This article was nominated for deletion on 10 October 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
On 17 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Monochrome (visual arts). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This article is poorly written and reads like a term paper, tying together artists under a theoretical construct that is simplistic, unnecessary and unfounded. I have studied this "period" of art history (though the period covers about 100 years or so) and it is my opinion that the subject "Meditative art" is not supported by either a strong theoretical or aesthetic similarity between these artists, or by any significant scholarship I am aware of. The important artists covered by this article, and the important groupings to which they belong, are all covered by pages on Wikipedia. There's no need for this one.
Palladian 07:11, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
until recently i was mostly responsible for this page, and i agree with most of this criticism. in order to justify the overlap of artists mentioned in this article with their own articles on wikipedia, i hope to provide more specific examples of relevant works which are by necessity overlooked in more general surveys of these artists.
the title "meditative art" is unfortunate, but i dont know how to change it. it is a remnant from the original tree outline of articles which needed to be written. the heading was "meditative art [monochrome painting]"; most surveys of modern art would have these two labels reversed in importance; many would not even use 'meditative art.'
that there is no 'significant scholarship' on this topic was most of the impetus for starting this article. i wrote it out of a sense that it was needed; i that found very little writing focussed on monochrome painting either in books or on the web, yet at the same time, i found it briefly mentioned very frequently in history books and art magazines. accepting that my writing style was awkward and that my knowledge of the topic was not in-depth enough to be anywhere near authoritative, i merely hoped to encourage more discussion and to provide a framework for a better resource of knowledge specifically dealing with this topic. In this regard i am very grateful for recent contributions to the article by others.
Decembertexture 21:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've given this article considerable attention in the last two months. It needs expansion and depth in each section and an image or two, but really it is a subject worthwhile working on. I'd like to see a Still painting, or a Resnick painting or a Pousette-Dart contrasted with a textured Ryman. Modernist 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
it'slikely that you're more qualified than i to make these changes, and you are certainly free to do so, so please do. respecting copyright, especially with regard to images, is the only real concern. Decembertexture 23:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
maybe something about op art or about a relevant op artist; it might be a good addition. anyone? Decembertexture 08:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has vastly improved, Modernist 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia guidelines on the use of See also : "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Armando Navarro ( talk) 00:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 16:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The image of the painting Voice of Fire in this article isn't a picture of the original painting, but rather a Photoshop recreation. I'm not sure how it made its way into this article, but simply recreating a painting seems like blatant forgery to me. I've replaced the image with a low-resolution picture of the original artwork. —Nick ( T/ C) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Should this article be added to the indicated category?
Malevich realized his first Black Square in 1915, not 1913. see here: MoMA and here: Hermitage Museum. Coldcreation ( talk) 04:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Surely there was some significant reaction in the critical community along the lines of, "This isn't merely bad art, but not in fact art at all." Don't get me wrong; I understand the argument of why this is a legitimate genre of painting, much as some guy sitting on a stage smoking a cigarette or spinning a top is recognized as performance art. Still, one thinks there must be a sizable negative critical reaction, if only amongst the establishment art critic community, that deconstructs this sort of deconstructionism, no? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:5B1:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE ( talk) 19:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works (contribs) 00:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Monochrome painting → Monochrome (visual arts) – Removing the arguably restrictive category of "painting" from the page title will naturally incorporate more mediums and movements, several of which are already discussed in the article (Minimalism is one such example). It will also follow terminology adapted by major cultural institutions including the Tate Modern and the Museum of Modern Art. I could provide further evidence, though I really do not see this as a particularly controversial move and did not want to make the decision myself so as to allow for community input. Ppt91 talk 23:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
color photographs? These are generalizations that would not hold up in any serious art historical discussion, even on undergraduate level. I am okay with community consensus if it is supported by evidence.
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 October 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
On 17 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Monochrome (visual arts). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This article is poorly written and reads like a term paper, tying together artists under a theoretical construct that is simplistic, unnecessary and unfounded. I have studied this "period" of art history (though the period covers about 100 years or so) and it is my opinion that the subject "Meditative art" is not supported by either a strong theoretical or aesthetic similarity between these artists, or by any significant scholarship I am aware of. The important artists covered by this article, and the important groupings to which they belong, are all covered by pages on Wikipedia. There's no need for this one.
Palladian 07:11, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
until recently i was mostly responsible for this page, and i agree with most of this criticism. in order to justify the overlap of artists mentioned in this article with their own articles on wikipedia, i hope to provide more specific examples of relevant works which are by necessity overlooked in more general surveys of these artists.
the title "meditative art" is unfortunate, but i dont know how to change it. it is a remnant from the original tree outline of articles which needed to be written. the heading was "meditative art [monochrome painting]"; most surveys of modern art would have these two labels reversed in importance; many would not even use 'meditative art.'
that there is no 'significant scholarship' on this topic was most of the impetus for starting this article. i wrote it out of a sense that it was needed; i that found very little writing focussed on monochrome painting either in books or on the web, yet at the same time, i found it briefly mentioned very frequently in history books and art magazines. accepting that my writing style was awkward and that my knowledge of the topic was not in-depth enough to be anywhere near authoritative, i merely hoped to encourage more discussion and to provide a framework for a better resource of knowledge specifically dealing with this topic. In this regard i am very grateful for recent contributions to the article by others.
Decembertexture 21:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've given this article considerable attention in the last two months. It needs expansion and depth in each section and an image or two, but really it is a subject worthwhile working on. I'd like to see a Still painting, or a Resnick painting or a Pousette-Dart contrasted with a textured Ryman. Modernist 22:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
it'slikely that you're more qualified than i to make these changes, and you are certainly free to do so, so please do. respecting copyright, especially with regard to images, is the only real concern. Decembertexture 23:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
maybe something about op art or about a relevant op artist; it might be a good addition. anyone? Decembertexture 08:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has vastly improved, Modernist 11:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia guidelines on the use of See also : "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Armando Navarro ( talk) 00:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk) 16:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The image of the painting Voice of Fire in this article isn't a picture of the original painting, but rather a Photoshop recreation. I'm not sure how it made its way into this article, but simply recreating a painting seems like blatant forgery to me. I've replaced the image with a low-resolution picture of the original artwork. —Nick ( T/ C) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Should this article be added to the indicated category?
Malevich realized his first Black Square in 1915, not 1913. see here: MoMA and here: Hermitage Museum. Coldcreation ( talk) 04:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Surely there was some significant reaction in the critical community along the lines of, "This isn't merely bad art, but not in fact art at all." Don't get me wrong; I understand the argument of why this is a legitimate genre of painting, much as some guy sitting on a stage smoking a cigarette or spinning a top is recognized as performance art. Still, one thinks there must be a sizable negative critical reaction, if only amongst the establishment art critic community, that deconstructs this sort of deconstructionism, no? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:5B1:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE ( talk) 19:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works (contribs) 00:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Monochrome painting → Monochrome (visual arts) – Removing the arguably restrictive category of "painting" from the page title will naturally incorporate more mediums and movements, several of which are already discussed in the article (Minimalism is one such example). It will also follow terminology adapted by major cultural institutions including the Tate Modern and the Museum of Modern Art. I could provide further evidence, though I really do not see this as a particularly controversial move and did not want to make the decision myself so as to allow for community input. Ppt91 talk 23:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
color photographs? These are generalizations that would not hold up in any serious art historical discussion, even on undergraduate level. I am okay with community consensus if it is supported by evidence.