Talk:Japanese art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo in Kamakura art[edit]

Kamakura period is one of the time when the art of Japan had declined most. In such Kamakura period, only Kei School was excellent. The Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo is certainly a National Treasure of Japan of the first class. However, the Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo is not especially excellent in an artistic viewpoint. The evaluation is only high because it is historical personage's only portrait. In the viewpoint of influence on future generations, that is especially clear. And, the name of this article is "Japanese art", and not "History of Japan". I feel that the same tendency is in many of articles related to the culture of Japan. --663highland (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying about the decline of art, and the relative quality of this work. Nevertheless, there is already an image of Kei school works on the page. This is my key point. There is no need to have the Kei school represented multiple times in an article covering such a broad topics.
I also believe that to give the impression that there was no painting, or no painting of importance, in the Kamakura period is misleading. The Kamakura period saw the beginning, if not the high point, of 似顔絵 (nigao-e) portraiture, of which this is by far the most famous example. This is an article on the arts of Japan, not (solely) on the Buddhist sculpture of Japan. That is my stand. LordAmeth (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I am explaining the reason for the height of the value of "Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo" on the above. That is, the national treasure of high value is not necessarily an art of high value. The age when "Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo" was produced is width from the latter half of the 12th century (Heian Period) to the 14th century (Muromachi Period), and is not certain. In the latest research, it is presumed that "Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo" is production in the 14th century (Muromachi Period). On the other hand, "the Thirty-six Master Poets picture scroll (Satake book)" is produced in the first half of the 13th century. This is surely a work of Kamakura Period. The name of these arts is nise-e (not nigao-e). I think that the technology in nise-e is primitive because of the viewpoint of realism. Mujaku and Seshin that Unkei produced is more realistic than nise-e. A realistic art is one of the features of Kamakura Period.) I think that Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga that is the origin of Manga (counter electrode of realism) is more important if it limits it to the field of the painting. --663highland (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
When "nise-e/似絵" is translated literally, it is "portrait". --663highland (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, oops. I messed up. You're right, of course, that the term is not nigao-e, but nise-e. Still, nise-e does not just mean portrait; it refers to a particular type of portrait seen in the Kamakura period.
I'm not so attached to that one painting; I just think we shouldn't have the Kei school represented more than once. I leave it up to your informed judgment whatever you think is good to replace it. LordAmeth (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The greater part of Japanese do not know even the name of nise-e. I will understand your standpoint. And, I will esteem your opinion. In conclusion, I think that only one piece (Unkei's Nio) is appropriate to the photograph put on "Kamakura art". Please look at the caption of "Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo". It is shown that the value is unrelated to the essence of the art.--663highland (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
And Unkei's Niō is already on the page. LordAmeth (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that. Only the one piece. In a word, it is my proposal to remove "Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo" from "Kamakura art". I think that only "History of Japan" is suitable for the location of this picture. If it is necessary by absolutely two pieces, I recommend Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga. --663highland (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Let's remove it then. LordAmeth (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I wish to express my gratitude for your generous behavior.--663highland (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

thx for paying attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.103.145 (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Does not explain Japanese art[edit]

The article is currently C-rated according to the attached template on the talk page here, which is about right, but somehow is given an "A rating" on the Wikiproject japan which puzzles me.
The article needs to be retooled so it actually talks about art. The current lede paragraphs merely gives Japanese general history 101 and needs to be more focused on art. That much of Japanese culture has roots on the continent is generally known, so the article needs to state this more succicinctly and relegate elaborating on them to off-pages like Silk Road transmission of Buddhism, and get to the point and start 'Xplaining what Japanese art Japanese reasonably pronto.

This same criticism seems to apply to the body of the article as well. I'll go ahead and replace Kofun photo with a bronze mirror, for starters.

Gandhara art being a must-mention keyword in regards to influence, I have issues with the article apparently replacing it with the phrase Greco-Buddhist Art (to which it redirects). An article on Japanese art art need not reach back to Hellenistic influences (Like being done on Niō page) except as a really minor issue, after description of more directly pertinent material has been, well, not exhausted but given substantially. Katsumi Tanabe [ja] who is apparently a senior fellow at the Ancient Orient Museum. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I can't agree or disagree strongly, since I am very far from being an expert or even more than superficially knowledgeable about the topic. If you have a firm base of knowledge in this topic, I would encourage you to {{sofixit}}. Just be very sure to use reliable sources, acknowledge any differences of opinion in the field, and discuss them if they are notable....– Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Instructions on using "Acercamiento a la influencia del movimiento muralista mexicano en el arte contemporáneo de Japón." as a source[edit]

For those of you who want to use "Acercamiento a la influencia del movimiento muralista mexicano en el arte contemporáneo de Japón" from UNAM as a source, this looks like a translation from Japanese to Spanish. To get the full meaning you can paste in the Spanish sentences you are citing and have translations provided. Then you can ask a Japanese speaker to look in the Japanese section and find any equivalent sentences in Japanese. See if the Japanese sentences have a slightly different meaning in English. The reason why I suggest this is that the sources may be more distorted when you go from Japanese to Spanish to English instead of directly going from Japanese to English.

If there are notes/captions only in Spanish then it's okay to directly cite those.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

c:Category:Files from the San Diego Museum of Art to be checked[edit]

Hi, Help needed from experts in Japanese and Chinese arts to review all these (1653 files today). Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Excessive galleries[edit]

This article has a similar problem to what plagued the Japonisme article, so I'll repeat what I said on the Talk page there. I get that articles about the visual arts need a lot of images, and are a great opportunity to show off images that have been shared with us thanks to GLAM partnerships. However, in some articles galleries are over-used in a way that detracts from the article, and the present state of this article is an example. Right now, Old revision of Japanese art has two large galleries early on that break up the flow of text. Again, images are good but they aren't a substitute for narrative text that actually tells the story of Japanese art. So I'll be bold to cut down the image galleries. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't! Some trimming is ok, say to four per mini-gallery, and some images can be moved to text sections without them, but in general the gallery images seem better selected and captioned than those in the main text, many of which are absolutely awful in every way. Galleries are the least of the image problems here. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi John, I thought it looked a lot better without the galleries but having seen your reply I've reverted my latest edit. I'll let you weigh in on whether we need all five images of Yayoi art when we have just two sentences on the topic. I agree that there are deep problems with the article, and this use of galleries is not the greatest of them, but it looked the most immediate to fix. There's already a gallery in the Dogū article, so I've cut down the dogu images and pasted in some text from that article for what I hope is clearly a better balance. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I urge other editors especially to consider how this article looks not just on their desktop monitor with a wide monitor, but how it looks on narrow screens, where a gallery can easily take up multiple screenfuls so introduce a considerable break to reading the article text. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
As I said, 4 per mini-gallery is a reasonable compromise. And really we need more text rather than fewer images. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits to lead[edit]

@Johnbod: Hi again, John. Looking at this edit it's not cut-and-dried that your reversion improved the article. User:ConnorReidVinson's edit truncated the list of art forms but the "Japanese art is typically categorized with the historical period it falls under. There are 11 periods traditionally associated..." seems to be a useful piece of context for the lead and was backed up with a cited reliable source. We can see that User:ConnorReidVinson is a new editor doing an educational assignment, so I suggest in the spirit of avoiding newbie-biting it's not enough to revert their contribution with a "sorry!" Connor, thanks for your attempts to improve the article. Given that some edits might be controversial, I suggest proposing changes here on the Talk page and I hope other editors including Johnbod and myself can give helpful, discursive feedback. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The references in each paragraph[edit]

It seems the information on the article comes from reliable resources. Sayuri422 (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)