This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This redirect 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
The contents of the War art page were
merged into
Military art on 4 September 2012 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see
its history.
(1) by artists officially commissioned either to spend varying periods of wartime under fire or to be present at nearly every kind of military activity, in order to record them; or
(2) by servicemen-artists responding to powerful inner urges to depict direct war experience; or
(3) by sensitive onlookers; or
(4) by a combination of all of these.
Searching Google Books
[1] brings up the same thing, War Art is art by people involved in war in some manner. I am also wondering if this article should be moved to "War Art", articles should be about the thing or the person?
Ohioartdude2 (
talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Using the online archives of the New Zealand War Art project has 3 problems when used as a guideline for a Wikipedia article; they are not a secondary source, they by definition limit their scope to to fit a national and curatorial guideline re: "pieces of war art, by artists formally commissioned by the New Zealand government, and other unofficial art works that were acquired by or donated to the collection"
[2], and building an article based on what we see in a museum collection is building by
original research. We have to cite reliable secondary sources for the basis of an article, and maybe check it against a tertiary source or two. So what do we have? A search of "War Art is" in google books
[3] brings up many sources such as:
Googling "a War Artist is" is a bit less fruitful
[4]
This tertiary source quoting "The Oxford Companion to Military History"
[5] gives us a definition:
War art is that which has been developed and executed (1) by artists officially commissioned either to spend varying periods of wartime under fire or to be present at nearly every kind of military activity, in order to record them; or (2) by servicemen-artists responding to powerful inner urges to depict direct war experience; or (3) by sensitive onlookers; or (4) by a combination of all of these.
WP:V simplifies the issue at hand. It bears repeating that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
Is it not self-evident that the appropriateness of an article about the
war art is validated by the books which incorporate the term "war art" in the title, e.g.,
Dempsey, L James. (2007). Blackfoot War Art: Pictographs of the Reservation Period, 1880-2000. Normanm Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. 13-
ISBN9780806138046/10-
ISBN0806138041;
OCLC 70839712
Harries, Meirion and Suzie Harries. (1983). The War Artists: British Official War Art of the Twentieth Century. London: Michael Joseph. 10-
ISBN071812314X/13-
ISBN9780718123147;
OCLC 9888782
Ross, Alan. (1983). Colours of War: War Art, 1939-45. London: J. Cape.
OCLC 122459647
Thorniley-Walker, Jane. (2006). War Art: Murals and Graffiti - Military Life, Power and Subversion. Bootham: Council for British archaeology. 10-
ISBN1902771567/13-
ISBN9781902771564;
OCLC 238785409
I hope this short list helps to sharpen issues which may need further development. --
Tenmei (
talk) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Synthesis
I removed one clause from our article's introduction: "... but war art may be considered essentially to refer to only works from the 20th and 21st centuries."
Be specific please! Never mind the generalities, basic WP policy etc, but produce arguments that actually deal with the issue at hand. There are two articles there that both distinguish between the two terms in terms of date alone. I have also not seen any other RS cited in the articles or talk pages that refer to another distinction. The passages are: "The genre continued in WW II in the work of Terrence Cuneo (1907-96) and Frank Wootton (1914-98). But this is to venture into the specific province of war art dealt with elsewhere. Following WW I, furthermore, the glory of war had lost its allure for many independent artists." from
[6], and "This cannot be said of battle painting, a branch of art which began during the High Renaissance, featured regularly in the European academies from c.1770-1880, and has waned since. Here an overlap with the earlier entry military artists must be tolerated, since great artists have also been commissioned to paint war art. Battle painting mirrors the fluctuations of imperialism, and, together or apart, its major constituents—nationalism, heroic (often sentimental) narrative, and commemoration—are easily visible in the best examples." from
[7]. I think the OR is yours! The "military artists" article gives a fairly detailed history of art up to 1900, plus a little on WWI, and "War art" covers the 20th century, with a brief "overlap" on earlier art. It's very clear.
This book uses the same distinction, somewhat less clearly.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Johnbod -- I'm sorry, but is it possible that you are mistaken when you do not construe
WP:Synthesis among of the array of relevant "arguments that actually deal with the issue at hand"? In other words, this is a
threshold consideration.
And, yes -- citing with specificity fropm Julian Freeman,
"War art,"Oxford Companion to Military History --
¶2, 2nd sentence: "Here an overlap with the earlier entry military artists must be tolerated, since great artists have also been commissioned to paint war art.
¶2, 5th sentence: "All were painted retrospectively, but it is fair to say that without these images, military painting would not have progressed, and war art would have atrophied." -- 15th century & 17th century
¶4, 1st sentence; "Goya was no journalist, but was remarkable for the way in which—unlike other Romantic painters—he straddled the categories of war art and battle painting. -- 19th century
¶4, 6th sentence: "Together, the etchings and paintings summarize Goya's contribution to war art per se. -- 19th century
These sentences directly contradict the deleted clause, which asserted that "war art may be considered essentially to refer to only works from the 20th and 21st centuries." --
Tenmei (
talk) 20:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)reply
File:The children - victims of adult vices(war).jpg Nominated for Deletion
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.