policy and the effect of floating on the article, and I think its OK. Headings are short, to the TOC is not wide, and the Media section flows around it nicely.FigureArtist (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Do Talk Pages get Cleaned?
Another indication of how new I am to this ( < three weeks): Now that the article has been redone, can the discussion about that process be archived/deleted?FigureArtist (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They get archived eventually, but this is too fresh. Besides I have misgivings about the latest version, in particular the way it has turned the article into a treatment of "Nudes" - ie single nude figures as a subject, rather than a broader treatment of the nude in art. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any content so far that excludes a broader treatment. It is just that most of the readily available references are about the classic works that have, at most, three figures, e.g. the Three Graces. I was thinking of adding some of the more modern works such as Matisse: Dancers and Picasso: Bathers.FigureArtist (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I recently suggested archiving some discussion at another article that dated back to 2008 and was vetoed. So don't expect these discussions to go anywhere soon. What often occurs is that all of a sudden new editors discover the article and present new discussion points, only they often are the same ones that were decided upon in the past. Carptrash (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Undid Edit by Anonymous User
Several changes, some ok, one cause a missing cite error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterArtistDC (talk • contribs) 05:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-Free Images
It always amuses me when non-artists remove non-free images of artworks because there are "plenty of free images". There are plenty of public domain images, but the history of art did not stop in 1923. There are plenty of free modern images, but few of them are art. The two modern paintings in the gallery are the minimum needed, so please read the usage rationale before deleting them.FigureArtist (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We can get ask for artists to release their works under a creative commons license. Some have already done so, which is fantastic. Art articles in general are terrible with the NFCC, so we need to bring them in line. Just like screenshots in most film articles.
 * A gallery usage is not enough, per WP:NFCC which requires critical commentary on the works in question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Illustration of the genre to which a work belongs is one of the fair use rationales, which I have used for both images. Both works are referenced in the text, but an extensive discussion is not needed because the images are there to show what cannot be conveyed with words, which is the interpretation of the genre by iconic works of two periods, Abstract Expressionism and the Post-Modern. If you have decided that Art articles in general are terrible with NFCC, you are placing your own conception of enforcement above the need to have complete articles, which is not NPOV. FigureArtist (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is astounding to see how far you can push the bounds of good faith, especially with that final sentence. The WP:NFC states clearly "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Critical commentary... which is not provided without text illustrating exactly what is to be shown by these images in the article. Readers are not supposed to click on image pages to see what these examples are meant to represent: it should be served for them, ready to digest. If either adequate critical commentary is not added, or the images are removed, I will put this up for a Non-free content review.
 * As to how you can adequately represent these styles using free images... as I said, pester artists to donate works. File:RicheletAutoportrait.JPG (at self portrait) is absolutely fine for any use related to the painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've opened a non-free image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Crisco 1492, the images definitely violate contextual significance WP:FAIRUSE: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Having added the specific references to point out the significance of deKooning and Freud in the outline of the genre, I have removed the notice at the top of the article.FigureArtist (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If I raise both OR and NPOV issues, it is not because I am doubting anyone's good faith in enforcing NFCC. However, those who admit to having limited visual intelligence should not be stating their opinions regarding the equivalency of free and non-free images based upon "common sense" when others who are trying to write articles regarding the Visual Arts are giving the artist's POV, with citations. Admittedly my writing style is terse, but others have said clean and to the point. I will try to make the necessary additions to make the text clear to the average reader.FigureArtist (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is one of the three alternatives I already offered and one which, if you had tried to do earlier, would have saved a lot of innocent electrons and bytes. If you can show contextual significance adequately, I'll be happy to withdraw the FU image review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Original images as opinions needing references
The policy on original images states: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy".

This would generally exclude uploaded images as illustrations for visual art articles, since claiming the status of art would be original research unless supported by a citation that the image has passed some test, such as being in an art museum. The test I propose for this article is that the photographer has her/his own biographical article in WP which substantiates their status as a fine artist. Only one of the recently added photos pass that test. FigureArtist (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

New Sections to Broaden Topic
After reading some more art books by critics and historians, I have come to the conclusion that taking purely academic point of view excludes information that someone using an encyclopedia would want to know; thus the new "Issues" section. I hope others will contribute. However, the topic remains Fine Art, there are other articles for other forms of nudity.FigureArtist (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think the subject is too narrow: "The Nude is a work of fine art that has as its primary subject the unclothed human body" - though "main subject" works are the norm, plenty of works have secondary or incidental nudity, which should be covered (indeed a number are covered, despite the lead). The article is full of inaccuracies, I have to say, & does not always represent sources accurately. Does anyone know why it suddenly got 13k views one day mid-February? We could do without the how to take kids round museums bit, imo. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to correct any inaccuracies, I am an artist not an art historian. I am also a social scientist, so art education for kids does not seem to me to be off-topic. I am taking the lead definition from the Kenneth Clark book, which includes no works where nudity is incidental. "A number are already covered"? Perhaps "Watson and the Shark", but I just wanted to add an American painting to the gallery, and I do not think the nudity is incidental, since it is Watson. (The jump in article views was likely due to the Non-Free image discussion, which led me to expand the modern / contemporary sections to justify having any images from after 1923.) FigureArtist (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Class C?
After adding references, sections, and I think a more "encyclopedic" POV, I think that the article has gone beyond Start Class. There is much to be done, and I hope others will contribute.FigureArtist (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with at least a C rating. The non-traditional media section (especially new media) needs a bit more expansion, and some more referencing would be nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Era designation
I agree with the change from BC to BCE as more neutral.FigureArtist (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. Ewulp (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2013 (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: no consensus to move. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nude (art) → Nudity in art – Better disambiguation per WP:NATURAL and to bring it in line with main article, nudity, since nude redirects there. Brandmeistertalk 11:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Nudity in art" is a different topic from "art nude. 188.6.204.53 (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. As I've said above, "Nudity in art" is a indeed a different topic from "the nude" as a single figure in art, but it is the wider and more important one, and most of the article applies to both. I would probably make some changes to reflect the new name at some point. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Nudity in Art" is indeed a broader topic. What is being proposed is really a split, leaving Nude (art) to continue to be about the narrower topic of the tradition of portraying the unclothed body as the focus of the work. I would have liked to call this article "The Nude" as it is usually referred to in art history and theory texts, but that is prohibited by WP naming conventions. FriendlyFred (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, after looking at the article for the first time in a while, I see little that is not about "The Nude" as narrowly defined in Western Art, so there is nothing to split. Attempts to include Non-western art are very sketchy, and I cannot help since I know little about them. Also, Natural disambiguation does not apply well since the English word nudity has little relation to nudity in art. The current disambiguation page for the word nude are all parenthetical. FriendlyFred (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support. A more important subject and an easier topic for us to write an encyclopedia article about. If someone wants to split back later it shouldn't be hard... Red Slash 18:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I really do not care that much about the name, but as an editor who has contributed to an article with a particular subject, I would like to know what the new subject would be. Nudity in art would include what that is not in Nude (art)? An encyclopedia article should not be so general that there is no clear criteria for what is relevant and what is not. This is the basis for academic fields of study, or in modern terms a namespace. For the most part, the current article is the meaning of "Nude" within the namespace "Art": the related disciplines of aesthetics and art history . Perhaps there are some sections that have already strayed from that a bit. The renamed article would likely be the meaning of "art" within the namespace "nudity"? What discipline would that be? I would not be interested in contributing to the latter, since my interest is in Art, not nudity. FriendlyFred (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. As already pointed out in sections higher up, the purported subject now, per the lead, is "the nude" - a type of work showing a single nude figure. Works with more than one nude, mixtures of nude & clothed figures etc, are supposed to be different. "Nudity in art" would broaden the subject to include those. We should have an article on the general subject of the Western tradition of nudity in art before one on the narrower type of work. Non-Western traditions can be covered relatively briefly, and should be. Much of the existing material in fact works for both. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiments regarding which articles should have priority, but do not see it in practice. There are many high-quality articles about extremely narrow topics in the arts, while basic, essential topics such as Fine Art have pathetic articles. I think this is precisely because the narrow articles are the easiest to write for a single editor, or a small group with an interest and a firm grasp of the underlying academics. It is not OR to use expertise to find and evaluate reliable sources and use them to write a good article, that is what I try to do. Would Nude (art) be improved by broadening the topic, or would it become unfocused and diluted? (I remain in favor of a split rather than a move.) FriendlyFred (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be improved; a lot more could be said. As I've said, a split-off article would be fine, but we should do the inclusive subject properly first. The current article does neither that well. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I did my best to improve what was a highly vandalized mess when I first encountered it about a year ago; but I am an artist not an art historian. If it is now to veer into new territory I will focus on the other articles that have become my main interest. (Note: In the discussions above, I was "FigureArtist", my current username being chosen to reflect the broader range of my edits.) FriendlyFred (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose change. This article is doing fine as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You really think it's good? Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You really think changing the name is going to make it better? Carptrash (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - half the article (to which I have been adding recently) doesn't really cover the subject as stated, which itself is or was not very well covered. Once the title is changed these are immediately less of a problem, & development of the article on the fuller subject can proceed more easily. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The nude is a genre. Nudity can be incidental. Different scope. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Nude" seems the more intuitive name. It's certainly far more common than "nudity" in titles of books and exhibitions dealing with the subject. Countless works of art have "nude" or "nudes" in the title but how many have "nudity"? Rubens is more often described as a painter of nudes than as a master of nudity in art. The topic of The Nude (a single figure in a work of art) fits easily into an article entitled "Nude (art)". Depictions of nudity that are not nudes might find a place in Depictions of nudity. Ewulp (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that it is rather useless and unencyclopedic to attempt to discuss the nude as a single figure in a work of art without having discussed the general treatment of nudity in art, of which it is a rather minor aspect in post-classical art, and neither the older text, mostly by User:FriendlyFred under his old name, nor the material now being added, mostly by me, makes any attempt to do so, any more the The Nude by Kenneth Clark etc. How many "nudes" in the narrow sense did Rubens ever paint? Very few I think you'll find. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

FriendlyFred (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments #2
 * 1) I do not think this is a "good" article, it is a WP article, which starts as a non-expert's attempt to address a topic of interest.
 * 2) As an artist I was familiar with Clark's definition of "The Nude" as a distinct genre of art, and thought I was on firm ground using that as a starting point.
 * 3) I have not made it a research project, but have added more references as I have encountered them.
 * 4) Being the major contributor does not make me responsible for the text's current form, anyone unhappy with it could have improved it.
 * 5) It is not a criticism to say that it is not encyclopedic in the traditional sense: something written by an expert to give the average person a complete, accurate overview of a topic.
 * 6) I happen to agree that good articles are usually those that have had the attention of an expert, and this could certainly use a real Art Historian.
 * 7) I have never encountered a WP guideline that says general articles have any priority over narrowly defined ones; if so it is certainly ignored as I said above.
 * 8) If there is any agreement that "The Nude" is a distinct topic worthy of its own article, then there is no reason to rename it.
 * 9) If there is a distinct, broader, and more important topic "Nudity in Art", then anyone may create that article and borrow as much from this article as is proper.
 * Re-reading the original notice, I can see that I was correct in saying this is a namespace dispute: The main article for Nude (art) is Art, not Nudity FriendlyFred (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone here disagreeing with that point. Do you? Not that it really matters to the issue at hand what the main article is. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been neither agreement or disagreement with my namespace comments, which are relevant to what the article is about: nudity as it appears in art, in whatever manner? Or a genre of art that has been the subject of significant academic discussion? Granted it may not currently be a good article on the latter; but it at least has a focus. To me, the former is unfocused and will lead to the inclusion of random reference that plagues the other articles on the visual arts, including Art itself.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted above, Clark by no means restricts himself to "nudes", and you can't say that the wider subject lacks academic discussion; it has much more than the narrower one. Whether it is unfocused is a matter of writing and maintenance. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nude is a top importance topic in the area of art, and so we need an article named nude (art) on that topic. Probably nudity in art should be changed back to again redirect to depictions of nudity, an article that was moved from nudity in art and its scope broadened. Better still, a section Nudity in art should be created in the depictions of nudity article, and the redirect at nudity in art pointed to that section. Andrewa (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly oppose any of those suggestions - much worse. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There was already a Fine Art section in Depictions of nudity, but I have renamed it Nudity in art.FriendlyFred (talk) 22:01, 3 November 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.

Original images as opinions of value
The policy on original images states: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy".

This policy would exclude from this article uploaded images of work by non-notable artists, and is the basis for my reversion of an image added by User:Jkadavoor. FriendlyFred (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a photo from the daughter article in the Photography section. -- Neil N  talk to me  14:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There was nothing wrong with this image. It is not in violation of policy. It does not "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "wrong" with the other image, but it opens the door for any photographer to upload a self-promotional image and call it notable.FriendlyFred (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are changing your reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, my deletion of the image in question was accidental, and the subsequent restoration was a reflexive correction, made without assessing the photograph's merits. Regarding the current discussion, I don't think using the image violates policy, but do find the use of an image by a notable photographer preferable. JNW (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the end, does it really matter? I too prefer a work by a notable photographer. -- Neil N  talk to me  14:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The complicating factor is that the photograph was once a featured image, and was acknowledged by the Wiki community as being of outstanding quality, which would seem to mitigate the concerns for self-promotion in this instance. But notability is the trump card. JNW (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI: Jean-Christophe Destailleur is not simply a Wikimedian; it seems he is a professional artist who is willing to contribute directly here. I'm just voluntarily in charge of COM:FPC; so occasionally add pictures to relevant Wiki pages. Accept it or revert; I'm not at all bothered about it. J Kadavoor J e e 16:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Destailleur may be a successful professional photographer, but would he be sufficiently notable to have his own article? I think not, being one of thousands of commercial photographers, published in magazines but will never be collected as Fine Art. The particular image would be a fine addition to other articles, but not this one. I am defending the policy because I would not like to see fine art articles cluttered with the images of anyone calling themselves fine artists, including me. I am an artist, but my work has not been shown in a notable gallery or museum, reviewed by a notable art critic, or had any other of the possible reliable sources needed to establish NPOV. (This is NOT a change in reasoning.)FriendlyFred (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nude photography (art) is the place for him. And his pictures need to be on commons but NOT tagged with his own name, because that would be advertisment.Hafspajen (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability argument applies to Nude photography (art) as well, but I will add the image to Nude photographyFriendlyFred (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank; I think it is enough. J Kadavoor J e e 17:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We know that Wikipedia doesn't at this time have an article on "Jean-Christophe Destailleur". We don't know that his photographs "will never be collected as Fine Art." Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Meaning

 * One of the most famous nudes is Michelangelo’s David, but it is one of the most problematic in that the ideal beauty of a male body cannot be contemplated with aesthetic detachment assumed when viewing the female nude. Why not? What is wrong with a male body? This might be an oppinion but hardly someting that applies in general. on a second thought, maybe women think the male body is nice.Hafspajen (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is from the source (Leppert, Richard (2007). The Nude: The Cultural Rhetoric of the Body in the Art of Western Modernity. Cambridge: Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4350-X.). Perhaps it could be explained more fully, or another POV added.FriendlyFred (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could say according to Leppert, and a citation, what he exactly said. How about that? Hafspajen (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a snippet from a complicated personal view, not really right for including here. For most men it would make more sesnse if male and female were reversed, I'd have thought. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reversed? Hafspajen (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a POV template to that section. Without having recourse to the Leppert book, it's difficult to determine the precise intent of the section author: however, it is quite clear that the text as written is not working. The "most problematic" status is highly subjective, and the rest of the ideas about male and female bodies make a raft of unacknowledged assumptions about the viewer of art and its cultural context. It seems likely this section represents a critical position, either Leppert's or that of critics he discusses, but that needs to be clearly delineated in the article -- critical theory can't be stated as simple fact. LaPrecieuse (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just removed it. I can see Leppert's pp 9-11 on google preview, but not this passage (p 166). Actually 9-11, referenced earlier in the article, are very crudely summarized there, & could usefully be written up at this point. See here, if you can. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Change of picture
In what way is the identity disputed? ''The identity of the previous image is in doubt; is it Balakrishna or Sambandar? so to avoid controversy'' - was the edit summary, but in this article we don't discuss identity - but show depiction of nudity. The old picture is clearer, has a better composition, more sharp and better in all ways as an art object.
 * If the identity is discussed we can write that, but I think the new image is unsharp, unbalanced and esteticaly and visually of poor quality. Hafspajen (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Either way, it is poor quality and I am going to remove it and replace it with something different, this image does not have the quality required for an art article. Hafspajen (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hafspajen, Though the image file name claims, it is Balakrishna. As per a comment on the image description, it is Sambandar, which is probably correct. The gesture of the right hand indicates it is Sambandar. See similar image and commentary in Indian Sculpture: 700-1800 by P. Pal. We can use the old image, but what should be the "accurate" image caption? Balakrishna is the more prominent icon in Hinduism. I suggest another popular representation of Balakrishna. Also, an image of Bhikshatana can be used to illustrate nudity in Hindu icons. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure if it represents Sambandar, than we can write that, I don't really have an issue with that. The other picture is quite enteresting - but it is less obvious that he is naked. But we could probably use that too. Hafspajen (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest Bala Krishna be used, since he is a pan-Hindu figure.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I think theses are wery good, but we wait to get some possible respons from other editors. Hafspajen (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Small addition of new information to Gender differences section
I am very interested in editing this page and adding new information. I noticed that the Gender differences section does not include any information about how women were not allowed to participate in nude painting and training during the Renaissance. I have a credible source to prove this claim. Happylittletrees (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding information to Modern reinterpretations sub-heading
I am planning to add a contribution to this page under the Modern reinterpretations sub-heading. This section includes only four sentences about the idea of the male gaze in art asserted by Laura Mulvey and alludes to the feminist art movement which began in the 1960s. I would like to add information regarding the feminist art movement since there is only a couple of sentences on the topic. I want to expand on the information already given and add to the balance of the article. The article "Frontiers in Feminist Art History" by Jill Fields will be a source that I will draw from. I would then like to add more about the male gaze and how men, throughout Western art, have depicted the female nude in art as a sexual object. I think elaboration is needed on this topic since there are only a few sentences about it in the page. Daniela Hammar-Tugendhat and Michael Zanchi's article "Art, Sexuality, and Gender Construction" will help me here. I will then mention how the fact that female artists were seen as inferior has been examined in the feminist art history movement and how this has affected the nude in art in the last 30 years. Sources that I will use here include Linda Nochlin's essay "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" and Fredrika Jacob's article "Woman's Capacity to Create: The Unusual Case of Sofonisba Anguissola". To finish my contribution I would like to add information about intersectionality and how women of color in the nude in Western art have been interpreted as exotic. I am still finding sources to speak on intersectionality in my topic. If anyone has anything to add, I'd love to hear! Happylittletrees (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding Intersectionality sub-heading under Modern reinterpretations
I have found credible information about the representation of black women in Western art and I would like to add this section. It deals with the intersection of black women's identity and I think it will add to the page's balance. Thanks! Happylittletrees (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Image cleanup
An art topic has a tendency to collect images. I have done some minor cleanup. Also added an achieve bot to this page.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Another phase of editing
I added a lot to this article in ~2012-2013, and remain the major contributor. I have learned a lot both about the topic, which has changed in seven years, and about editing WP, so I plan to update it. Since there is a mixed citation style, I will convert all to Template:Sfn, which is being used in other nudity articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, personally I think that's a pity, as many of us can't/won't use sfn. That it is used in "other nudity articles", even if true, is entirely beside the point - it is certainly not standard in art articles. I hope there won't be too much Californication going on. The article very badly needs a section on Indian art, with a very distinct tradition & conventions, and should briefly mention the several cultures where the art is all but nude-free - China, Islamic art, & I think Japanese art until relatively recent times - India has rather gone in the opposite direction. Why has the topic "changed in seven years"? Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not understand can't/won't use sfn, since there was already a long list of references with ref tags inline. The sfn template merely automates that link, and was less work than converting the list to inline references. The guideline is for consistency within an article, and when a mix is encountered go with the predominant one.
 * PS. I am correcting the mess I made, since in 2013 I was an academic accustomed to bibliographies not Wikipedia citations. What I like about sfn is that specifying page and chapter are built into the template, not an add-on.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as updating, the post-modern was barely mentioned, now we are in the post-post-modern, whatever that may be. The feminist view here is from the 20th century. And yes, the non-Western needs work, although other than India it is a western genre.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Could the entire section on Media be moved to a "See also", since it is only a set of links to other articles? Again another mistake I made as an inexperienced editor that no one else ever corrected.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe roll into one section. Things like the special role of "life class" drawing in the West, and prints in Japan, certainly need coverage. I'd improve rather than remove. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Reorganization of history sections
While being an artist not an art historian, I will make an attempt at some reorganization to reflect the generally used historical periods for Western art. Following the article Periods in Western art history, the major divisions are:
 * Ancient Classical (Greek/Roman)
 * Medieval
 * Renaissance
 * Neoclassicism
 * Romanticism
 * Modern
 * Contemporary

This classification has the problem of not having well defined boundaries, and overlap both in term of dates or artistic styles.

Non-western examples of the human figure in art remain outside this classification, and needs the attention of an expert.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, this article doesn't mention African art. Jarble (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathematical ratios in Ancient Greek art
I have tagged as dubious the uncited statement: In the mid-fourth century BCE, the sculptor Praxiteles made a nude Aphrodite, called the Knidian, which established a new tradition for the female nude, having idealized proportions based on mathematical ratios as were the nude male statues.

The "mathematical ratios" is uncited and looks very like pseudo-science based (very) loosely on the Fibonacci series and the Golden ratio. See for a full take-down. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What rubbish! In fact it is, ahem, virtually a copyvio from Sorabella, Jean. “The Nude in Western Art and Its Beginnings in Antiquity.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. here (January 2008) . This is art history 101 stuff And there's nothing at all relevant in your link.  Don't you do any checking before tagging?  In fact it was already referenced to Sorabella, though the refs here are slightly messy. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Difficult to check an uncited statement. So what is rubbish? My 'dubious' or Simanek's rebuttal?
 * In fact I spent rather a lot of time searching for reliable sources of the Golden Ratio claim for Body proportions and only found either obvious New Age mysticism in support or dismissal as nonsense by academic sources. Sorabella just states baldly 'idealized proportions based on mathematical ratios' (yes, a copyvio) without saying which ratios. Obviously the Met is a reliable source but takes us into wp:verifiability not truth. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement was cited, as I said. And any simple google search brings up LOADS of references, if mostly equally lacking in detail. Who mentioned the Golden Ratio? That is Greek architecture, not figure sculpture afaik. Some of the top hits on this search (set to preview only) gives you stuff on the ratios, expressed as head as proportion of overall height.  No doubt the lost Greek works, like their Renaissance successors, set out more detail & other ratios.  I'm not impressed by Simanek, who is clearly no art historian. He claims "The Parthenon has columns that taper toward the top, giving an illusion often employed by architects. It makes the structure seem taller." which isn't really right - they actually swell in the middle, then return to a little less than the original girth at the bottom.  Entasis, our article on this feature, mentions several possible (and well-referenced) motives for this, but "makes the structure seem taller" isn't one of them.  Imo it makes the columns seem of equal girth all the way up, rather than tapering, as would be their appearance if they were of constant girth.  Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict)
 * I expected "mathematical ratios" to be something a little more demanding than the eight heads rule, which needs no more than primary school mathematics. Indeed a competent artist would get there by observation and a little licence for dramatic effect – and no explicit math whatever.


 * Yes, in the absence of any citation, I did jump to the conclusion that the "mathematical ratios" might involve some actual mathematics.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * These doctors aren't art historians either, but their overview] is quite interesting. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will take a look. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that was a useful link (and annoying because I had intended to follow the Cannon thread but lost the plot somewhere). Anyway, it led me to, specifically "What that formula was is a matter of conjecture. But, it’s beyond doubt that he did use a mathematical formula and applied it rigorously to the entire human body, even down to the fingernails and toenails." — Andrew Stewart, Professor of the History of Art and Greek Studies, UC Berkeley. I concede. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's right, but it may well have all been pretty simple in maths terms. I doubt most Greek sculptors had the maths training for anything more, nor is it really needed. Note that the ratios changed later on, in the Hellenistic period, to roughly a 1:10 ratio, giving taller & more elegant figures (and/or rather small heads). Mind you, this says 1:7 and 1:8, with grid diagrams to prove it. "Greek sculpture body proportions" into google gets a plethora of hits.  There are some complicated Durer diagrams here.  Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Happylittletrees.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)