Hallo Summ, I think, the german article is dealing with an (abstract) concept or motive, not with a genre. This means the statement "is a genre" would be clearly wrong to describe the dataobject (and the statement "subclass of still life" even more). But we can link the two dataobjects together by using "depicts". By the way I have the impression, that there are quite a few language-differences in the "genre"-vanitas (if you have a look at the descriptions) Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this would be best. Genre in general is not right for vanitas. Just "vanitas still life" would be a genre. I found the description "artistic theme", but nothing for the philosophical topic. Thank you for your help. If the articles in the other languages won't be so short, they would also be more general. --Summ (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think we should keep both Objects vanitas (Q733095) and Vanitas (Q18029054) seperated as dataobjects of those both main aspects of "Vanitas": concept/motiv and genre. I would propose to leave Vanitas (Q18029054) as the dataobject for the vanitas-motiv and vanitas (Q733095) as the dataobject for the vanitas-genre. Then we can interlink them using depicts (P180) (vanitas (Q733095) depicts (P180) Vanitas (Q18029054)). And we can link certain vanitas-pictures to the vanitas-genre using genre (P136) (as already done with Vanitas still life (Q17324132)).
- I like the descriptions you wrote for vanitas (Q733095) in English and German so I would like to move them to Vanitas (Q18029054) and revert the old descriptions (concerning the vanitas-genre) in vanitas (Q733095). Once the vanitas-motiv is seperated from the vanitas-genre, the statements for Vanitas (Q18029054) are true again.
- I think there're quite a few language conflicts, as some articles have their focus on the genre and some on the motiv (yes, most of the articles consider both, but some focus on the genre and deal with the motiv as motiv of the genres, other focus on the motiv and deal with the genre as an example, where this motiv came to life). I made a list of the languages where I understood at least something and indicated the vanitas-aspect (concept/motiv or genre) they are dealing with or focusing on:
- ca - concept/motiv AND genre (here it seems really difficult); cs - concept/motiv; bg - genre; da - genre; en - genre; es - concept/motiv; fr - concept/motiv; hr - conept/motiv; it - genre; lt - genre; lv - genre; gl - genre; nl - concept/motiv; nn - concept/motiv; no - concept/motiv; pl - concept/motiv; sv - concept/motiv; ru - genre; pt - genre; uk - genre
- All language versions I indicated with "concept/motiv" I would move to Vanitas (Q18029054), the other ones I would keep in vanitas (Q733095).
- If you agree, I would make these changes and you can have a look, if you like it. Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC))
- Yes, I agree. Philosophical or artistic concept, visual oder literary motif, or genre of visual arts in the special meaning "vanitas still life". fr wikipedia has also a category "allegory", which is not bad for the understanding of the older examples, as I think. The allegory is a kind of generalization, which is standing between concept, motif, topic, genre. --Summ (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't really understand what you mean by "two different labels" :) - do you mean the two different dataobjects Vanitas (Q18029054) and vanitas (Q733095)? I think it's quite important to have at least one dataobject for the idea of vanitas (as opposed to the genre). There is this short story by Heinrich Böll Zimpren Station (Q1192372) dealing with the abstract idea of vanitas - not with the genre (and vanitas is not its genre either)! Thatswhy it's nice to be able to add Zimpren Station (Q1192372) depicts (P180) Vanitas (Q18029054). And then there are these pieces of art, e.g. Vanitas still life (Q17324132), where it would be nice to state that they're part of the genre vanitas (Q733095).Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I mean the two dataobjects. There is not just one "vanitas genre" even not in the visual arts: The genre named "vanitas still life" in the 17th century is best known maybe, but there exists a genre of allegories like death and the maiden, a genre of statues with two faces during the renaissance, a genre of medieval literature named "ubi sunt", a genre of latin phrases or proverbs named "vanitas" (which is mentioned in most articles here), different genres of music etc. The category "genre" in the articles just means that this expression could mean one of these genres. Modern stories, as the one you mention, don't belong to vanitas genres, but they can show some of the well known vanitas motifs. --Summ (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think, I gradually start to understand your problem (How many vanitas-objects should we create and how to unite works using the vanitas-motif). At the moment I have those ideas:
- 1) If you need a certain vanitas-genres to make some statements (e.g. if you have a book belonging to the ubi-sunt-genre and you want to express that this book belongs to the genre "ubi sunt") you could create a new dataobject "ubi sunt" and link it to this book - and then you could link the ubi-sunt-genre to Vanitas (Q18029054) using depicts (P180): Vanitas (Q18029054). (Actually you could also create three vanitas-objects (as with impressionism (Impressionism (Q40415), impressionism in music (Q837182), impressionism (Q1475680)) - but I'm not that familiar with the vanitas-genre(s) to know how important it is to dedicate a dataobject to each of those genres).
- 2) If you need a "super-genre" containing not only works of art, but also those of music and books, you could create a vanitas genre being the superclass of vanitas still life and those other vanitas genres
- 3) If there are some works/sayings etc. and you'd like to state that those works express the vanitas idea or use vanitas motifs you could use depicts (P180): Vanitas (Q18029054)
- To me it's just important to make a difference between vanitas as a genre and vanitas as a motiv/concept: the first one is a class containing things (e.g. works), the second one is an abstract individual that is expressed by some works. If everything expressing the idea of vanitas would be a member of the vanitas-genre, probably there would be no problem, but as there are examples of works expressing the idea of vanitas without belonging to the vanitas-genre, I think we should keep the vanitas-idea and the vanitas-genre(s) seperate.Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just my opinion once again: Vanitas is a concept, ok, and at the same time it is a name for motifs, genres, allegories at a second level of significance. The category "genre" in many of these articles just means: The article treats a genre oder some genres as well as the main concept. There is no opposition between genre and concept, but mere the concept contains genres and motifs. --Summ (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- It won't be possible to create the articles "vanitas picture", "vanitas film", "vanitas story", "vanitas song", "vanitas game" in contrast to an article about the idea "vanitas". The phenomenon is some hundred years old, and the allegories or emblems of that time just don't match with our modern way of thinking. --Summ (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I don't see any difference between our opionions: I never said, the vanitas-genre and the vanitas-concept/motif are opposed, but that they're different: because of the first I linked the vanitas-concept to the vanitas-genre: vanitas (Q733095) depicts (P180): Vanitas (Q18029054). And I wouldn't create those dataobject in contrast to the vanitas-concept but always interlinked with the vanitas-concept by using [some work] depicts (P180): Vanitas (Q18029054).
- Maybe there's an example to make it more clear: there's love (Q316) and there's romance novel (Q858330). They're different but connected because love (Q316) is the topic in every romance novel (Q858330).
- By the way: why do you think those allegories don't match our thinking anymore?Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- For example: Vice (Q2521892): character in morality plays, that's right. But it is the abstract idea of vice at the same time. There is no difference between character and idea of the character. The character is the idea itself. This is an allegory. It prevents a separation between the vicious character and the vice as its idea. --Summ (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. But I think the statement Vice (Q2521892) is vice (Q1411242) works just the one way: (from Vice (Q2521892) to vice (Q1411242)), but not the other way round: vice (Q1411242) is not dependent on Vice (Q2521892). There were notions of vice (Q1411242) before Vice (Q2521892) even "existed" and vice (Q1411242) was and will be represented in many ways. Here I would use Vice (Q2521892) depicts (P180): vice (Q1411242), too. But I see that this statement is not strong enough - I didn't find a property like "embodies" (and that would be a quite special property - I don't know how often you would need this). May be you could also use Vice (Q2521892) facet of (P1269): vice (Q1411242). But I think if I would search for all embodiments of vice (Q1411242) I would look for Work (Q15762114) or fictional character (Q95074) stating depicts (P180): vice (Q1411242)
- For example: Vice (Q2521892): character in morality plays, that's right. But it is the abstract idea of vice at the same time. There is no difference between character and idea of the character. The character is the idea itself. This is an allegory. It prevents a separation between the vicious character and the vice as its idea. --Summ (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I mean the two dataobjects. There is not just one "vanitas genre" even not in the visual arts: The genre named "vanitas still life" in the 17th century is best known maybe, but there exists a genre of allegories like death and the maiden, a genre of statues with two faces during the renaissance, a genre of medieval literature named "ubi sunt", a genre of latin phrases or proverbs named "vanitas" (which is mentioned in most articles here), different genres of music etc. The category "genre" in the articles just means that this expression could mean one of these genres. Modern stories, as the one you mention, don't belong to vanitas genres, but they can show some of the well known vanitas motifs. --Summ (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
With your example: There are allegories of love, and you could speak of love (theatre), love (visual arts), love (literature), if you mean these allegories (not just lovely or loving objects or individuals). The main article would not be the concept "love", but mere an article about the allegories called "love", like vanitas. Love exists without allegories, like vice, vanitas does not. --Summ (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh - yes, it does. At least in the meaning the german and the czech articles are about.Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- No. Love or vice are concepts, in your language. Vanitas is not a concept, but a mixture of allegories which are all the concept itself. The allegories don't embody a concept. I try to explain it once again with the allegory of vice: there may exist viscious actions, thoughts, writings, individuals, and they are generalized (or embodied if you want) with the allegory vice on the stage. The allegory itself is the concept, it is not the embodiment of a concept, but the embodiment of everything we call vicious. As embodiment of a concept, it would be a viscous person. --Summ (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe there are meanings of vanitas where it doesn't exist apart from allegories. But there are meanings of vanitas where it does (see e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanitas, first paragraph).Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The allegory consists of a couple of objects or words or a in personification to be read by the spectator. If you say: Show me your love, I can just be lovely. But if you say: Show me your vanitas, I have to construct an allegory with me and some vanitas attributes or motifs, telling a story, wearing a halloween costume an so on. The concept, the genre, the motifs are the same. They are a constellation to be read, not just a fact to be understood. --Summ (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion "my" vanitas is always appearant: it's just the fact that I'll grow old and die. (But I'm not really sure if I would speak of a certain person's vanitas as one would speak of a certain person's love - I think it's a concept that refers to the world as a whole).
- Yes, you're right that it's not only a fact to be understood. (And it's really difficult to say in what way vanitas would be a fact as it's the case with many things that exist only in the relationship of rational beings with the world). But vanitas is also more than a motif or a story. Storys and motifs are ways to deal with vanitas (as this relationship of rational beings to the world), to make it visible. But even if there were no canonical vanitas-motifs or -allegories (as for example in ancient times) there would still be vanitas - and thoughts of vanitas.
- You're right, too, that our notion of vanitas (apart from the fact) cling to stories, pictures, songs of vanitas, but that is true of all (abstract) concepts - even love. But nevertheless there is no concrete motif or allegory or story vanitas depends on, it's the point all so-called vanitas-motifs refer to - and in this way it's independent from those motifs and allegories.Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure. You could say that a bouquet of flowers means love, and an hourglass means vanitas, which may be undependent of these signs. But today, we would consider, whether true love is "behind" the flowers, or just a deception. Vanitas is a different case: there is no true vanitas behind the hourglass, beause it just means vanitas, and it couldn't be a deception. The allegory is a different way of making signs, it is like a combination of letters to create words. --Summ (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The allegory consists of a couple of objects or words or a in personification to be read by the spectator. If you say: Show me your love, I can just be lovely. But if you say: Show me your vanitas, I have to construct an allegory with me and some vanitas attributes or motifs, telling a story, wearing a halloween costume an so on. The concept, the genre, the motifs are the same. They are a constellation to be read, not just a fact to be understood. --Summ (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe there are meanings of vanitas where it doesn't exist apart from allegories. But there are meanings of vanitas where it does (see e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanitas, first paragraph).Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- No. Love or vice are concepts, in your language. Vanitas is not a concept, but a mixture of allegories which are all the concept itself. The allegories don't embody a concept. I try to explain it once again with the allegory of vice: there may exist viscious actions, thoughts, writings, individuals, and they are generalized (or embodied if you want) with the allegory vice on the stage. The allegory itself is the concept, it is not the embodiment of a concept, but the embodiment of everything we call vicious. As embodiment of a concept, it would be a viscous person. --Summ (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)