Talk:Q838948
Autodescription — work of art (Q838948)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “work of art” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
work of art⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Let's broaden the definition
[edit]visual artwork (Q4502142) is already defined as "visual work of art", which seems about the same as "physical work of art" for me. So let's broaden the definition of this entity (work of art (Q838948)) as "aesthetic work", which could also be not physical, like music or literature.
What do you think ? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaLéValab (talk • contribs) at 20:17, 16 июля 2021 (UTC).
- I don't understand what's your proposal. work of art (Q838948) already has "musical" subclasses. --Infovarius (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Definition should be less specific
[edit]Definition was "object whose value is its beauty only, not practical usefulness".
First, we are describing a concept as broad as "work of art" here, a very high level concept. That includes everything created by creative means, including concept art, the drawings of an architect, etc. - all of which have a practical use.
Arguable, next to nothing can be defined as "object whose value is its beauty only".
Reduced definition to "object whose value is mainly its beauty, not immediate practical usefulness".
Proposing to cut this sentence all together (other languages also don't seem to have it) TimBorgNetzWerk (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)