[iDC] "Wikipedia Art"

[John Hopkins]

Reading this 'report' (aka, Press Release) it feels like the project is formed more as a PR exercise to play with the propagation of 'attention' or 'fame' for the 'artist' and the 'art' within the framework of just another socially constructed space. It's relation with that social space seems reactionary.  (Reacting to the formal aspects of the social space and gleefully monitoring further re-reactions).

On Kildall's site http://kildall.com (dot com?), the 'art' is announced as a "Project Launch" complete with a branding logo, press section, and archive...  I'd consider the 'form' of the project seems, as Saul points out, academic bordering on commercial, I see nothing 'radical' in its execution, which, from the rhetorics (of which there is a pre-positioned glut), was supposed to be the point.  The words and the actions are in fundamental conflict.  More slick and prepackaged 'art' from Second Front carefully propagated on all available channels.  The correlation between 'attention' and 'quality' is never direct.

jh


>There has been much talk about the "Wikipedia Art" project in various online circles, blogs and lists. Trebor has asked me to write about the project and the response for IDC.

snip...

>Minutes later, several online essays, interviews and blog postings were released and then re-cited on the Wikipedia page, giving it external "legitimacy"  and thereby initiating the feedback loop described in the original article.
>
>Interview with Nathaniel Stern and Scott Kildall
><http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/wikipedia-art-virtual-fireside-chat.html>http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/wikipedia-art-virtual-fireside-chat.html
>
>Essay by Patrick Lichty "WikiPedia art?" (posted on Furtherfield)
><http://blog.furtherfield.org/?q=node/267>http://blog.furtherfield.org/?q=node/267
>
>A New Take on Art by Haydn Shaughnessy
><http://www.mediangler.com/2009/02/13/a-new-take-on-art/>http://www.mediangler.com/2009/02/13/a-new-take-on-art/
>
>What is Wikipedia Art? by Jon Coffelt
><http://thewhole9.com/blogs/applestooranges/2009/02/14/what-is-wikipedia-art/>http://thewhole9.com/blogs/applestooranges/2009/02/14/what-is-wikipedia-art/
>
>Within an hour, the article was marked "AfD" (article for deletion) for not adhering to Wikipedia standards. The Wikipedia process for AfDs is to engage a debate about the Wikipedia-worthiness of the page for a period of least 5 days until the Wikipedia community weighs in.
>
>15 minutes later, the pre-existing Wikipedia pages for Scott Kildall, Nathaniel Stern and Brian Sherwin were also similarly tagged with "COI" tags and "Citation" tags (a precursor to article deletion) by the same Wikipedia editor that marked the Wikipedia Art article for deletion. This action could be described as retaliatory.
>
>In the next several hours, a heated debate ensued on the deletion page with sides weighing in on KEEP



>In the meantime, several other online writers, responding to our press releases calling for collaboration wrote articles of their own. Here is a sampling:

snip...

><http://looksee.chrisashley.net/?p=1563>http://looksee.chrisashley.net/?p=1563
>
>Also, many people added to the Wikipedia Art page, providing context and additional citations.
>
>15 hours later, "Wedna", an 18-year old Wikipedia admin promptly deleted the page, violating Wikipedia's own requirement of a 5 day period for AfDs. In his profile, he describes himself as: "An old hand. I've been around since mid-2005"
>
>in the wee hours of the morning, two different people added "Wikipedia Art" to the "Conceptual Art" page on Wikipedia. Both entries are quickly removed.
>
>Sunday, Feb 15th, is a bit of aftermath, some more threads appeared

snip...

>
>Monday, February 16th (*), more blog coverage gets propagated about the intervention, noting its immediate failure or success.(**)

snip...

>Here is a link to the project
><http://www.wikipediaart.org/>http://www.wikipediaart.org
>
>I am most curious about YOUR thoughts on the "Wikipedia Art" project. Do you see this project as one that points out an inherent problem with the way that histories and knowledge is propagated? Or, does it appear as a vandalistic act done by a "gang of artists"?