Template:Did you know nominations/Art and emotion

Art and emotion

 * ... that art is designed to elicit an emotional response?
 * ALT1:... that art should be experienced emotionally to be fully appreciated?
 * Reviewed: John Wosky

Created/expanded by Rebeccaworrell (talk). Nominated by Smallman12q (talk) at 13:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg "Art and emotion is an extremely well-researched essay, within a certain domain of psychology. It's great material. However, I'm not sure it makes sense to keep this material in the place it is now. In particular, I wonder if it should be a part of psychology of art, or even a new page called psychology of art and emotion. Maybe this is just my humanistic sensibility kicking in, so I'd like a second opinion, but it's my feeling (ha!) that "emotion" is a big part of "art", period, and that mainly this relationship (as well as discourse, literature, and knowledge about it) are outside of the realm of psychology discussed in the article as it stands. Ironically, I also feel that the two hooks presented are a little subjective for DYK. love, groupuscule (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that emotion is a big part of art...and art is a large field...it should be fine with its own article. Emotion, isn't entirely psychological, and there are various way to classify it so I think the title is fine. (There's a similar title for emotion and memory. The hook is somewhat subjective...but the notion that "art is designed to elicit an emotional response" does have sources and prominent backers such as Leo Tolstoy.Smallman12q (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that "art and emotion" is a reasonable article to have; my concern is that the page in its existing may give rather undue weight to a scientific (and perhaps occasionally scientistic) "psychology of art", while omitting centuries of art criticism that one would expect to find in the article on "art and emotion". Maybe this isn't a reason to slow up the DYK, but it feels weird to me. I would love it if someone wanted to develop that part of the article, taking Tolstoy out of his quotebox and making the type of criticism he's doing into its own section.
 * As far as the hook goes, it doesn't seem all that controversial, but then again the thing about art is that as soon as you define it someone will try to do it in a way that breaks the rule! And a statement beginning with "Art is designed..." just seems extremely broad and impossible to prove, unless you're using it to define art, in which case it's not exactly DYK material. Here are some (slightly) more concrete suggestions:
 * * ALT2 ... that art can make people angry?
 * * ALT3 ... that cubist art can dilate your eyes?
 * * ALT4 ... that art might either improve or reinforce a bad mood?
 * YT, groupuscule (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer alt2 or alt4. As the lack of a history section is an error of omission, rather than one of commission, and it doesn't create undue weight, the article should be fine for DYK. The section will be added in later on by the student.Smallman12q (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT2 - let's go with it. I don't agree that only a "history" section is necessary, since this would imply that all viewpoints on art and emotion from outside the field of psychology are past (and by implication that "psychology of art" is the dominant outlook on art in the present day, period). However I agree with your logic about commission and omission; I certainly think that the field of psychology can belong in a page about a topic relating to the human psyche; and I think the work that's already done is good and frontpage-worthy. So again I say go ahead and nice job everybody! groupuscule (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)