{"id":1816,"date":"2009-02-15T02:48:06","date_gmt":"2009-02-15T00:48:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nathanielstern.com\/blog\/?p=1816"},"modified":"2009-02-15T03:14:55","modified_gmt":"2009-02-15T01:14:55","slug":"wikipedia-art-update","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nathanielstern.com\/blog\/2009\/02\/15\/wikipedia-art-update\/","title":{"rendered":"Wikipedia Art update (and updated)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Lots of cool edits to the page<\/a> – see the history<\/a> as well.<\/p>\n

Huge debate roaring<\/a> as well. My favorite quote here (followed by mini argument) is by Wikipedia user “shmeck<\/a>,” aka contemporary artist Shane Mecklenburger<\/a>:<\/p>\n

KEEP<\/strong> The Wikipedia Art<\/a> page is a self-aware example of Wikipedia’s mission of collective epistemology<\/a>. It enacts and exposes Wikipedia’s own strengths, weaknesses, potential, and limits as a system of understanding and as a contemplative<\/a> object of beauty<\/a>. The page is also a self-aware example of the strengths, weaknesses, potential, and limits of new media art<\/a> as a an object of contemplation. New media art<\/a> is an example of how the boundaries between art<\/a> and every other discipline from epistemology<\/a> to microbiology<\/a> disintegrated (see interdisciplinarity<\/a>) in the 21st Century. This page is an example of how a Wikipedia page can go beyond simply existing as a Wikipedia page, while retaining its basic utilitarian<\/a> Wikipedia function. Those who care most about Wikipedia’s mission would probably agree that Wikipedia already is a collaborative art form. If you feel that Wikipedia is a beautiful thing, then at some level (whether or not you admit it) you consider Wikipedia an art form, with its own codes and conventions. This is an example of something that explains art, explores art, and is art all at the same time. Deleting this page would be a statement that the exegesis<\/a> of conceptual art<\/a> and\/or new media art<\/a> has no place in Wikipedia, except on the tired, lifeless, and opaque conceptual art<\/a> and new media art<\/a> pages. Why shouldn’t a tiny, obscure corner of Wikipedia-brand collective epistemology<\/a> be preserved for an instructive, self-referential, and ever-changing living example of what an art object can be in the 21st Century? Should this page be judged invalid only because it refers to itself? This artwork can only exist as a Wikipedia page that refers to itself. Therefore, deleting would not only send the message “this is not Wikipedia”; it would also be saying “this is not art.” comment added by Shmeck<\/a> (talk<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u00a2 contribs<\/a>) 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<\/p>\n

++++ The above is a wonderful commentary, but Wikipedia is not your web page to wax eloquently about what you think ought<\/strong> to exist. Bus stop<\/a> (talk<\/a>) 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<\/p>\n