Notes about art works - literature notes?

Thanks to everyone who participated in my post about art work notes taxonomy (Taxonomy for art work notes). A great discussion!

But now I’d like to back up and get opinions about whether or not an art work is even the right level of atomicity. I read a lot of articles and books about art works, so those are clearly literature notes. And it’s easy for me to see how to link out to separate notes about the artist, art movement, etc. But an art work can have so many ideas about it: how was it created, the history behind its creation, any controversies surrounding it, provenance, etc.

In your opinion, is an art work note stiil the atomic unit, even with all of that dense amount of information in it?

Thanks for your considered response!

I do very little with art, but here’s my 2 cents:

A work of art can be every bit as complex and nuanced as any article, monograph or book. I would argue that the work of art would equate to a literature note. But then, Zettelkasten style, the ideas, thoughts, insights and conclusions you draw from that work of art — in combination with your other ideas and notes — constitute atomic notes of their own.

So treat it like you’d treat a book — maybe a single not on the book/artwork as a book/artwork, but multiple “true” notes growing out of that.