| |
|
  |
 Wikipedia and Art, On Akahele.org |
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
Spitting In the Eye of the Bescolder
In the gray area between True and False, there lies the Unknown, the Unknowable, and Art.
Sincerity and Intent are notoriously hard to judge in a cyber-culture like Wikipedia. In the end, it comes down to a personal opinion, a haphazard theory of mind about another character, based on a handful of encounters in a bizarro online world.
Notwithstanding the taboo against original research, the discussion pages of Wikipedia are flush with novel characterizations in which rival editors are variously adjudged as disruptive trolls, tendentious PoV-pushers, vandals, meat puppets, clowns, and cranks.
Oddly enough, few of these challengers are characterized as artistes worthy of respect for illustrating the erratic process by which one reliably reckons authentic knowledge amidst a miasma of opinions, judgments, and idiosyncratic points of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 23rd March 2009, 4:08pm) 
Spitting In the Eye of the Bescolder
In the gray area between True and False, there lies the Unknown, the Unknowable, and Art.
Sincerity and Intent are notoriously hard to judge in a cyber-culture like Wikipedia. In the end, it comes down to a personal opinion, a haphazard theory of mind about another character, based on a handful of encounters in a bizarro online world.
Notwithstanding the taboo against original research, the discussion pages of Wikipedia are flush with novel characterizations in which rival editors are variously adjudged as disruptive trolls, tendentious PoV-pushers, vandals, meat puppets, clowns, and cranks.
Oddly enough, few of these challengers are characterized as artistes worthy of respect for illustrating the erratic process by which one reliably reckons authentic knowledge amidst a miasma of opinions, judgments, and idiosyncratic points of view.
good points, Moulton! from the looks of things (multiple people browsing for "Post-Post-Modernism" in the archives, we've attracted the serious artists over here too! Come on, guys and gals, register an account and join the fun! It just takes a valid email address! |
|
|
|
|
|
| the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 24th March 2009, 11:43am) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Tue 24th March 2009, 9:37am) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 24th March 2009, 4:46am)
Good article...except for the photo of Greg attacking a
roasted turkey with an electric knife.....oh the humanity....
Hey, it was either an "electric knife" photo or a "hip and buttock padding" photo...Which would you have chosen? Which one is Greg representing in the picture? Electric knife? Or Hip and buttock padding? It aint so easy to tell. The only hip and buttock that I see in the photo is on the Turkey (no, not that Turkey, the one on the platter.). I suppose that this is a job for FT2... Anyway, who do you suppose made the "artistic edit" in the "electric knife" article? Can anybody guess?? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
Wikipedia's article on Art defines Art in the introduction as: QUOTE(Wikipedia) Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as Aesthetics. Which is some bold assertion. My understanding and reductionist belief is that Art is "communication beyond the literal or solely functional". If Wikipedia's assertion was the case, then a cop wearing a high visibility jacket is Art, because the act is an appeal to the senses - the eyes. If my assertion is appropriate, a cop wearing a high visibility jacket isn't Art, as the act is solely functional. Most street signs, on the other hand are Art (at least according to my understanding). Not only do street signs attempt to communicate the literal and functional, but they are designed with an aesthetic in mind, to sit pleasingly within the space. A hideously ugly street sign wouldn't last. Street signs not only communicate the functional, but they communicate an aesthetic. Therefore, I challenge Wikipedia's assertion that Art is simply "arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions". |
|
|
|
|
|
| the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 24th March 2009, 12:47pm) Wikipedia's article on Art defines Art in the introduction as: QUOTE(Wikipedia) Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as Aesthetics. Therefore, I challenge Wikipedia's assertion that Art is simply "arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions". I think that's what the Wikipedia Art guys were basically trying to say as well...which didn't go over very well with the WP establishment. Of course, they weren't called "trolls" per say...but the subtext sort of implied that, in my opinion... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
Durova has been shouting from the rooftops about the value of her picture " Restoration Project" on Wikicommons. This seems to the latest fad, and a way for Wiki busybodies to assert their importance and exclusivity. Durova has assembled a group around her she self importantly terms "Restorationists". And these people go about acquiring old pictures and "touching them up" for public consumption on either the commons, or Wikipedia. I've been searching for some debate about the ethics of restoring photographs in this way, to little avail. There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that this practice can be controversial. In short, if someone decides to "restore" a picture, by removing scratches, glitches and so on, they are making selections that are not true to the medium. These scratches and color fades are part of the work whether we like them or not. Evidence of deterioration forms part of the life story of the work, and to mess with that is to not be faithful. It is not necessarily a benefit to have that history obliterated by "Free Culture" kooks with no taste. Incidentally, the "restoration project" predictably (and hilariously) descended into a slanging match over some other matter. Durova writes: QUOTE(Durova) For the most part, fellow editors at Commons have been supportive and welcoming. The community at large has my heartfelt thanks for their support. Yet it has been a surprise to encounter a handful of people who construe some sort of mischief here, and both confusing and disappointing that a very small number are aggressively hostile. and more bizarrely: QUOTE(Durova) Here, unfortunately, is an example of a loaded question from one of that handful of aggressive individuals. She has previously suggested that I trade sexual favors for featured candidacy supports (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Expect the "Restoration Project" to crash and burn in usual Wikipedia fashion some time over the next 6 months - and for all the hours of labor by participants to be bitterly resented and regretted. |
|
|
|
|
|
| the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 26th March 2009, 2:10pm) Observation —QUOTE
It appears that Akahele has quickly, all too quickly reached that old Kierkegaardian Either-Or — it will have to choose Either the response of the conversional aesthete, running the mill from effete to hysterical, Or it will have to convert the moral outrage that is our due into the concerted action that it will take to ameliorate, not celebrate the Absurd.
Jon Awbrey, 26 March 2009, 09:06 EDT
You forgot the third choice, which is QUOTE to analyze the patterns and reactions to the Absurd to try to extract the underlying meaning. I've already voted for choice number three. You can't fix the problem until you've defined it. QUOTE In short, if someone decides to "restore" a picture, by removing scratches, glitches and so on, they are making selections that are not true to the medium. These scratches and color fades are part of the work whether we like them or not. Evidence of deterioration forms part of the life story of the work, and to mess with that is to not be faithful. It is not necessarily a benefit to have that history obliterated by "Free Culture" kooks with no taste. BINGO. If you're going to do this kind of work, you've got to have good reason to be making such major modifications. It just sounds to me that the rational is "because it looks better", which doesn't cut it when you're talking about historical issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
