Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Wikipedia in Blogland _ Wikipedia and Art
Posted by: thekohser
There is a http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ on Akahele.org, thanks to Paul Wehage.
It's got everything we performance artists care about. Enjoy!
Greg
Posted by: Moulton
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.
Posted by: the fieryangel
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!
Posted by: EricBarbour
Good article...except for the photo of Greg attacking a
roasted turkey with an electric knife.....oh the humanity....
Posted by: the fieryangel
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?
Posted by: Kato
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.
Posted by: the fieryangel
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??
Posted by: Kato
Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art defines Art in the introduction as:
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".
Posted by: the fieryangel
Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art defines Art in the introduction as:
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...
Posted by: the fieryangel
From the latest comments, it looks as if somebody from WP has discovered what this article is really about...
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
Observation —
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
Posted by: Kato
Durova has been shouting from the rooftops about the value of her picture "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Durova/Encyclopedic_image_restoration" 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 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=19608798#Commons:Meet_our_restorationistsrestorers:
and more bizarrely:
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.
Posted by: the fieryangel
Observation —
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
I've already voted for choice number three. You can't fix the problem until you've defined it.
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.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
Re: "An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics."
Observation of the dynamics is necessary to form a fair hypothesis about the intent.
Just how long do you plan on staring at this particular cobra before you do that?
Jon Awbrey, 26 March 2009, 09:44 EDT
Posted by: thekohser
Google's going to have a tough time ranking all of this duplicate content between Akahele comments field and WR message board.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
Google's going to have a tough time ranking all of this duplicate content between Akahele comments field and WR message board.
Google has a tough time ranking Kiwiâ„¢ (Shinolaâ„¢) from Wiki (the other thing).
Ja Ja
Posted by: the fieryangel
Re: "An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics."
Observation of the dynamics is necessary to form a fair hypothesis about the intent.
Just how long do you plan on staring at this particular cobra before you do that?
Jon Awbrey, 26 March 2009, 09:44 EDT
Well, Mr Awbrey, when are you going to write a piece to show us which way to go? We're going to be opening up for guest contributors and I'm sure that everybody would be happy to have a piece from you...
Posted by: Moulton
I would be happy to have a nice peace from Jon.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
I would be happy to have a nice peace from Jon.
Take your pick, Gimli —
- http://www.guncollectorsclub.com/images/guns/saa-peacemaker%20021_300x250.jpg
- http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/files/images/king-dick-peacemaker_0.jpg
- http://subversiveinfluence.com/images/blogposts/b36-peacemaker.jpg
- http://www.gearfuse.com/wp-content/uploads/andrew/7_june07/peacemaker.jpg
Posted by: lolwut
interesting read.
Posted by: Milton Roe
Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art defines Art in the introduction as:
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".
A policeman wearing a really interesting jacket might be objet trouve' or found art, ala the use of police uniforms by The Village People and The Police. You might not LIKE the art because the uniform of police don't appeal to anything in your nature (unless you're gay and like powerful men, or maybe you're into dominance figures....), but it's not our fault if some sort of art is the kind you don't appreciate. Police in full regalia certain evoke emotions in just about everyone, of some kind or another.
Surely the core of art is that it's designed to evoke emotion. Clearly the cop's uniform has some of that, or else they'd allow them to wear bunny slippers or tights. Even T.S. Elliot defind art as basically "a thought, combined with a feeling about the thought." The reason that "straightforward exposition" isn't art, is that it removes the emotion. An undercover or plainclothes police officer dressed in such a way as to completely blend in with the crowd, is not even "found art." Unless they're very skillful at dressing as elements of a subculture or counterculture, and then you have "found art" from the emotions which are associated with realizing that a skilled deception is taking place. Remember Peter Falk as Columbo? He played an ordinary dumb-sounding guy in a rumpled suit. The art came in when you realized that wasn't what he actually was.