Template talk:Western art movements

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Visual arts This template is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

I'd hesitate to call outsider art a "movement" or distinctly western phenomenon. Does it really belong on the template? —thames 23:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right, Ive removed it. Cfitzart 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Made a separate template for Russian art, since its not really western: Template:Russian art movements--- Cfitzart 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These movements should be in succession according to the years they occurred. I moved Pop Art after Abstract expressionism for example. Someone should correctly reorder the movements according to their times. --Ethii 07:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why break out only the 20th century topics dm 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relational art is a movement only theorized by Nicolas Bourriaud, it does not seem to be widely accepted. Most of the movements under its banner are already on the template. I'd like more evidence that the artists themselves claim to be relational artists before it can be on the template. --Jedravent (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, WP:CRYSTAL may apply here, but I think that the term may now be bigger than just Bourriaud's ideas. There's been some acknowledgment by others that the term is applicable to a number of artists. Granted, the actual article on relational art is meager and needs much improvement, but this is something I have been hoping to work on. As for the inclusion of the term in this template, I feel that it is applicable. As for whether the artists describe themselves as part of this movement, that may not be a necessary qualification as it is not unusual for artists to deny a descriptive or categorical framework (i.e. pigeon-holing them as one thing). I've been working on an article for the Vancouver school, a descriptive term that most artists listed within reject. This happens. As for Bourriaud being the sole theorist, even if this were true, I'm not convinced that this would disqualify the term on its own. Having said that, if the consensus is that the term is premature for the template, I wouldn't argue the point further. A quick google search seems to show that term is fairly wide-spread as an international descriptive term, if not outright movement. But the article doesn't reflect that at the moment. Am I putting the cart before the horse? Possibly. I still think it should stay, as it seems odd that there are no 21st century art movements. As an educational tool, wikipedia should include some newer terms (as long as they are legit, referenced and so on). As for videogame art, I feel that there is enough evidence that that is now firmly established critically and theoretically. freshacconcispeaktome 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on expanding Relational Art and feel there is ample evidence that other critics are using the term. The article still needs works, but I hope to continue early next week on it. freshacconcispeaktome 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd just check in... I didn't see Feminist art movement in the template. Currently there's only the Feminist art movement in the United States, which I'm working on right now.

Is it because there's not a broader, more universal article about Feminist art?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...is still missing. Who would like to help creating it?--Liuthar (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add the Vienna Secession? --2001:8003:4085:8100:54EF:1164:446F:F09F (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t it included in Art Nouveau?--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just added it as a subcategory of Art Nouveau, as part of a larger edit adding detail.--Marisauna (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does Superflat, a Japanese movement, really belong on a template about Western art? Is there some kind of broader Western participation (besides the SoFlo strain of the movement, which has its own article) that I’m unaware of?--Marisauna (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template needs to be changed. The whole structure in which it categorizes art movements as either "Western" or "non-Western" is incredibly racist. According to the current scheme, "Western Art" applies only artists from the United States or Europe, so long as they're white. Black American art movements are considered non-Western, Hispanic American art movements are considered non Western, Asian American art movements are non-Western... Oh, and all American countries aside from the US are considered non-Western, regardless of their actual history, demographics, or culture. Whatever definition of "Western" this template uses is incoherent. I'm changing it. theBOBbobato (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few provisional changes. If I had more time I would have better developed the presentation of traditional art traditions and maybe distinguished regions better. I made an African & Diasporan art section for the early modern category but I'm not sure if that's actually the best way of representing the subject. theBOBbobato (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you've added Mughal and Japanese 17th-century "movements" because....? Johnbod (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add them, I moved them from a former section of the template listing "non-Western" art movements to a section listing art movements by century. Without the dichotomy of "Western" vs "Non-Western" Art movements their inclusion is a bit random though, I agree. This whole template probably needs to be revised, and shortened quite a bit.

Something I think would be appropriate would be to first list all major pre-Modern/traditional art movements of the world, organized by region and time period, and then list Modern Art movements organized by region and time period, without overtly organizing movements as "Western" and "Non-Western." "Western" is too complex a topic to use to categorize subjects in a template like this (Previously, the Harlem Renaissance was categorized as a Non-Western art movement!!).theBOBbobato (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the shortening, but turning this into a global template would greatly extend it. Other global regions have their own templates, which it would just duplicate. The whole concept of an "art movement" is rather dubious, and normally not a helpful way to think of art before about 1800. 272 articles use this, btw - who is going to remove the inappropriate ones. It wouldn't break my heart to delete it, or restrict it to after some date. Few people look at these btw. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you theBOBbobato for opening this thread, because this needed to be said.

I sign off on this, the definition of "Western" used in this template is incoherent and skews racist. I was the one who expanded the template so much, and I admit that I had a great amount of trouble trying to discern what and what not to include. Like you said Johnbod, the issue is in the premise: identifying an "art movement" is problematic before about 1800, and identifying "Western art" is problematic after about 1500. There is no period or situation where "Western art movement" is a remotely usable concept, let alone one suitable for an encyclopedia.

I propose that we split this off into two (or perhaps three) templates: one covering the things that happened before modern art (which we could call "Western art periods"), and one (or two) dedicated to modern and contemporary art. That alone will get rid of the most problematic thing about this template, its blatantly Eurocentric (and essentially colonializing) historical timeline. After that, we only have to deal with two smaller things: the definition of "Western" to use in the premodern template, and how to deal with 19th-century "movements" (stemming from Neoclassicism, Romanticism, Realism) that are before modern art but behave more or less like it.

I believe modern and contemporary art already have some templates of their own (for example Template:Avant-garde). It might be best to remove all mention of more recent art from this template, and move the text about it to these preexistent templates. That would save some time. Marisauna (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe the template should be reverted back to March, 2021, when entries and the scope were easier to find and navigate. Strongly implying that all editors who worked on the navbox since its 2005 inception are racists seems, at a minimum, a bit point-of-view, and at a maximum, ban worthy. Please change the insulting title of this section to something discussable. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha, ha, I was so gung-ho with my edits this morning because I was afraid of being accused of racism! It is absolutely an issue with the template as it stands, but not the only one. Moral allegations aside, I think it's utter nonsense to list modern, contemporary and premodern Western art in a single template: the three periods have little in common with each other, and I doubt someone reading about one period will wish to immediately jump to reading about another. It's also inherently exclusionary (the "racism" angle is just the tip of this), and produces too long of a template to be useful. A separate template for each would be best, since it limits the scope to the reader's likely topic of interest and is in line with templates for global artistic production (eg. Template:Ukiyo-e artists).

  The template does need paring down in some areas (mainly the modern and contemporary sections, which have a lot of small, unimportant movements), but reverting back to March 2021 would be too much, I think. That revision retains all the problems of the current one, with the addition of being unnecessarily selective of what movements are included.

  Once again, I feel that splitting into three separate templates — one each for Western, modern, and contemporary — will best serve the interests of Wikipedia's readership. Marisauna (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed everything I could find in this template that I thought was suggestive of racism. I hope it should be passable now, unless we feel a strong need to split it in three or something similar. Marisauna (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this time 18th and 19th Century art movements in the Spanish Empire, depicting Roman Catholic imagery and primarily following European artistic norms, are listed as "non-Western" art movements, while the "Hudson River School" movement, an American movement depicting landscapes from the Hudson valley in the US, is depicted as a "Western" art movement. So, what's the difference between these two movements that makes one Western and the other Non-Western?theBOBbobato (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to rectify this (and other related problems) by replacing the "non-Western" section with two new ones, one for colonial art and one for art borrowing Western elements. I hope that these new categories sidestep the Western/non-Western dialectic that made this template such a mess in the first place. Marisauna (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also classify Latin American art, especially from the period mentioned along as part of Western Art. Specifically movements heavily influenced by European culture etc... Homerethegreat (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]