Reason: Subjective tag.

I kind of thought it would be because that, unless it was RL (which, to my knowledge, is not allowed), it was art. :I

But okay.

Subjective tags need to go DIAF, regardless of what they mean. One could argue everything is art, and thus everything deserves the tag- in which case, remove it for being too broad a catagory. But if certain things are art- then it becomes subjective. Currently there are 80 items tagged art that are tagged it because of people's opinions that "this is art". Just because one person may find something art doesn't mean the next person will agree.

Thus the "tag what you see, not what you know" tagging rule.

123easy said:
Subjective tags need to go DIAF, regardless of what they mean. One could argue everything is art, and thus everything deserves the tag- in which case, remove it for being too broad a catagory. But if certain things are art- then it becomes subjective. Currently there are 80 items tagged art that are tagged it because of people's opinions that "this is art". Just because one person may find something art doesn't mean the next person will agree.

Thus the "tag what you see, not what you know" tagging rule.

good topic. Almost any posting can be considered art.

Painting/art inside of image

trfg7xz2oxps said:
Painting/art inside of image

Then it should be tagged "painting" or "sculpture" or "exhibit" whatever the piece is.

I always thought the "art" tag meant high: quality, artsy style, you'd mostly likely find in a museum or something like an image featuring other artworks on a wall. That sort of thing.

Artsy style? How would you define an artsy style? Most likely it'd be a subjective opinion on how you'd see art- thus, looping around into the subjective "this is art" argument.

As for high quality: there's already a tag for high quality, and it's basically used just like the art tag is- a subjective view that something is high quality. It shouldn't exist either, honestly; Now, if you mean a high-resolution image, that's different.

Also, if something like THIS http://www.e621.net/post/show/134668/andr%C3%A9_martins_de_barros-art-back-butt-clown-creep can be called art, i do not want to know that kind of art. .__________. The eyes... they BURN MY SOUL.

Yeah the art tag is pretty vague... we do have a proper_art tag, that seems to be better quality art than a lot of things on here. But, well, it is still a tag that is subjective to opinion. Do we really need a tag for things like this?

Honestly, I think that the tags list needs to be gone through and all the subjective tags removed or consolidated under the proper tags they should have been.

A quick survey of the "art" tag reveals that the majority of the tagged images are either IRL art (which is a perfectly legitimate use of the tag) or art inside of a picture (which is also a legitimate use of the tag). The other stuff can probably go.

As documented, proper art as a subjective judgement "may contain traces of tongue in cheek". Or at least that was my idea behind it - I think it might be one of mine :/ Suggest but is it art? as an alternative if y'must, perhaps for thumbing our noses at the funkier modern gallery-type artwork. Or refine art with gallery too where it's applicable.

I use the art tag when a piece says something about process of making or appreciating art, but you could be more specific and tag "art_(process)", "artwork", or "artistry" there too.

ancient furry art is about ancient cultures' decorative artworks then have resonance with furrydom today. Nice and clean.

123easy said:
Artsy style? How would you define an artsy style?

The dictionary gives this "Making a strong, affected, or pretentious display of being artistic or interested in the arts"

And I gave you this:

High quality, you'd mostly likely find in a museum or something like an image featuring other artworks on a wall.

That sort of thing.

Images like post #133395 and post #11543 are a good example of a way to use the tag.

skeeter said:
Images like post #133395 and post #11543 are a good example of a way to use the tag.

I feel like these probably are the only ways to use that tag. I agree its subjective nature should be removed, but it should definitely be kept for images where art is going on within the image itself.

RedOctober said:
I feel like these probably are the only ways to use that tag. I agree its subjective nature should be removed, but it should definitely be kept for images where art is going on within the image itself.

What do you mean by "art is going on"? Where there is art in the picture, or someone is painting or drawing art?

skeeter said:
The dictionary gives this "Making a strong, affected, or pretentious display of being artistic or interested in the arts"

1) You're defining the words 'artsy style', not defining an artsy style.
2) It's still a subjective opinion.
3) What one person calls art another person calls dreck.
4) We have piles of shit (literally) sitting in art displays that were 'worth' thousands of dollars... Just because someone called it 'art'. Thus, I have to inherantly disagree with it. (For examples of excremental art, look at Piss Christ, Merda d'artista, and others).

skeeter said:
And I gave you this: High quality, you'd mostly likely find in a museum or something like an image featuring other artworks on a wall.

That sort of thing.

Images like post #133395 and post #11543 are a good example of a way to use the tag.

Image featuring other artworks, as paintings on a wall or a bust of someone- tag it picture, landscape, picture_frame, sculpture, painting, etc. Not art. If someone is painting/drawing/sculpting, then you could call it art_(process) or artistry or crafting or something similar, but art is, in and of itself, a subjective term.

Riversyde said:
What do you mean by "art is going on"? Where there is art in the picture, or someone is painting or drawing art?

I think he means art is being made- someone is drawing or painting or sculpting or otherwise engaged in the arts. THAT I can agree with, but even then I'd change the tag to art_(process) or artistry or something as Anom said.

Riversyde said:
What do you mean by "art is going on"? Where there is art in the picture, or someone is painting or drawing art?

Lol my bad, that was reeeeaally poorly phrased. I meant where there is art in the picture, whether someone is actively creating it, is sitting in a studio with it about them, or if there's something framed hanging on the wall in the background. With the last example, it's less necessary, because in those cases it's usually just like a piece of furniture and doesn't have a whole lot of detail. We don't tag pics with lamps with "lamp," so it's not imperative to tag pics that have art hanging on the wall while there's an orgy going on with "art," though I don't think it'd be incorrect to do so. So it's BEST use is when there is someone actively making the art or like http://e621.net/post/show/11543 where he's in his studio. That said, I think skeeter's other example, http://e621.net/post/show/133395 is ok to be tagged "art," as those pieces are really the focus and purpose of the picture, rather than the people or the armoire.

Actually, we do tag lamp... the point of tagging is to note what you see in the image, and what you see characters doing, at that exact moment in time, in the image. How detailed or meticulous you want to be with tagging is up to you.

Any post with art in it can get tagged with art, but not when the post itself is art. Also, yes, post #133395 would be a candidate for the art tag.

So then a tag cleanup is in order, along with an art wiki update?

Riversyde said:
Actually, we do tag lamp... the point of tagging is to note what you see in the image, and what you see characters doing, at that exact moment in time, in the image. How detailed or meticulous you want to be with tagging is up to you.

Any post with art in it can get tagged with art, but not when the post itself is art. Also, yes, post #133395 would be a candidate for the art tag.

Hah, I stand corrected.

And I agree with the rest of that.