Talk:Ukiyo-e

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

IPA can be helpful

I’d like to take up this discussion about whether we should have an IPA for ukiyo-e. The “transcription” we have, /u.ki.yo.e/, is supposed to suggest that the pronunciation should not, in any case, start with [j] as e.g. unit would, but it does not seem to me anything more than a simple syllabification of the term, adding nothing the average reader would understand. Wouldn’t it be better if we restored [ɯ.ki.jo.e]? It does not look any much ‘weirder’ than the other and it links to a page where the symbols’ meanings are explained. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 12:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright, currently being discussed here. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 09:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content

I am confused by the attempt to remove so much content, Villach100, here and here when this is a featured article, which means it has gone through strident review. Please don't attempt to remove content again without discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if such significant change would result in it's losing its featured article status.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that your edit summary says

Western art influenced by ukiyo-e should be put under the page of "japonism". A small mention in the right section about this subject in general should be made and that's it (And a link to the page) . This page has entire paragraphs that are just about modern western artists, and around 6 images of western art. That stuff is simply in an another subject and there is no need to write about the same thing in two pages.

A change of that magnitude should really discussed as a {{merge}} proposal, rather than going ahead and making such dramatic changes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• As it's already a 3RR removal, from a new editor who has done little other than remove chunks of content from existing articles, I'm just a little skeptical as to the virtues of this removal. Apart from the influences on the Impressionists being both significant and widely discussed elsewhere. Nor would that be irrelevant (as claimed) to this article, the source of the influence. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed - he should take note of WP:3RR! Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the above comments. The parts relating to the considerable influence of Ukiyo-e upon Western art are important and should remain in the article. Also, I would not be in favor of merging Ukiyo-e and Japonisme; though one played a role in the other, they are stand alone subjects ... don't really see any harm in some information being duplicated between the two articles. Xenxax (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Printmaking "beauties"

I want to remove the phrase "An actual print shop would not have been staffed by such beauties." from the subsection on print production because it's unnecessary editorializing. women have historically done work outside the home and not all historical depictions of women working are analogous to a pinup girl lounging on a piece of heavy equipment. it is annoying to me as a printmaker and an art history aficionado when an image that may potentially be used as a primary source in and of itself to talk about women making prints, because that is what it depicts, is framed in a way to make sure there is no ambiguity or room for interpretation by the viewer, to make sure the women depicted are to be seen as nothing but fictional "beauties" pretty stand ins for the real artisans who must be somewhere else. I have tried previously to delete this phrase not realizing you have to plead your case for professional and unbiased language on the talk page, and I am not a regular editor, but I am tired of looking at it. 98.247.146.29 (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reworded, but if we are going to use the image we need to make it entirely clear that this is a fantasy version (perhaps comic to the original audience). I've linked Katsushika Ōi, one of very few women who actually worked in printmaking at any senior level. Johnbod (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

while I appreciate the capitulation to the historical fact of named women printmakers existing, and its nice to see a link to an existent article on a notable woman artist, do you perhaps have a contemporary source for the image being "comic or fantasy" ? because, again, what we have is a picture. can a picture not speak for itself? why does the caption have to talk over it specifically to insist tot he reader that the picture is lying to us? also, sorry that I'm speaking only from my formal education, but what we are looking at in the picture itself is not the work of "senior level" artisans but the everyday production workers of a shop, who would have been unlikely to get their name on the prints they made. the article you linked on Katsushika Ōi refers to her as a "production assistant" which says to me that it might not have been so uncommon for women to work, uncredited or not, in a printshop, as they are depicted doing in this picture itself. 98.247.146.29 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added a reference, which is in fact even more emphatic than what I put, describing print production as a "world closed to women". Katsushika Ōi worked for her father, and is comparable in this way with European women painters in the Early Modern period, many of whom also worked with family members, in a world where training and working as an artist was otherwise exceptionally difficult for women. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)