There is a fresh post on Akahele.org, thanks to Paul Wehage.
It's got everything we performance artists care about. Enjoy!
Greg
Full Version: Wikipedia and Art
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.
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.
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!
Good article...except for the photo of Greg attacking a
roasted turkey with an electric knife.....oh the humanity....
roasted turkey with an electric knife.....oh the humanity....
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?
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.
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??
Wikipedia's article on 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".
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".
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...
From the latest comments, it looks as if somebody from WP has discovered what this article is really about...
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
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
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
QUOTE
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
Google's going to have a tough time ranking all of this duplicate content between Akahele comments field and WR message board.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 26th March 2009, 10:26am)
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
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 26th March 2009, 2:48pm)
QUOTE
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...
I would be happy to have a nice peace from Jon.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 26th March 2009, 10:47am)
I would be happy to have a nice peace from Jon.
Take your pick, Gimli —Ja Ja
interesting read.
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 24th March 2009, 4:47am)
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".
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.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.