I believe the fine_art_parody tag was misphrased on its inception. The Japanese tag it is supposed to mirror translates more to "famous piece parody" and the list of tags that imply it are all art classics predating my birth by a longshot.
"Fine art" is a vague term that basically means any artwork that actually shows skill; essentially this means you could take any image at the top of order:score rating:s or order:favcount rating:s (being porn tends to bloat either metric), make a decent parody of it, and call it a fine art parody. Given that Danbooru is supposed to be a fine art gallery, this technically makes it functionally the same as the parody tag. Some (NSFW) examples of posts that fit the tag as worded but not as it was likely intended: post #1582075, post #1582074, post #1582072. These posts parody the Milky Pinups photoset by Jaroslav Wieczorkiewicz. These photographs are crisp and beautiful and so they are certainly fine art, but I don't think the Japanese would rightfully tag parodies of them as "名画オマージュ".
Thus as it stands I propose renaming the tag to something like classic_art_parody, cleaning it up to only include parodies of the famous classic works, and simply using parody for modern works like the provided example.
People would still keep using that tag for modern works if the pixiv tag translates to that on upload. I agree fine_art is the wrong word for the tag. distinguished_art_omage is my suggestion.
There was also talk about how the implications mess up posts like post #3286376 where the actual art is in the background but it's no parody, not sure if we wanna do something about that at the same time.
I propose renaming fine art parody to famous art parody, and then creating two new tags: classical art parody and modern art parody. These will be implied to famous art parody. Note "classical", not "classic", as that makes it more clear that it's meant for old art. This allows us to properly garden the tags by searching for famous_art_parody -classic_art_parody -modern_art_parody, and allows for a clear distinction. The best point in time to divide the two is either the french revolution, since that's the common mark to divide the "modern" age from the previous ones in history, or the mid/late 1800s, which is when impressionism emerged. In any case they're both very close timewise.
Most people, specially your average anime fan and booru viewer would surely have a hard time truly discerning art periods and would easily confuse them, while the 1700s was indeed the "start" of modern art, most people will not really acknowledge that simply because they don't know how that's modern art for which they'd most probably tag it as classical_art_parody.
It sounds kind of messy and a patchwork but in my opinion the best period to start cutting off and setting the border between classical and modern in the context of the booru and its users would be the 1900s as in my opinion this is where art pieces truly started feeling "modern" as we know it today in the general view, obviously one of the most prominent factors would be the grafitti art popularised in New York but I'm sure there are other examples, specially in art museums and expositions.
Conceptually a good idea, but how would we account for the proper tagging of the new tags? Even with the proposed divides, we still have art movements after that which may cause one to tag what would probably fall under "modern art" with "classic art". If there were a tag group containing all the tags which are about art movements, such as art nouveau, impressionism, etc, with time-stamps for when which style was, then the wikis of those tags could link to it. But then comes the issue of identifying the art style/movement in the first place, assuming the artist didn't mention it in the (hash)tags or commentary.
Similarly, how do we account for posts which aren't exactly parodies of any one art piece, but rather just a style in general? kittey's older proposal wouldn't exactly function with the proposed new system, especially given how much it bases itself on a time/movement division. Using tags like impressionism and nihonga by themselves would probably work, but there isn't any unitary tag like `famous_art_(style)` or something that they can implicate to. And implicating them to style parody would just bring about similar issues as seen with the now-gone implications for fine_art_parody, since there'd likely be artists which aren't doing parodies, but just drawing in that style (whether it be art contemporary to a given movement [such as Salvador Dali's uploaded works] or just newer artists adopting styles of old).
Most people, specially your average anime fan and booru viewer would surely have a hard time truly discerning art periods and would easily confuse them, while the 1700s was indeed the "start" of modern art, most people will not really acknowledge that simply because they don't know how that's modern art for which they'd most probably tag it as classical_art_parody.
It sounds kind of messy and a patchwork but in my opinion the best period to start cutting off and setting the border between classical and modern in the context of the booru and its users would be the 1900s as in my opinion this is where art pieces truly started feeling "modern" as we know it today in the general view, obviously one of the most prominent factors would be the grafitti art popularised in New York but I'm sure there are other examples, specially in art museums and expositions.
Well, a lot of niche tags on danbooru require some kind of knowledge of their field. Take for example bass guitar, which is often mistaken as electric guitar, or all the specific weapon and vehicle tags. Also the issue with cutting off in the 1900s is that for example stuff like the scream would end up being considered "classical" art.
Damian0358 said:
Conceptually a good idea, but how would we account for the proper tagging of the new tags? Even with the proposed divides, we still have art movements after that which may cause one to tag what would probably fall under "modern art" with "classic art". If there were a tag group containing all the tags which are about art movements, such as art nouveau, impressionism, etc, with time-stamps for when which style was, then the wikis of those tags could link to it. But then comes the issue of identifying the art style/movement in the first place, assuming the artist didn't mention it in the (hash)tags or commentary.
Similarly, how do we account for posts which aren't exactly parodies of any one art piece, but rather just a style in general? kittey's older proposal wouldn't exactly function with the proposed new system, especially given how much it bases itself on a time/movement division. Using tags like impressionism and nihonga by themselves would probably work, but there isn't any unitary tag like `famous_art_(style)` or something that they can implicate to. And implicating them to style parody would just bring about similar issues as seen with the now-gone implications for fine_art_parody, since there'd likely be artists which aren't doing parodies, but just drawing in that style.
A wiki list like "list of art movements" is easy to create and mantain.
Perhaps the issue is with the "parody" part of the name? I see now what it was meant when it was proposed to switch from _parody to _(style). Yeah, maybe that's a better way to do it. But the issue is that something like classical_art_(style) doesn't account for the fact that there's an immense variety of different styles, so it wouldn't really be helpful as a tag. Even worse for modern_art_(style) or something equivalent. And as you said, it'd naturally be associated to style_parody, creating issues with its implication to parody.
An additional problem, contained in OOZ's OP, is that references to classical art photos don't fall anywhere in this distinction, so for those posts the issue wouldn't be solved.
