Drawings/where should I place my stone statues?23 messages

I have a beautiful collection of stone carvings and figurines from Zimbabwe. They are not ethnography, but ordinary contemporary images by various artists. Everything handmade.

Here I see as "Visual art" only drawings, paintings, prints, etc., but no 3-dimensional art, such as sculptures (in various materials) and scaffolding.

The category statuettes and figurines is for plastic figures, made in large masses, certainly not art.

Where do I place my images on this site?

an excellent question that has been asked again and again for years.

So this is still a shortcoming of Catawiki. Catawiki does not provide for a distinction between serious art and collectibles.

It is not yet possible to import under ethnography, for example & gt; statues / plastics Or applied art, etc.

With the result that your serious art objects will be placed between the Disney figures and other plastic, etc.

So that requires a lot of patience before this is realized :-)

Of course that is nonsense. If it does not belong in the Figurines / figures, just enter it in the heading Other with Object: Image and Theme: Art; that works fine. And just like all other objects, certain art objects will simply have to settle for it until there are so many images that it justifies its own column. That's how it has worked for five years now. The Other section is the prelude to your own home for various objects.

It is a long wait for that "own home".

Then a substantial number of images will have to be entered first. Otherwise, it's just not worth the effort.

Then I will soon enter almost 200, see if there will be a house of my own.

I hope that it will go a little faster than the changes that are arranged with shells and fossils. must become. I have been there since November, and since then it is promised that the name "shells" will be changed for the category that contains all animals, plants and all their parts (I have proposed naturalia). Now there is a fox under the heading of shells, and some butterflies, and a lizard, etc. That makes no sense. Furthermore, there would be some new input boxes for the fossils, but no movement there either. As an administrator there is nothing I can do to put things in order, because if those input boxes are added, I can start over again.

@Arco Then a substantial number of images will have to be entered first. Otherwise, it's just not worth the effort.

Interesting view @arco, but you turn it around.

But the other way around works a bit more convenient. Catawiki simply has to make a logical subdivision, so that serious visual and applied art can also be entered in the Catalog.

A receptacle as "other" does not really testify to a solid vision of the future with regard to the collectors that Catawiki wants to attract.

I miss themes such as: Ethnography, Japanese Art, Chinese Art, Design, etc. etc

I also miss art movements such as Art Deco, Bauhaus, De Stijl, Amsterdam School Art Nouveau, Memphis, etc.

What I am saying is not new by the way. If Catawiki also wants to attract serious art (collectors), they will also have to facilitate these collectors.

I therefore fully agree with @ martin-Rijerker

For example, I have been waiting for years for the simple change of the section Pottery and porcelain in the the only good collective name Ceramics . A collective name that is, of course, used at the auctions.

It will take another five years before this simple name change is implemented. Patience is a virtue, especially at Catawiki

I don't turn anything. This is how it has worked for a long time. Do you have any idea how many sections have already been created based on empty promises from users? It was then agreed that we would no longer do that just like that, since each section also has an infrastructure such as administrators and such. The idea was then: first let an object prove itself in the Other section, then we'll see later. A very acceptable method, I think.

If you do not see how Catawiki is classified and you keep insisting on theme categories favor of a theme field ), then any comment on my part is superfluous. Being stubborn is not bad, you know, on the contrary, but then please bring a backpack with experience, I always say.
The fact that nothing at all happens on the Catawiki side in terms of development does not make it easier for administrators like me. to explain something.

@Arco

You definitely turn it around.

Then a substantial number of images must have been entered first. Otherwise it is simply not worth the effort.

I think that if you make a sound logical subdivision beforehand, it will also attract the necessary art collectors.

@ marin-Rijerker indicates very to the point what the shortcoming of Catawiki is in a nutshell:

This serious Ethography collector now has to place his art between the plastic figurines.

Then your own database beckons very soon.

You also say:

This is how it has worked for a long time

If something has been working like this for a long time, it does not mean that this is also good. Thinking out of the box is sometimes very healthy. I think there should be more awareness that Catawiki's catalog no longer consists of comics only and that the world of collecting is slightly larger than that.

My position is that the development of Catawiki is lagging behind the a question that is really important to serious art collectors. The development of the Catalog is also lagging behind the development of the auctions.

Very intelligent choices are made there. For example, there is the Design and Applied art auction. Names that, how could it be otherwise, cannot be found in the catalog.

Thought a bit very simplistic: thinking out of the box. That is not the problem at all. You seem to have the idea that if I think of it today, it could be there tomorrow. You do not realize at all that work needs to be done for that, it is not a template that you put down and then pop there.

As Arco said, but to which you pay no attention at all: it is already once done for 'drammers' with promises and that came to nothing. Not to say that this is the case now, but why take a risk, do it first via Other, There is more in it and why should ethnography or naturalia have so many more rights than other 'sections'.

Dit heeft alles te maken met een juiste prioritisering en een toekomstvisie.

We zullen in de toekomst zien of de huidige keuzes de juiste zijn geweest.

Tot die tijd voer ik mijn Keramiek in onder de rubriek Aardewerk en porselein en breng ik ze in op de ......Keramiek veiling. 

Engelsen voeren hun keramiek in onder Pottery en China, maar veilen hun items bij de.........Ceramics veiling

Fransen voeren hun keramiek in onder Faïence, porcelaine et poterie maar veilen hun items bij de.......... céramiques veiling

De Duitsers voeren hun keramiek  in onder Keramik und porzellan maar veilen hun items bij de....... Keramik veiling

Zolang zelfs dit soort simpele fouten in de rubrieknamen (ondanks vele mailtjes en forum topics) niet voortvarend worden opgelost maar jaren kunnen bestaan, blijf ik met het nodige cynisme positief kritisch :-)

This has everything to do with proper prioritization and a vision for the future.

We will see in the future whether the current choices have been the right ones.

Until then I enter my ceramics under the heading Pottery and porcelain and I bring them in to the ...... Ceramics auction.

The English import their ceramics under Pottery and China, but auction their items at the......... Ceramics auction

The French import their ceramics under Faïence, porcelaine et poterie but auction their items at the.......... céramiques auction

The Germans import their ceramics under Keramik und porzellan but auction their items at the....... Keramik auction

As long as even these kinds of simple errors in the section names (despite many emails and forum topics) are not solved energetically, but can exist for years, I will remain positively critical with the necessary cynicism :-)

As long as you keep making those kinds of comments you are ... sigh ... annoying.

If you know so well why don't you join the Catawiki team instead of your realize that apparently there is much more important work on the shelf than your hobby

Deze serieuze Ethografica verzamelaar moet nu zijn kunst plaatsen tussen de plastic figurines.

Ik ben een serieuze knipselverzamelaar. Daar staan er inmiddels een kleine 5000 van bij Overig, tussen allemaal andere voorwerpen waar ik persoonlijk niets mee heb. Is dat een probleem? Nee, waarom zou het? Krijgen ze een keer een eigen rubriek? Vast wel. Wanneer? Geen idee.
Denk je niet dat er voorwerpen zijn die sneller een nieuwe rubriek 'verdienen' dan kunstvoorwerpen waar er nog amper van zijn? Het lijkt in je betoog en bijbehorende verontwaardiging nu net alsof je kunst op een hoger plan zet dan bijv. krantenknipsels. We houden Catawiki naar mijn idee graag vrij van dit soort waarde-oordelen, maar wellicht begrijp ik je verkeerd.
En ik ben er juist heel blij mee, ja, dat voorwerpen waar er veel van zijn sneller een eigen rubriek krijgen. Uit massale invoer van een bepaald soort items, blijkt de behoefte en 'verbinden' gebruikers zich ook aan Catawiki. Praatjes vullen geen gaatjes. Zien is geloven. En zo.
Kortom: denk je niet dat er nog minstens 100 wachtenden vóór je zijn?

Als iets al lang zo werkt wil dat niet zeggen dat dit dan ook goed is.

Nee, dat klopt, maar vind je het heel erg dat we eerst een keer afmaken waar we aan begonnen zijn, zodat daarna een eindoordeel kan worden gegeven? Je hebt zelf ook in de gaten dat de boel hier al geruime tijd 'stil staat', zo blijkt.

Ik denk dat er meer het besef moet komen, dat de catalogus van Catawiki niet alleen meer uit strips bestaat en dat de verzamelwereld iets groter is dan dat.

Een onbegrijpelijke tussendooropmerking, die bijna ongepast, maar zeker tendentieus is. Dat heb je niet nodig, hoor.

Daar worden wel hele intelligente keuzes gemaakt.  Zo is er de veiling Design en Toegepaste kunst. Benamingen die, hoe kan het ook anders, niet terug te vinden zijn in de catalogus.

Gelukkig trekt men daar inderdaad hun eigen plan. Voor veilingen, die zich niets hoeven aan te trekken van vaste formats zoals in een catalogus, lijken thema's me een logischer insteek, al heb ik daar verder weinig verstand van. Waarom benamingen op veilingen en in de catalogus volgens jou per se moeten worden gelijkgetrokken is me echt een raadsel, aangezien de ideeën over beide activiteiten blijkbaar heel verschillend zijn.

This serious Ethografica collector now has to place his art between the plastic figurines.

I am a serious clipping collector. There are now almost 5000 of them under Other, among all other objects that I personally have nothing to do with. Is that a problem? No, why would it? Will they get their own section? Surely. When? No idea.
Don't you think there are objects that 'earn' a new category faster than art objects that are barely there? In your speech and accompanying indignation it now seems as if you place art on a higher level than, for example, newspaper clippings. I think we like to keep Catawiki free from these kinds of value judgments, but maybe I misunderstand you.
And I am very happy with it, yes, that objects where there are a lot of them get their own section more quickly. Mass imports of a certain type of items show the need and users also 'connect' to Catawiki. All talk. Seeing is believing. And so.
In short: don't you think there are at least 100 waiting ahead of you?

Just because something has worked that way for a long time doesn't mean it's good.

No, that's right, but do you mind if we first finish what we started, so that a final judgment can be given afterwards? You have also noticed that things have been 'still' here for quite some time, it turns out.

I think there needs to be more awareness that Catawiki's catalog no longer consists only of comics and that the world of collecting is a bit bigger than that.

An incomprehensible interim comment, which is almost inappropriate, but certainly tendentious. You don't need that.

Very intelligent choices are made there. For example, there is the Design and Applied Art auction. Names that, how could it be otherwise, cannot be found in the catalogue.

Fortunately, they do indeed draw their own plan there. For auctions, which do not have to worry about fixed formats such as in a catalogue, themes seem to me to be a more logical approach, although I have little knowledge of them. Why you think names on auctions and in the catalog should necessarily be aligned is really a mystery to me, since the ideas about both activities are apparently very different.

We will see what the future will bring @Arco Catawiki is after all a site designed for and especially by collectors

With me, the glass is always half full. I assume and hope that the website will continue to improve and that imperfections will eventually become a thing of the past.

What an * excusez le mot * nonsense!

We classify objects according to what they are physically, not what they pretend to be. An image is an image, be it wood, stone, bronze, or plastic and the only physical difference between a large image and a small image is the measure.

The singer without a name and the 5th van Beethoven are also neatly together in the music section, just like pinkeltje and À la recherche du temps perdu are together in the books section.

I find it quite presumptuous to say that someone's' art 'could not get lost between the plastic dolls. That is possible very well. The fields of that section are extremely suitable for describing images. There is also enough in it.

If it were up to me, Martin will just enter his objects with images. By the way, I fully understand the question, because the title of the section is indeed not optimal and the section needs to be overhauled in terms of classification. But it is the right section

Entering everything under "other" goes wrong on all fronts. It is said that you just enter the object 'image' and theme 'art'. I took a look at what objects that have to do with "image" have been entered.

A quick search through the object descriptions gives me the following result:

Image, Statue, Statues, plaster statue, 'blanc de chine' statue, sculpture, statue, bronze, bronze statue, bronze statue of a Muthai flute player, bronze statue, bronze statue owl, bronze statuette the dancers, Buddha,

And this is of course not all, because I took a quick look at the most obvious names.

I wonder when there will be a 'own house'. If each item is given its own item name, then I wish the people who need to find this out good luck in finding all similar items together. I now also understand that it takes a little longer before some work can be done for the Fossils and Shells where I am an administrator, and where I cannot continue, because the changes that need to be made are essential. I understand that the messy arrangement of these objects is made by the people who import them, but that is also due to the great freedom of import, and something can be done about it.

Incidentally, the plastic dolls and the statues that I see as art, indeed different, the plastic dolls are made in large quantities, and have a commercial purpose. The images I have are handmade in an edition of 1 piece. Besides being sold, they are not made for commercial purposes. I have not said a bad word about the figurines, because if someone enjoys them, it is wonderful, but there is a difference.

@Pegag: Even better, then.

@Martin: When it comes to individual objects, you are right about messiness, but experience shows that if enough of the same objects are entered, someone or more people will starts / starts to feel responsible and starts to organize things around such an object. That has worked very well so far. See the Happy Meals, the Kinder eggs, etc ...
But if your images are allowed in the Figurines section, then that is of course much better. Of course, something only belongs in Other if it is not allowed in any other section. And whether something is made from a commercial point of view or not, nowhere in Catawiki counts as an import restriction, so feel free to go ahead. It's great that we were able to help you well together. Good luck!

Ik ben zelf regelmatig bezig om items samen te voegen binnen de rubriek overig ter voorbereiding van eventuele nieuwe rubrieken. Dit is zeker een heidens karwei want invoerders zijn zeer creatief met het verzinnen van namen om objecten te beschrijven. 

Er is een andere structuur nodig binnen bepaalde rubriek dan die we nu hanteren. De rubriek beeldjes figures etc. is daar een van. Hier wordt momenteel over nagedacht, maar dit kost gewoon heel veel tijd om het uit de dokteren, want als je het wilt veranderen moet je het wel in een keer goed doen. 

Ik ben het wel met Martin eens dat de beelden die hij bedoeld niet echt thuis horen tussen de poppetjes en figuurtjes. De suggestie van Arco is beter voorlopig toch onder Overig Voorwerp: Beeld en Thema: Kunst 

I myself am regularly busy merging items within the category other in preparation for possible new categories. This is certainly a hell of a job because importers are very creative in coming up with names to describe objects.

A different structure is needed within a certain section than the one we use now. The section figurines, figures, etc. is one of them. This is currently being considered, but this just takes a lot of time to figure it out, because if you want to change it you have to do it right the first time.

I do agree with Martin that the images he refers to do not really belong among the dolls and figures. Arco's suggestion is better for the time being under Other Object: Image and Theme: Art

Ik ben het wel met Martin eens dat de beelden die hij bedoeld niet echt thuis horen tussen de poppetjes en figuurtjes. De suggestie van Arco is beter voorlopig toch onder Overig Voorwerp: Beeld en Thema: Kunst 

Met alle respect, maar daar komt gedonder van. Want als het beeld 15 cm hoog is is het opeens een miniatuur en ´hoort´ het opeens wel in de rubriek beeeldjes. Dus dan krijg je een onduidelijke discussie  hoe  groot een object moet zijn om als  beeld gekwalificeerd te worden. Moet je echt niet willen.

Je maakt dan in mij ogen, weliswaar op andere gronden maar met dezelfde gevolgen, precies dezelfde fout die gemaakt  is bij het afsplitsen van de stripprenten. Waardoor iemand die een prent van een stripauteur heeft waar geen stripfiguren op staan geen idee meer heeft waar het ding thuishoort. En waardoor de prenten van allerlei kunstenaars nu opeens over verschilllende rubrieken verdeeld zijn, alleen op gronnd van de voorstelling.

Je moet de vraag eerder omdraaien en je afvragen of die actiefiguren en Mc donald poppetjes wel in de goede rubriek staan. Je kunt heel goed beargumenteren dat een object met bewegende onderdelen of een mechaniekje geen beeld(je) is.

En dat verhaal van die oplages lijkt aardig, maar is helaas niet maatgevend. Kan en mag dat niet zijn. Dat zou betekenen dat een origineel Grieks beeld in een andere rubriek zou moeten dan de kopieen\heruitgaves die de tuincentra verkopen. En als je kijkt wat het IS, een gemiddeld 150 cm hoog 3D object van een schaars geklede juffrouw, moeten die echt in dezelfde fysieke rubriek.

En ik zal me tot het eind der tijden met hand en tand blijven verzetten tegen een thema 'kunst'. Dat is GEEN objectief begrip en dus niet bruikbaar om objecten te catalogiseren. Of iets kunst of kitsch is mag tot uiting komen in de veilingresultaten. In de catalogus willen we dat niet terugzien. Iets wat nu kunst is vinden mensen over 100 jaar rommel en omgekeerd. Vraag maar aan Vincent. ;-)

Ik heb geen kwaad woord over de figurines gezegd

@Martin: weet ik, het was ook niet tegen jou, maar de 'discussie' ging wel die kant op.

I do agree with Martin that the images he refers to do not really belong among the dolls and figures. Arco's suggestion is better for the time being under Other Object: Image and Theme: Art

With all due respect, but that's a mess. Because when the statue is 15 cm high, it suddenly becomes a miniature and suddenly 'belongs' in the category figurines. So then you get an unclear discussion about how big an object must be to be qualified as an image. You really don't want to.

In my opinion you then make exactly the same mistake, albeit on different grounds but with the same consequences, that was made when splitting off the comics. As a result, someone who has a print of a comic book artist that does not contain any cartoon characters has no idea where the thing belongs. And as a result of which the prints of all kinds of artists are now suddenly divided over different categories, solely on the basis of the representation.

Rather, you should turn the question around and ask yourself whether those action figures and McDonald dolls are in the right section. You can argue very well that an object with moving parts or a mechanism is not an image.

And that story of those editions seems nice, but unfortunately it is not decisive. Can't and shouldn't be. That would mean that an original Greek statue should be in a different category than the copies\reissues that the garden centers sell. And if you look at what it IS , an average 150 cm high 3D object of a scantily clad lady, they really should be in the same physical category.

And I will fight tooth and nail against a theme of 'art' until the end of time. That is NOT an objective concept and therefore not useful for cataloging objects. Whether something is art or kitsch may be reflected in the auction results. We do not want to see that reflected in the catalogue. Something that is art now will be regarded as rubbish in 100 years' time and vice versa. Just ask Vincent. ;-)

I have not said a bad word about the figurines

@Martin: I know, it wasn't against you either, but the 'discussion' did go that way.

Sorry, Peter, I introduced that Art theme, especially to be able to easily group those objects for migration at a later time, should that ever be necessary. Themes in Other are often used for this, given the limited amount of grouping fields that we have available there. There are still no standard agreements on themes.

@pegag En ik zal me tot het eind der tijden met hand en tand blijven verzetten tegen een thema 'kunst'. Dat is GEEN objectief begrip en dus niet bruikbaar om objecten te catalogiseren. Of iets kunst of kitsch is mag tot uiting komen in de veilingresultaten.

Helaas is bovenstaande onjuist. En je stelling dat of iets kunst of kitch is, afhankelijk is van de veilingresultaten snijdt al helemaal geen hout. Of iets kunst of kitch is heeft helemaal niets met geld te maken.

Kunst is verder wel degelijk een objectief en helder omschreven begrip.  Termen als figuratieve, moderne en toegepaste kunst worden ook al enige tijd gebezigd bij diverse veilingen van Catawiki. 

De uitstekende veilingmeester van de Catawiki kunstveiling Dick Siersema kan je de term kunst  aardig uitleggen. Bij deze alvast een voorschot:

Kunst
Elke definitie van kunst is cultuurspecifiek en tijdgebonden. Van vrijwel elke cultuur zijn voorwerpen bekend die zich onderscheiden van ‘gewone’ objecten doordat er in het algemeen een hogere esthetische waarde aan wordt toegeschreven. Dergelijke objecten hebben soms niet-esthetische - ceremoniële of religieuze of propagandistische - functies, en soms niet. Ook binnen eenzelfde cultuur kunnen opvattingen over kunst evolueren: er ontstaan nieuwe genres en er ontwikkelen zich andere kunstvormen, waardoor het idee over de functie en de aard van kunst verandert.

Traditionele definities van kunst zijn gebaseerd op een bepaalde eigenschap van het kunstwerk, op de representatieve, expressieve, en de formele eigenschappen. Er zijn dus representatieve of mimetische definities, expressieve definities en formalistische definities, die stellen dat kunstwerken worden gekenmerkt door hun figuratieve, expressieve en formele eigenschappen. Een van de oudste ons overgeleverde beschouwingen over kunst is die van Plato, die in de Staat het kunstwerk typeert als mimetisch, ‘slechts’ een nabootsing van de werkelijkheid (en dus inferieur). De 18e-eeuwse verlichtingsfilosoof Immanuel Kant definieert in zijn Kritik der Urteilskraft (1790) een kunstwerk als 'een soort voorstelling die een doel op zich is, maar niettemin de mentale vermogens voor gezellige communicatie bevordert.' Ook andere invloedrijke filosofen zoals Arthur Schopenhauer en Friedrich Nietzsche hebben zich beziggehouden met kunstbeschouwing - zie daarvoor het artikelesthetica.

Conventionalistische definities kwamen onder druk door de opkomst, in de twintigste eeuw, van kunstwerken die sterk afweken van alle voorgaande kunstwerken.Avant-garde werken zoals de 'Fontein' van Marcel Duchamp (een industrieel vervaardigd urinoir dat Duchamp in 1917 onder een pseudoniem signeerde en instuurde voor deelname aan een expositie van de Society of Independent Artists in New York) en andere "ready-mades" onttrokken zich aan elke traditionele definitie van kunst. Hetzelfde kan gezegd worden van andere conceptuele werken zoals All the things I know but of which I am not at the moment thinking - 1:36 PM; June 15, 1969 van Robert Barry en 4" 33 van John Cage. Het scepticisme over de mogelijkheid en de waarde van een definitie van kunst leidde sinds de jaren 1950 tot een discussie binnen de esthetiek die nog steeds gaande is. Bron Wikipedia

Zie voor een complete verhandeling deze link:

Wikipedia: Kunst

@pegag And I will fight tooth and nail against a theme of 'art' until the end of time. That is NOT an objective concept and therefore not useful for cataloging objects. Whether something is art or kitsch may be reflected in the auction results.

Unfortunately the above is incorrect. And your statement that whether something is art or kitch depends on the auction results makes no sense at all. Whether something is art or kitsch has nothing to do with money at all.

Art is indeed an objective and clearly defined concept. Terms such as figurative, modern and applied art have also been used for some time at various Catawiki auctions.

The excellent auctioneer of the Catawiki art auction Dick Siersema can explain the term art nicely. Here's an advance:

Art
Every definition of art is culture-specific and time-bound. Objects from almost every culture are known that distinguish themselves from 'ordinary' objects because they are generally attributed a higher aesthetic value. Such objects sometimes have non-aesthetic - ceremonial or religious or propagandistic - functions, and sometimes they do not. Concepts of art can also evolve within the same culture: new genres emerge and other art forms develop, changing the idea of the function and nature of art.

Traditional definitions of art are based on a certain characteristic of the work of art, on its representational, expressive, and formal properties. Thus, there are representational or mimetic definitions, expressive definitions and formalistic definitions, which state that works of art are characterized by their figurative, expressive and formal properties. One of the oldest reflections on art that has come down to us is that of Plato , who in the State characterizes the work of art as mimetic, 'only' an imitation of reality (and therefore inferior). The 18th-century Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant , in his Kritik der Urteilskraft (1790), defines a work of art as "a kind of representation which is an end in itself, but nevertheless promotes the mental faculties for convivial communication." Other influential philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche have also dealt with art appreciation - see the article aesthetics .

Conventionalist definitions came under pressure from the emergence, in the twentieth century, of works of art that differed greatly from all previous works of art. Avant-garde works such as Marcel Duchamp 's "Fountain" (an industrially manufactured urinal that Duchamp signed under a pseudonym in 1917 and submitted to participate in an exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists in New York) and other " ready-mades " extracted adheres to every traditional definition of art. The same can be said of other conceptual works such as All the things I know but of which I am not at the moment thinking - 1:36 PM; June 15, 1969 by Robert Barry and 4" 33 by John Cage . Skepticism about the possibility and value of a definition of art led to a discussion within aesthetics since the 1950s that is still ongoing. Source Wikipedia

For a complete treatise see this link:

Wikipedia: Art

Haha, such a paper to prove my so-called wrong and then end it with

Skepticism about the possibility and value of a definition of art has led since the 1950s to a debate within aesthetics that is still going on

delicious.

@pedag

It is only healthy that there is a discussion going on about the concept of art, because as said every definition of art is culture-specific and time-bound and from time to time will have to be recalibrated. This is also the case for many things (such as pedagogy, didactics, ethics, etc.)

For example, visual art is developing rapidly and in recent years forms of expression have been added, such as e.g. digital art, sound art and body art. This also applies to applied art and design.