Talk:Painting

Article section biased in favor of European Art

Art covers sketching, crafts, drawings, wall carving, stone carving, etc. Although Africa has the world's oldest art, the Wikipedia article lists the painting from the Grotte Chauvet in France first in the history section. This is academic racism. If an article about the history of technology first listed Mac Computers before even mentioning the invention of the Wheel, etc, possibly more editors would see the inherent academic dishonesty. Yes Apple/Mac makes computers, but computers are only one item under the category Technology, similarly, painting is one item under the category art. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:F85B:9E68:E297:A5F5 (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that coverage of African art is poor, we can only go by available sources. The sources say that Grotte Chauvet is the oldest known painting. However, it is incorrect to label that as "European" as no such place existed at that time. The earliest humans in what is now Europe in fact migrated from Africa, so in a sense, the earliest painting is African in origin. freshacconci (✉) 20:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also note that this is an article on a specific form of art i.e. painting not art in the broader sense. So your comment seems a bit off topic here (or to follow your metaphor: why would it be essential to mention the invention of the wheel in an article that limits itself to computers?) The same section, by the way continues, stating that while no older paintings are known, there is older evidence in the form of ochre of the act of painting in Australia predating Chauvet by about 28,000 yrs. Arnoutf (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Article claims music is abstract; Is this true?

There is a passage under the heading of "rhythm":

"Music was important to the birth of abstract art since music is abstract by nature—it does not try to represent the exterior world, but expresses in an immediate way the inner feelings of the soul."

How verifiable is this claim? Loopitywoop (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding to the article.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Here I have 2 articles that I wish to use to modify the Painting article. Please take a moment to review the articles. If you have any questions or would like to give any suggestions on altering the article in specific sections I am open to suggestions.

Here are the following articles and summary of them:

"History of Painting." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, 16 Feb. 2025, History of painting - Wikipedia.

This article provides an extensive overview of the history of painting, including key movements, artists, and developments in painting techniques throughout history. It is a reliable secondary source for understanding the historical context of painting and can be useful for expanding the existing article with well-established historical narratives and developments.

"Paint." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, 16 Feb. 2025, Paint - Wikipedia.

This article covers various types of paint used in art, including oil, watercolor, and acrylic paints, as well as their components and history. It is a reliable source for discussing the materials and tools used in painting. This source will be useful for expanding the section on painting mediums and how technological advancements in paint have influenced painting techniques over time. Bookleggers3 (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. I suggest you select a smaller and less prominent article for your first efforts, and use better sources. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I found this article it's from a peer reviewed journal called Galaxy International Interdisciplinary Research Journal (GIIRJ) View of PAINTING AND ITS TYPES: EXPLORING TECHNIQUES, STYLES, AND ARTISTIC EXPRESSION where it examines the evolution of painting through the lens of material innovations and their impact on artistic practice. It traces how early painters relied on natural pigments and binders—derived from minerals, plants, and animal products—to craft their works and how subsequent advances in chemistry led to the introduction of synthetic pigments and modern binding agents. By linking technological progress with shifts in aesthetic techniques and cultural narratives, the study argues that transformations in material science have played a crucial role in redefining the methods and expressive capacities of painting throughout history. Would this be a better article? Bookleggers3 (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

It would be a better source, yes. But looking quickly at the article, which is obviously a very broad overview, and already rather long, it's not obvious to me that these parts of the article are in great need of expansion. It might be better to add to oil paint for example. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Article Cleanup?

I can't tell if its intentional or not but it feels like some sections are a bit rough (or well, very rough)? Like under the subsection Digital Painting it has a paragraph start with "Other- Unruly Painting Methods." which feels like its a subsection title? That paragraph also includes the word "Oxidization" having a citation for some reason rather than just linking to the oxidization page. The paragraph below, starting with "Menstrual Painting" also seems like its meant to be a subsection itself, especially since "Other" is capitalized right after, but it's a fair bit confusing in what its saying. In addition, the Painting Styles section has just a list of links to pages for East Asian styles, but then has Indian styles written out (with inconsistent linking, "Mughal miniature" is linked within the bolded "Mughal miniature painting" but right after "Rajasthani painting" is linked which doesn't include miniature and has the word painting part of the link, that bit also has a weird line cut between "dispersed from the" and "imperial Mughal court").

There are some other odd bits that I'm unsure about, such as the Contemporary Art section under Painting Styles which seems to bridge the line between specifically painting vs any sort of art (and should maybe not be here? I don't know). The History of Painting section also is really weird, having odd focuses, with the first two paragraphs about some of the oldest art discovered in cave paintings, sure, then a paragraph that has no focus at all and mentions cave paintings being all over the world before immediately saying what types of more modern (comparatively) art come from the east and west. Then a paragraph bringing in photography and art movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, and then another paragraph about modern/contemporary art, neither paragraph being sourced. Then a tiny paragraph mentioning the Feminist art movement, but I'm not sure how that really relates to giving a summary of the history of painting. This whole section doesn't make much sense and needs to be cleaned up I think. Orangechrisy (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

American English

I have just added American English to the article, this is because it uses 'color' and prevents Edit Wars. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)