Talk:Religious art
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religious art article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This article needs attention from an expert in Visual arts. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. (March 2009) |
Untitled
[edit]Needs more informed detail, particularly examples from before and after the Renaissance. +sj+ 11:11, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)
- ..."It can be an object to be venerated not for what it is but for what it represents, though venerated objects are more properly called sacramentals. Idols, which are worshipped in and of themselves, are not considered sacred art." Astonishing! "Idols" covertly redirected to idolatry. The expression "cult image" is new to Wikipedia! I have made this more neutral. --Wetman 19:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Religious art?
[edit]Why does religious art redirect here, rather than the other way around? "Religious art" gets twice as many hits as "sacred art" on Google, and obviously whether or not art is "sacred" is much more dependant on one's POV than whether or not art is "religious". -Silence 23:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Sacred art → Religious art – The name Sacred art is more limited in scope than the content of the article. It should be moved to Religious art as the main title as suggested by Silence below earlier. 2B or not 2B (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Why not? Agreed. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. I disagree that "religious art" is any more inclusive or less POV that the current title. "Sacred art" actually seems to be the more inclusive title; I thin"k "religious art" has some connotations of developed or organized religion. Overall, the rationale for this name change seems rather weak, and standard policy is of course not to change titles unless there's a clear and convincing reason to do so, which I don't believe there is. BlindMic (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Many Protestants and the great majority of Muslims would object to "sacred" - or rather deny that their group produces any "sacred art". It is surely far less common than religious art and should be moved on normal WP:COMMONNAME grounds. "Sacred" is a slippery and ambiguous term, as the comments above show. I might add that the Latin form "Ars sacra" is used in art history as a specific term for early medieval non-painted European religious art, in metalwork etc. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Far more readers are typing in "religious art" as a search term, according to Google Insights. "Religious art" is also more common on Google Books, according to this ngram Kauffner (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.