Talk:War art

Statement, January 2010

 * This is copied from Talk:War artist#Dispute definition of war artist.

We have a definition here of "War Art": Searching Google Books brings up the same thing, War Art is art by people involved in war in some manner. I am also wondering if this article should be moved to "War Art", articles should be about the thing or the person? Ohioartdude2 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) by artists officially commissioned either to spend varying periods of wartime under fire or to be present at nearly every kind of military activity, in order to record them; or
 * (2) by servicemen-artists responding to powerful inner urges to depict direct war experience; or
 * (3) by sensitive onlookers; or
 * (4) by a combination of all of these.

Restatement, August 2010

 * This is copied from Talk:War artist#Notable vs Official War Artists.

Using the online archives of the New Zealand War Art project has 3 problems when used as a guideline for a Wikipedia article; they are not a secondary source, they by definition limit their scope to to fit a national and curatorial guideline re: "pieces of war art, by artists formally commissioned by the New Zealand government, and other unofficial art works that were acquired by or donated to the collection", and building an article based on what we see in a museum collection is building by original research. We have to cite reliable secondary sources for the basis of an article, and maybe check it against a tertiary source or two. So what do we have? A search of "War Art is" in google books brings up many sources such as: Googling "a War Artist is" is a bit less fruitful
 * Art and war By Laura Brandon
 * War paint: art, war, state and identity in Britain, 1939-1945 By Brian Foss

This tertiary source quoting "The Oxford Companion to Military History" gives us a definition: So lots to build on. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * War art is that which has been developed and executed (1)  by artists officially commissioned either to spend varying periods of wartime under fire or to be present at nearly every kind of military activity, in order to record them; or (2)  by servicemen-artists responding to powerful inner urges to depict direct war experience; or (3)  by sensitive onlookers; or (4)  by a combination of all of these.

Published work incorporating term "war art"
WP:V simplifies the issue at hand. It bears repeating that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Is it not self-evident that the appropriateness of an article about the war art is validated by the books which incorporate the term "war art" in the title, e.g.,
 * Dempsey, L James. (2007). ''Blackfoot : Pictographs of the Reservation Period, 1880-2000. Normanm Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. 13-ISBN 9780806138046/10-ISBN 0806138041; OCLC 70839712
 * Gilkey, Gordon. of the Third Reich.'' Bennington, Vermont: International Graphics Corporation, 1982). 10-ISBN 0865560188/13-ISBN 9780865560185; OCLC 223704492
 * Harries, Meirion and Suzie Harries. (1983). The War Artists: British Official of the Twentieth Century. London: Michael Joseph. 10-ISBN 071812314X/13-ISBN 9780718123147; OCLC 9888782
 * Ross, Alan. (1983). Colours of War:, 1939-45. London: J. Cape. OCLC 122459647
 * Thorniley-Walker, Jane. (2006). : Murals and Graffiti - Military Life, Power and Subversion. Bootham: Council for British archaeology. 10-ISBN 1902771567/13-ISBN 9781902771564; OCLC 238785409
 * Yenne, William P. (1983). German, 1939-1945. New York: Crescent Books. 10-ISBN 0517348462/13-ISBN 9780517348468; OCLC 611620194

I hope this short list helps to sharpen issues which may need further development. --Tenmei (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis
I removed one clause from our article's introduction: "... but war art may be considered essentially to refer to only works from the 20th and 21st centuries." Do we accept that "original research", is a specifically defined wiki-term and concept? In other words, we all understand that the term "original research" refers to material &mdash; such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories ... or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. The substance of this disputed clause is not supported by its associated inline citation with embedded hyperlinks. In fact, this conclusory analysis is contradicted by what Freeman writes in the Oxford Companion to Military History here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Be specific please! Never mind the generalities, basic WP policy etc, but produce arguments that actually deal with the issue at hand. There are two articles there that both distinguish between the two terms in terms of date alone. I have also not seen any other RS cited in the articles or talk pages that refer to another distinction. The passages are: "The genre continued in WW II in the work of Terrence Cuneo (1907-96) and Frank Wootton (1914-98). But this is to venture into the specific province of war art dealt with elsewhere. Following WW I, furthermore, the glory of war had lost its allure for many independent artists." from, and "This cannot be said of battle painting, a branch of art which began during the High Renaissance, featured regularly in the European academies from c.1770-1880, and has waned since. Here an overlap with the earlier entry military artists must be tolerated, since great artists have also been commissioned to paint war art. Battle painting mirrors the fluctuations of imperialism, and, together or apart, its major constituents—nationalism, heroic (often sentimental) narrative, and commemoration—are easily visible in the best examples." from . I think the OR is yours! The "military artists" article gives a fairly detailed history of art up to 1900, plus a little on WWI, and "War art" covers the 20th century, with a brief "overlap" on earlier art. It's very clear.  This book uses the same distinction, somewhat less clearly.  Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnbod -- I'm sorry, but is it possible that you are mistaken when you do not construe WP:Synthesis among of the array of relevant "arguments that actually deal with the issue at hand"? In other words, this is a threshold consideration.
 * And, yes -- citing with specificity fropm Julian Freeman, "War art," Oxford Companion to Military History --
 * ¶2, 2nd sentence: "Here an overlap with the earlier entry military artists must be tolerated, since great artists have also been commissioned to paint.
 * ¶2, 5th sentence: "All were painted retrospectively, but it is fair to say that without these images, military painting would not have progressed, and would have atrophied." -- 15th century & 17th century
 * ¶4, 1st sentence; "Goya was no journalist, but was remarkable for the way in which—unlike other Romantic painters—he straddled the categories of and battle painting.  -- 19th century
 * ¶4, 6th sentence: "Together, the etchings and paintings summarize Goya's contribution to per se. -- 19th century
 * These sentences directly contradict the deleted clause, which asserted that " may be considered essentially to refer to only works from the 20th and 21st centuries." --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)