User talk:Covermeingunk

Dispute re: inclusion of architecture as a fine art.
In the second sentence of the second paragraph, architecture is given as an example of a fine art. By the definition of this article, and that of the article Applied arts, fine art is art for pure aesthetic appreciation, as opposed to art to enhance the aesthetics of everyday practical objects, and life, which is called applied art. In the article Applied arts, architecture is given as an example of an applied art, as opposed to a fine art. On one level, this makes these two articles seem to contradict each other. The problem arises because architecture can include structures built for no practical function, but these two articles seem to define mutually exclusive arts. I wonder what you folks would think about architecture being treated as a separate crossover category, or maybe the polar definitions of applied and fine arts being loosened.

Cheers

Nathan Covermeingunk (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)