Great video clip on current homo-events in the US, South Africa and England on Crooks and Liars (links directly to video clip – both Windows and QuickTime versions). Stewart: “The US is now officially less progressive than South Africa.” — well, I think this happened around ’95 or so, but nice of him to finally notice. Hooray to South Africa and England for recognizing gay marriage! America? Boooooo.
A panel discussion at the New School, here in NYC was held last night.
The topic at hand was the issue of Culture at the World Trade Centre Site. Mainly whether or not the future planners knew what it was or if there was any intent to have any in the the new memorial, or lack thereof.
The panel was headed by Paul Goldberger- the author of the book Ground Zero and a heavy critic of the entire process.
Other panelists were artist, Hans Haacke, Tom Bernstein, Thelma Golden, currently curator of the Studio Museum in Harlem, and Mike Wallace and Robert Yaro.
This was my first public interaction with the issues of Ground Zero and the ongoing public debate on its future and it was disappointing to say the least. There wasn’t really enough time given for the panelist to really get their teeth into any issues. Some did-and to quote Hans Haacke- “There is no hope”- his response to the question Is there any culture at Ground Zero?
Brutal and tough.
This is a place in the middle of the financial district and one of the most uncultured areas of Manhattan. Those programming the site are trying very hard to incorporate some kind of museum and also have the financial sustenance of 10 million square feet of office space, replacing that lost in the old buildings.
The process of programming the site of the former WTC buildings has been plagued by raging disagreements as to what the lease owners want and what New Yorkers want: this event was no different with everyone who had a chance, voicing their opinion as to what should replace the buildings. Suddenly everyone had become an architect and site programmer. Currently from what I can tell, most city dwellers want to see a green grassy field with nothing else and I am inclined to agree. They feel it will become and has already grown into, its own memorial-The people and its gravitas make it what it is.
My opinion: It is a project that simply has too many people with their finger in the pie. And it could be a very lucrative Pie for some. Those with money will get further into and more from the Pie. If you have more you can get more.
These high profile public projects often begin with good intentions of ambitious contemporary museums and memorials and other cultural stakeholders, and this site is no stranger to such a phenomenon. The Drawing centre, which has always been in Soho, was to move to the site, and pulled out some time ago due to constraints and censoring that they could not subscribe to.
The evolution and politics of this site are a very interesting thing to watch.
Check out www.lmcc.net/ and also www.renewnyc.com/ for more information.
And also http://www.petitiononline.com/911wtc/petition.html for a different less corporate view
disclaimer: this is a rant and I’m not sure how clear it is. I’ve spent too much time on it already. enjoy!
What is the difference between Wikipedia, the New York Times and Fox News? Well, the former, which is continually ridiculed by librarians and journalists alike, is supposed to be held accountable for only printing facts, while the latter two, oft the source of many a footnote of reliability, are a bit more free.
At least, that’s how it seems to me when I read through this version as opposed to this version of this story. Ironic that the Wiki-defenders give something slightly more balanced….
Wikipedia is a free, open source and huge resource for free information, which anyone can edit – proof in many cases, some might argue, that “anarchic information” is more reliable than “journalistic credentials.” Basically, the story goes that some idiot used the site to jokingly implicate a former newspaper editor in the Kennedy assassinations. But the press is crucifying Wikipedia, instead of the idiot who edited the site (who the victim actually feels sorry for!). This is complete hypocrisy, in that said victim states (link above), “I still believe in free expression…. What I want is accountability.” I’m sorry? Accountability for the person, or the platform?
OK, granted, his point is larger than this. He found the “perpetrator” because he hired a private detective and then the man eventually confessed, so there is indeed less accountability than, say, a journalist who appears on TV or signs his or her name.
However, the bigger argument coming out of this is that Wikipedia is somehow unethical or completely untrustworthy. I have two points to make here in terms of his free speech vs accountability statement.
Free speech. Now in my book, free speech usually goes along with freedom of the press: especially in this case. Wikipedia is full of informative overview documents that they deliberately call “articles.” They can be fixed at any time by anyone who wants to (tho the victim did not exercise this power, as he did not want to “condone the site”). The downside is that anyone can deliberately false edit, and misinformation occasionally appears (an actual rarity); this happened in this case, and was not fixed for four months (mostly a mishap, but those who discovered the mistake decided to go on television, rather than fixing it). The upside, however, is huge. It has to do with power. In this sample, I’m going to go with extreme: Fox.
Fox news (especially Bill O’Reilly) is renowned for op-ed, unchecked propaganda passed off as news. Another example is the NY Times’ Jayson Blair scandal that cost two editors their jobs; they allowed years of lies and made-up stories to slip. However, the Times recovered and the O’Reilly Factor’s bullshit “no spin zone” carries on – in fact, whereas the less-read Wikipedia had to change their forum after this debacle, and apologize on news networks over the nation, we never see Bill do as such….. Granted, the Times was held somewhat accountable and O’Reilly has many, many critics, but the latter, for example, is oft quoted criticizing more factual blogs and sites than his own “pundits” dictate, and he answers to no one for it. He also has a much bigger forum for his “fair and balanced” views, due to money and power; like all of today’s news, he goes after his own agenda, as a mouthpiece for his funders.
Wikipedia, which, I might add, is editable by the likes of both of these institutions, as well as anybody else interested, is a mouthpiece for no one/everyone, and yet they are held to higher standards of fact-checking than this media machine? Wikipedia, a resource literally by, of and for the people* loses all credibility because of one idiot? Well, then all Americans are like Nixon, I guess. Or Charles Manson. Or perhaps Bill O’Reilly would like to hear that he and George Soros are one and the same?
Accountability. Bill O’Reilly has gone after just about every person, web site and paper that exposes his lies, conceit, and affiliation. He uses his TV/radio show as a total bias to the right, then crucifies anyone who disagrees with him. He calls people cowards for not appearing on his show, then refuses to discuss matters with those whose opinions he does not appreciate; and the main problem is that people actually listen to his garbage. He has the most watched news show on cable television.
At wikipedia, for a change, people like Bill cannot go after anyone – either literally (there are several editors, writers, personalities – mostly untraceable) or ethically (as he has the ability to change their entries himself). He can change entries if they are wrong, and he can’t publicly attack any one person as a “liar” or “coward.” This is important (and probably why Wikipedia, as a community and site, is getting discredited as a whole). In the end, since any person can edit or fix, more objective or truthful information tends to comes out – through more contributions and debate, rather than personal attacks. In fact, when Wikipedia editors believe a page may be slightly biased, they flag it, and disclaim, at the top of the page, “this article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy.” (This happens until more participants get involved in editing and debate; for example, their page on Bill O’Reilly.) This is something that Bill doesn’t do for his viewers and listeners…. (More on the Fox news bias, presented by links and FACTS is here.)
Who, exactly, should not “be using Wikipedia as factual information,” as their critics argue? The administration, who use any information (even if it is already discredited), to support their claims to go to War? The “news,” who like Fox, mostly do the same? Fox news’ viewers, who, according to the (editable and accurate) figures at the link above, are some of the most misled people on current events in the nation? Academics, who would not even use a standard encyclopedia, much less an open source one, as factual information anyway? Where is your standard and who are you speaking to here? Or is it just a space to discredit?
I’m not saying I disagree with accountability; what I’m saying is that on Wikipedia, the playing field on “accurate information” is a bit more equal. And it’s the big wigs who don’t like it. If you are opening up a discussion on freedom and accountability, you must also introduce aspects of money and power – we live in a Capitalist society, remember. Accuracy, modern reason tells us, is subjective itself – and if you want to play a numbers game, the Wikis have it.
* granted that in this case, “people” means people with web access. But “people” with access to speak on broadcast or cable television networks, or the ability to print in one of the largest circulated papers in the world, represent a number exponentially smaller than this.
Still jet-lagged, and slightly sick now (again?), I woke up at four this morning and began reading The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Presents America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction, a little thank you gift from Simon Gush and Bronwyn Lace, for opening up my (parent’s) home to them, on Staten Island. The Daily Show, “the fake news that delivers the truth,” has become the most powerful and influential satire in the history of the US, and has over a million viewers each night (screened Monday through Thursday). Now, I’m that kind of annoying, loud-mouthed idiot that screams “inconsistent with the character!” or “that would never happen!” and also laughs loudly and claps in the movie theatre, but I rarely do that without an audience to offend (like, say, at home at 4 in the morning while reading a book). But I did find myself giggling often over this read (sorry to wake you, Nicky), a mock stolen textbook from a NY library….
But in more serious news (does that qualify as satire? just kidding….), the new artthrob is out, and has some great stuff. First up, good buddy, and amazingly talented teacher and artist, Ralph Borland stars in the artbio this month. We love him. Let’s see, there is also a review of Marina Abramovic at Performa05, which starts off OK, makes a really great argument, then ends up pretty wishy washy. Oh, and I wrote it (please ignore the typos and grammatical errors that mysteriously appeared between when I hit the send button, and when they published; oh, and note that self-deprecation is meant to get you to like me more, cuz they cut out all my jokes, which were meant to accomplish that feat for me, but obviously failed miserably; insert more deprecation here). Other great reviews include (all shows I did not see, as I was not here) Aggenbach, Kentridge, Siopis and Botha, among others.
The news of Nathi Gumede as KZNSA Gallery’s new curator has hit, as has Gavin Jantjes’ as Artistic Director for the Proposed Cape Biennale. The highlight, tho, is Linda Stupart’s cover of sessions eKapa, a fair and provocative piece on the non-foregrounding of the upcoming ‘non-Bienalle.’
Sue Williamson’s diary also assures us that Ed Young is doing OK after being mugged while overseas, and links us to some nice coverage of his show in ArtForum. It sounds a pretty dreadful experience, and props to Ed for his high spirits.
So, there was that ekapa conference in cape town this last week. I, unfortunately, didn’t make it – was overseas – but heard some interesting things about it. The ballot seemed to have a lot more non-SA Africans on it, rather than the usual suspects, but I also heard there were a few no-shows, and a whole lot of gripes – by the usuals – to be sorted out. At minimum, I’m hoping some of the cats got the necessary bitching off their chests, and can move towards a great exhibition next year – they’ve got 9 months, and 2 years worth of work to do before then. There’s some amazing potential here – great artists, hard workers, interesting topics and organizers – so we’re all holding our breath and hoping that this will fill the BKAA void (among others), and then some.
Did you hear about this? It’s really terrible.
Ed Young, 27, a conceptual artist, is due to undergo surgery in an Italian hospital on Wednesday.
Elize Young, his mother, said two Italian men overpowered her son shortly after he had sent an e-mail from an internet cafe and drawing money at an ATM in Ceunen.
“They not only robbed him of all his money and personal belongings, but also badly assaulted him…. They nearly killed my child.”