Talk:Toyohara Chikanobu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
Japan To-do:
|
|
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | Class: This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Classification
It's a minor thing, I know, but I am wondering what the issue is with describing Chikanobu as an ukiyo-e artist. I have on several occasions edited the second sentence of the article to read "Like most ukiyo-e artists..." or "Like most artists in the ukiyo-e genre..." and every time, my changes have been reverted to the far vaguer "Like most artists involved in the production of ukiyo-e..."
Describing artists involved in the production of ukiyo-e as "ukiyo-e artists" is far from an uncommon or unusual practice; neither is it a Western (English-language) invention, as the word 浮世絵師 ukiyo-e-shi is a perfectly normal and commonly used term in Japanese.
Chikanobu certainly was an ukiyo-e artist, just as much as Harunobu, Kiyonaga, or Utamaro were. So why is he not being described as one? LordAmeth 23:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
