Difference between revisions of "History:Miscellaneous Production Relationship Type/Artwork Proposal"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
((Imported from MoinMoin))
m (CallerNo6 moved page Proposal:Miscellaneous Production Relationship Type/Artwork to History:Miscellaneous Production Relationship Type/Artwork Proposal: https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/3675767/)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{proposal|ar=true}}
 
==Cover art-related Relationships proposal==
 
==Cover art-related Relationships proposal==
  
I propose a few enhancements to the general "covert art" category; the current three relationships are (in my experience) not very pliable to what's actually on many covers (i.e., on the covers I've seen).  
+
I propose a few enhancements to the general "cover art" category; the current three relationships are (in my experience) not very pliable to what's actually on many covers (i.e., on the covers I've seen).  
  
 
First, I suggest to group all such roles under a general "artwork" category. (Or class, I don't know which is the preferred term.)  
 
First, I suggest to group all such roles under a general "artwork" category. (Or class, I don't know which is the preferred term.)  
Line 25: Line 26:
 
** '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided photography for'' '''release''' or '''track'''  
 
** '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided photography for'' '''release''' or '''track'''  
 
** '''release''' or '''track''' ''has photography by'' '''artist''' or '''URL'''  
 
** '''release''' or '''track''' ''has photography by'' '''artist''' or '''URL'''  
 +
** '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided front cover painting for'' '''release''' or '''track'''
 +
** '''release''' or '''track''' ''has front cover painting by'' '''artist''' or '''URL'''
 +
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I've actually seen this on a release [[release:36cbbb31-c6eb-4452-b072-d495f4faa309|wiki:release:36cbbb31-c6eb-4452-b072-d495f4faa309]]; other similar albums (where the same artist created painted artwork from the cover) had only "cover art by". I don't see any harm adding "painting" -- it's the same with photography and illustration -- but if we multiply this for any back/front cover, booklet, etc., this could become huge. See the "Domains" proposal below.
 +
</ul>
  
 
* '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided typography for'' '''release''' or '''track'''  
 
* '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided typography for'' '''release''' or '''track'''  
Line 32: Line 37:
 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I don't know if it's worth it to differentiate these two, but I'm wary of another "art design/illustration" problem, so it may be a good idea to separate them.  
 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I don't know if it's worth it to differentiate these two, but I'm wary of another "art design/illustration" problem, so it may be a good idea to separate them.  
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
==Discussion==
 
 
If you're not certain about adding something to the list above, or you need to discuss anything else about this proposal, discuss the item in this section.
 
 
====Recording unfulfilling ARs====
 
 
While you wait on the above to be added, please feel free to use [[User:FrederikSOlesen/SubOptimalCredits|FrederikSOlesen/SubOptimalCredits]] to records ARs that aren't able to be fulfilled with current list. -- [[User:FrederikSOlesen|FrederikSOlesen]] 09:56, 02 May 2007 (UTC)
 
 
====Breaking the current "art design/illustration" relationship====
 
 
I recommend breaking this relationship in two, as the two are not very closely-related (they're even in different subtrees of the hierarchy above) and this seems confusing. The only problem is what to do with the ARs that already use this relationship. I see only a few possibilities, but they don't seem very satisfactory, so maybe someone can suggest something better:
 
* Just delete them. Of course, that looses data.
 
* (1) Add the new relationships, and leave the old one in a "deprecated" state where it can't be added to new releases. (2) Then auto-add an edit note to all edits that added such relationships, asking the moderator to re-do the edit with the new AR types. (3 - optional) After a while, send a note to subscribers of the artists that still have such ARs asking them to change them. (4) Make a list of still-existing ARs, if there are not lots maybe we can do a "clean-up week" where volunteers can clean up some more. (5) Finally, drop whatever's left :(
 
* The "lazy" version: just leave the old version together with the new ones. (And maybe "deprecate" it, so it's not used anymore.)
 
 
====Domains of artwork contribution====
 
 
It was noted on the mailing list and above that sometimes credits mention "cover art" (or "cover photography", presumably more) but sometimes just "artwork" (or "photography" etc.).
 
 
It might be a good idea to add only the functional roles (i.e. "photography", "concept", "artwork", "typography") under the general "artwork AR" category, and have checkboxes for specific areas: "cover", "booklet", "disc", "data track". I have only encountered "cover art" and [generic] "artwork" types, but conceivably there may be more, especially with all the special-deluxe-limited-edition-picture-vinyl-with-extra-bonus-tracks-plus-poster-and-decoder-ring releases that are coming out these days. ---
 
 
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Proposed Advanced Relationship Type]]
 

Latest revision as of 21:48, 28 August 2016


Status: This page describes an active advanced relationship proposal and is not official.



Proposal number: RFC-Unassigned
Champion: None
Current status: Unknown



Cover art-related Relationships proposal

I propose a few enhancements to the general "cover art" category; the current three relationships are (in my experience) not very pliable to what's actually on many covers (i.e., on the covers I've seen).

First, I suggest to group all such roles under a general "artwork" category. (Or class, I don't know which is the preferred term.)

Below is a list of roles that should be in the category. The list contains the previously existing relationships (I assume they were added for good reasons), and a few more that I encountered on covers. Anyone who has encountered others should add them here. The list is hierarchical, I believe that's possible, right?

  • artist or URL provided art direction on release or track
  • release or track has art direction by artist or URL
  • artist or URL provided design for release or track
  • release or track has design by artist or URL (this is broken from "art design / illustration", I don't see why they should be together.)
    • artist or URL provided graphic design on release or track
    • release or track has graphic design by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided executive design on release or track
    • release or track has executive design by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided layout for release or track
    • release or track has layout by artist or URL
  • artist or URL provided artwork for release or track
  • release or track has artwork by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided cover art for release or track
    • release or track has cover art by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided illustration for release or track
    • release or track has illustration by artist or URL (this is broken from "art design / illustration", I don't see why they should be together.)
    • artist or URL provided photography for release or track
    • release or track has photography by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided front cover painting for release or track
    • release or track has front cover painting by artist or URL
  • I've actually seen this on a release wiki:release:36cbbb31-c6eb-4452-b072-d495f4faa309; other similar albums (where the same artist created painted artwork from the cover) had only "cover art by". I don't see any harm adding "painting" -- it's the same with photography and illustration -- but if we multiply this for any back/front cover, booklet, etc., this could become huge. See the "Domains" proposal below.
  • artist or URL provided typography for release or track
  • release or track has typography by artist or URL
  • artist or URL provided cover/artwork concept for release or track
  • release or track has cover/artwork concept by artist or URL
  • I don't know if it's worth it to differentiate these two, but I'm wary of another "art design/illustration" problem, so it may be a good idea to separate them.