Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New materials (painting)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arguments for and against with no consensus coming through Nja²⁴⁷ 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New materials (painting)[edit]

This term does not appear to be commonly used, and there has not been significant coverage of its use. Despite the word painting in the article name, the article is just a general essay on materials used by painters in the 20th century, in sculpture as well. All of the information here is discussed in the individual artists' pages, as well as pages for 20th century art, and the pages linked in the article, body fluids in art and plastics in art. Conical Johnson (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and encyclopedic, though this article is just a start. A better title might well be found along the way - it might be better extended beyond "painting". Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All painting materials were new at some point and they are (or should be) covered in some form under the articles for painting styles / materials, in historical perspective. A separate article on "New materials" meaning "New in the 20th or 21st century" would be separately notable only IF this term were widely used in exactly this sense. A search in the online version of the Oxford Dictionary of Art finds only two instances of the phrase "new materials": (i) Archipenko, Alexander [...] His work was influential in both Europe and America, notably in the revival of polychromy, in the use of new materials, and in pointing the way from a sculpture of solid form towards one of space and light. This refers to sculpture. (ii) The father of Constructivism was Vladimir Tatlin, who [...] began making abstract Relief Constructions using materials such as sheet metal, wood, and wire. He was influenced [...] by the Futurist sculptural manifesto (1913), in which Boccioni similarly advocated a [...] sculpture that was constructed from various new materials [...]. This also refers to sculpture. Moreover, both uses are clearly not shorthand for a wider concept, but merely describe innovation. Both instances are not relevant to the subject of the article. The term is therefore not represented in this sense anywhere in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Art and not notable. The article should be deleted. Enki H. (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact no requirement at all for the precise wording of a title to be a recognised phrase, and the widespread belief that there is acts as a drag on the encyclopedic coverage of WP. Should for example Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting, Cultural studies theory of composition, Historiography of the Poor Laws, Artillery of France in the Middle Ages and so on be deleted for this reason? We have a much greater number of articles on art than the Oxford Dictionary of Art, so it is not surprising if we cover subjects they don't. The article covers 1900 on, & it would be better if the title made this clear, although the first sentence does. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and these are all good examples, but is "New materials (painting)" separately notable in the specific sense that the article uses it? My abbreviated approach was to check whether the phrase is in use in the ODA, (not whether ODA has an article on it). Another approach would be if there were a book, or at least book chapter on that very topic. Looking through the first ten pages of a Google book search on "new materials" painting does not bring up anything of that sort either - just innovations in Renaissance painting, Acrylic vs. oil, and use in a general sense. Enki H. (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said above the title would probably be improved, but the more important question is "Is the subject seperately notable?", which I think it is. New materials in modern painting/art or something similar would be better. Alteratively an article taking the whole sweep of Western painting covering the takeover by canvas, new 19th century dye colours etc etc would be an equally valid approach, but not what we have here so far. Not all subjects have a distinct term attached to them. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnbod, I think the article can use expansion, a new name, and some deeper inclusions, but should stay...Modernist (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think having a new article (if one, in fact, does not already exist) which deals with materials in painting, per Johnbod is a good idea. My problem with this article (and I realize a retitling is a simple solution), is that this term itself is vague. I can't imagine anyone using Wiki's search function to find this. Could a more comprehensive article on the changes in materials in painting and art in general be more useful? It would also help the uninitiated understand why artists not only brought unorthodox materials into painting in the 20th century, but why artists began to abandon painting outright (or at least, why painting is no longer the dominant medium). Whatever's useful in this article could be merged into that one. There is already a List of art materials and the proposed merge of that into media (arts). Perhaps all of this could be merged into one, with all the appropriate redirects leading there. That way we could have a one useful article on artists' materials. freshacconci talktalk 13:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Fresh and the possibility of this being a larger article that can help the uninitiated understand why artists not only brought unorthodox materials into painting in the 20th century, but why artists began to abandon painting outright (or at least, why painting is no longer the only dominant medium). A name change is in order; a study in the revolutionary evolution in 20th century art materials is valid, interesting and complicated...We have articles in Acrylic paint, Collage, Neo-Dada, Assemblage, Appropriation, etc. and bringing it all together with a look at materials artists use has far-reaching possibilities. TV sets, basketballs, Michael Jackson statues, diamond sculls, sharks and Spiral jetty's...Modernist (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.