Talk:Tibetan art

A fact from Tibetan art appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 November 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Tibetan art (example pictured) has been described as "almost unbelievably conservative" over the last thousand years?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tibetan art.

Buddhism Mid‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tibet High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

[Untitled][edit]

[[User::Buddhawelt]], thank you for your contribution to the Tibetan art article. I see that the text you added is directly copied from another source at www.qhnews.com. Unless their writing is in the public domain we cannot use it on Wikipedia. Perhaps you can do some independent research on Regong Art and write your own version to add to this article? The contribution does seem worthwhile. In the meantime I'm removing the text which we cannot use. technopilgrim 07:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greek influence[edit]

I would like to question the relevance of the first paragraph: it sounds a bit absurd to me (and a sign of western tunnel-vision) to start an article on Tibetan Buddhist art with a paragraph on Greek influence. Although this is posed by some scholars, I am not aware that this Greek influence is either large or even proven with any certainty. It would be like starting a age on European culture with art in China because there might have been an influence via the Silk Road or something... rudy 11:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concerns. This reference early on in the article, seems a bit like saying, never mind the natives, a confused Columbus discovered America! Maybe this heading could be moved to a side bar with the preface, "Some scholars believe..."--Tibetanmuseum 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek influence on Buddhist art is almost universally accepted by scholars. Greek influences of Alexander the Great directly contributed to the beginnings of actual portrait pieces of the Buddha beginning in the Indian region of Gandhara around the 1st-5th centuries AD. The Buddha figures from this region at this time bear a striking resemblance to more traditional Greek sculpture, and many Greek artisans were known to have lived in India at the time, so there really isn't much dispute among art historians. That being said, this really had no influence on Tibetan art directly, other than being the event that started the tradition of Buddhist sculpture as we now conceive of it. Chinese, Nepalese, and Tibetan Bon influences had a much greater impact on Tibetan Buddhist art. Maybe just a sentence about this would be fine, but saying it had a huge bearing on specifically Tibetan Buddhist art isn't really correct. Chiwara 15:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misread your comment.rudy 15:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Making a sand mandala

... that Tibetan art has been described as "almost unbelievably conservative" over the last thousand years? Source: Rowland, Benjamin, The Art and Architecture of India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, 1967 (3rd edn.), p. 268, Pelican History of Art, Penguin, ISBN 0140561021
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Elephant of Henry III
- Comment: Many other potential hooks (and images)

5x expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 14:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Substantial article on excellent sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed but a bit restless in this size. The best pic is the contemporary one, - perhaps with a hook about history from ... to that? A clause with (pictured) is still wanted, and I like the hook to go with an image. The next best for this purpose is the sculpture of the dancer. The Baddha is a pic showing well, but - at least to my uneducated eyes - not specifically Tibetan. - In the article (not needed for approval, just suggesting): I'm not happy with a one-line section History in the middle of influences, while Buddhaist art is mentioned much sooner. Perhaps history overview at the beginning, then the styles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm in the middle of adding more images, so it might be best to wait on this. There's a contradiction between "The best pic is the contemporary one" and "I like the hook to go with an image"! Also I doubt the contemporary one would be allowed on main page. I'm expanding the history, but (see the hook) I don't think it should go higher up. There's nearly nothing on "styles" & I think that is too complicated to get into. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining, and I hope for an impressive image, because it's too good a topic to go without. Please ping me when I should look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temple built in 1970

Gerda, how about this? Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean with the proposed hook?

Fine for me. Someone will ask for "pictured" or place it, but I think that's what the licensed image shows. Thank you for all the additions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it works well with the same hook. Can you add GTG & a tick if happy, thanks, Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tick already, no? It's already in the approved list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]