Talk:Op art

Untitled
In the article's first paragraph it says, "Op art is also referred to as geometric abstraction and hard-edge abstraction, although the preferred term for it is perceptual abstraction." I'm not sure that the preferred term is "perceptual abstraction." I think the preferred term is "Op art." If it is referred to as "geometric abstraction" or "hard edge abstraction," those would be descriptive terms, not the name of the art movement. Bus stop 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Schmidt
I've revised the edit, based on checking the Responsive Eye catalogue and the books cited on Schmidt's entry about his involvement in the RE show. Antonio Giusti 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Antonio Giusti

List?
Sorry to see the list go -- can't it be "sourced" (I'm not sure what that means -- some of these artists have Wikipedia links, no?) so it's not prone to abuse? Antonio Giusti 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Antonio Giusti

I actually think only artists with Wikipedia links should be listed. Bus stop 18:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess my main issue is that anyone notable should be discussed within the text which eliminates the need for a list. If you're part of the history, something should be actually written about you within the article. Having said that, I'm sure there are exceptions. The list in the article seemed worse than others for so many red links (and I realize there is a line of thinking that says that red links represent areas which need expanding). If someone wants to put a list back, I'm not going to oppose it. But can we at least put some sort of context around it, and not just list names. Freshacconci 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent spelling
This article makes use of inconsistent spelling when writing the term "op art". Examples of variations include "Op art", "Op-Art" and "op art". Assuming only one of them is correct, it should be used consistently throughout the article. SharkD (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2009 (    UTC) thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.59.218 (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Photography Incorrect
What Laszlo Moholy-Nagy’s Op art was not art it was a training exercise, this is a common misconception, and so someone should mention that he did not create Photographic Op art. It even predated the invention of Op art. There’s a photographer/artist who makes Op art, here is a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCxvmLBVdBA

I do not have time to correct it right now as I have a deadline to meet so I deleted the photographic op art section so that it would not be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.134.218 (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition
The definition of Op Art as using Optical Illusions seems needlessly narrow to me. Some Op Art pieces employ optical illusions, but not all. I like Martin Gardner's description (from his 1971 column in Scientific American). "a form of hard-edge abstractionism ... It's distinguishing feature is a strong emphasis on mathematical order." 204.128.192.33 (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Re Theory of Colour
Under section "Method of operation", subsection "Black-and-white and the figure-ground relationship", it reads:

"As Goethe demonstrates in his treatise Theory of Colours, at the edge where light and dark meet, color arises because lightness and darkness are the two central properties in the creation of color."

I'm sure there has to be a better explanation in line with our current understanding about light and perception. Goethe's theory uses an outdated model not in line with current physics, biology, etc. --Calsioro (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Binakol
User:Verbcatcher, on this edit, I can't find RS that say binakol influenced op art, but I can find reliable sources that say that it is op art. Allowing for the difference in medium, it is easily possible to find traditional binakol patterns with details which are geometrically identical to the lede image of op art. While the definition of "op art" is debated, I don't think it's possible to come up with a definition that excludes binakol without saying, in essence, "you have to be a proper artist to make op art, being a mere highly-skilled professional weaver in the tradition of some tribe or other does not count, you need to come from the European cultural tradition". I suppose you could argue that op art is a single cultural tradition, and binakol has no connection to it, but this is difficult, as binakol seems to have been exhibited in the US (I'd expect it was on show at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, for instance). HLHJ (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This issue is what this article is about. The lead section says  'Op art, short for optical art, is a style of visual art that uses optical illusion'. The words 'a style' indicate that we are not discussing all art that uses optical illusion. This is reinforced in the history section:
 * Time magazine coined the term op art in 1964, in response to Julian Stanczak's show Optical Paintings at the Martha Jackson Gallery, to mean a form of abstract art (specifically non-objective art) that uses optical illusions.
 * Op art is only one art style that uses optical illusion. I would not classify trompe-l'œil or the work of M. C. Escher as op art. I think that some art quilts use similar techniques. You may take the view that the article should be expanded to cover all artwork that makes use of optical illusion, but in my view this would make the article too unfocussed. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I'd not argue that all optical illusion is op art, Verbcatcher. I'd also argue that op art is one form or style of art using one subset of types of optical illusion, and having certain other attributes in common, and I'd happily classify as op art something older or younger, quilt, weave, or painting, if they are visually similar. I have created a stand-alone article and linked it, but I find the culture-bound scope too narrow and arbitrary. HLHJ (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Op art" is a movement, trend or genre within Western Modern art. Other stuff that merely happens to look like it might be worth a sentence lower down, or a "see also", but is not part of the subject. Johnbod (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)