Talk:Painting

2008-05-14T21:57:33Z

TEmin: /* Protected */

== Christo? ==

He's not really a painter - more of a sculptural/installation artist, no? [[User:BrentM|BrentM]] 18:00, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Yes. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:47, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:Related follow-up: Then why is the "surrounded islands" shown on this page on painting? I'm no art student, but if this is an example of a painting (which I highly doubt), then it definitely needs an explanation. I will remove the image for the time being because it completely looks out of place in its current form. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 12:07, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:: He made a painting that day, it is enough to be an example. Before deleting see the reply or wait. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:40, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::So we're keeping a non-painting as an example for painting because the artist had also made a painting that day? Please, either replace the image with the painting in question or delete it. Right now, that part of the entry flat out makes no sense. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 12:53, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps we could see if there was a copy of the painting which is in the public domain. That way we could put the two pictures side to side to provide a comparison between subject and result (although there are probably better examples out there). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I came here to say "why is such an obvious non-painting, by an artist who is not primarily known as a painter, included (and given such prominence) in an article about ''painting''?" I see I'm not the first! Why is this even (apparently, reading between the lines of the above comments) contentious? Delete it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:57, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

: In the article there is: "''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques.''" The image shows precisely that; an example that shows how wide is the world of painters. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:48, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::It isn't painting, it is [[installation art]]. Painting is a little narrower in its scope. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Have you not seen "Mural painting" that is installed or moved? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

 
[[Image:Kellner Oil Spill.jpg|thumb|Oil Spill by Lisa Kellner]]

Is this installation art or sculptural painting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Post-modern sculpture. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:50, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The juries of that art exposition had to learn it.

Oil Spill.

Quilting pins and paint on prepared board

8’ x 4’ x 5.5

As the article says:

''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques. ''

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
2006

:While the quote is correct ''in context'', you are misapplying it. It does not mean that a sculpture is a painting, or an installation piece is a painting. Kellner's piece, for example, was ultimately not defined as installation art because the pins were not applied directly to the gallery wall as originally intended. By misusing the "new forms" quotation above you have redefined the art world. This article talk page, for example, can now be called a painting: I have simply used a new material and technique to paint it. I call it '''פּופּיק ''':) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:35, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: In art, for centuries experts do not agree of what is this or the other. I can not expect to have universal applause. I could accept to remove the image in question after a serious debate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::: ''Some adhere to a rigid definition of "art", such as paintings, sculpture and other traditional genres, while others believe that art should not be strictly defined, and thus believe that anything progressive may be labeled as such.'' Source:Our own article on [[Aesthetics]].

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:07, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::::That is about defining ''art'' - not defining "painting". [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:10, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Does that mean that painting is not art? Amazing! No more is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:12, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Joaquín, you are plucking random quotes and applying them incorrectly. I'm sure this isn't at all deliberate, and is more a linguistic thing than anything else, but you are butchering what the quotes originally intended to mean. ''Most'' painting is of course art: slapping a coat of white emulsion on my bathroom ceiling isn't strictly art. The quote you used above is about defining the boundaries of "art" - it has nothing to do with justifying a sculpture being labelled a painting. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:18, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, lets see what happens. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, that's not really an option - the article won't fix itself. People will become bored of trying to explain in as inoffensive manner as possible that you are wrong and someone will have to come along and completely rewrite the entire thing from scratch. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Joaquín, I agree with Fox here. While painting may be "art" that does not mean that all art is painting, and while "installation art" may be considered art, I know of no-one who would consider it painting. I don't wish to be rude here but is there perhaps a language difference? I think the islands picture should be moved to an article on installation art which '''''is '''''worthy of its own page. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:38, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

==Dating is incorrect==
I doubt that the paintings in those caves are 17,000 years old - how could they be? The Flood would have destroyed them, so they must be post-Flood. They must only be a few thousand years old at best. 14:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

==Ruined==
Thankyou for ruining another article and locking it to prevent it being fixed. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Protected ==

The article will be protected until a serious debate is done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
:It was done. You were wrong. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I have invited Sharon and Bethany to be the jury in this debate. It has to be well done with time to search for the opinion of experts and time to consider the arguments. NOT TO CHANGE THING IN A HURRY!
I expect to be clear enough. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Ha ha You really are a retard arent you? [[User:TEmin|TEmin]] 17:57, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Painting