Talk:Artistic license

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Iambic Pentameter

Isn't it the case that adding the extra syllable in fact breaks the meter?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Riocard (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC). To be tolerated by the [audience]? According to whom? People are as allowed to criticise use of artistic licence, and there is no-one who can tell them they can't. I think that needs to be removed or replaced with something more accurate.

[edit] Has any artist actually portrayed St.Pauls and Parliament together?

Cuz that would be a cool picture. And if we could get it (and if it were in the public domain), it would make a great picture for this article. A visual example of artistic licence.

[edit] Dan Brown reference

More recently, the commercial success of Dan Brown's novels such as The Da Vinci Code proves that, despite multiple examples of misinformation and complete fabrication, the general public have a high capacity to willingly suspend their disbelief.

I removed this because it came across more as a swipe at Dan Brown than anything to do with artistic licence. To the extent that Dan Brown's work is intended as fictional entertainment, its success doesn't prove anything about WSOD that wasn't already known; the public were happily reading Beatrix Potter's stories about talking rabbits a century before Brown hit the bestseller lists.

And if one supposes that Brown's books are attempting to mislead their readers (yes, a work of fiction can also be dishonestly meant), then we're no longer in the territory of 'artistic license'; that would have more to do with propaganda.

FWIW, Brown annoys me no end, I just don't think this is the place to be venting that. --Calair 23:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illustration

The image caption for "The Death of General Wolfe" should make clear how the painting is related to the subject matter of this article (does it exemplify "artistic licence" and if so, how?). Currently it does not, so the image may even seem completely irrelevant here. --Jonik 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License vs Licence

The title of this article is "Artistic licence" and "Artistic license" redirects to here; yet throughout the article it's consistantly spelled, "license". Per WP:ENGVAR, some sort of consensus needs to emerge. Urania3 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems / Controversy

Might be worth adding a section describing times when artistic licence caused controversy or problems.--Flying Canuck 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] used to denote the distortion or complete ignorance of fact

This simply is not true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvile (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)