general

Wikipedia editor Daniel Rigal has a cast iron stomach and the patience of Job. He stood his ground in refusing to allow a Wikipedia-page-as-conceptual-project onto Wikipedia. Here's what he said in the Wikipedia Articles for Deletion chat, echoing arguments about the project on Paddy Johnson's blog: "I don't think it is productive to discuss this. I now regret giving it an opening as it isn't relevant here. (This is what I get for trying to be helpful.) Some people reject the concept of encyclopaedic knowledge. That is their choice but I don't see any reason for a person of that view to hang out on an encyclopaedia. This sort of stuff gets discussed interminably by philosophers. We are not going to get anywhere with it here. Lets let it drop. --DanielRigal (talk)"

Opposing him is Patrick Lichty, whose quotes in support, from the same Wikipedia "Articles for Deletion" discussion are collected here to show how a self-described "media studies and New Media Art professor & curator" puts his thumb on the scale for art he likes (short version: he repeatedly cites himself as an authority and refers to discussion elsewhere on the web that he initiated). This sucks, y'all:

This sort of artwork already has strong precedents in history - the Surrealists' Exquisite Corpse, Debord's idea of Situationist detournement, and although I am not part of this collective, I fully intend to include it as part of my chapter for the upcoming book of distributed writing commissioned by Turbulence.org, and it will be mentioned as part of my talk on new art practices at a guest lecture at Denver University on 2/16/09, and I have already written on it on my critical blog in London. Therefore, the reference is to the emergence of the concept, which now exists outside Wikipedia, and is paradoxical but not solipsistic. I think that the person suggesting the idea of letting the idea grow is well-reasoned, and a time for review (say, 90 days) could be set for re-evaluation.--24.14.54.88 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)--TS [TS is Patrick Lichty, per a hyperlink]

Comment: I would very much beg to differ on the point of the Surrealists. Dali would lay in traffic, Artaud organized a riot aginst Dulac's first screening of the Clergyman and the Seashell. If the Surrealists would have found it "appropriate" for the message, I am absolutely sure they would have done Corpses in the library. The way I see it, if it gets pulled, it will become by definition a case for reinsertion as an "event" in New Media art history. However, I know the project is being watched by a number of curators with great interest.--Patlichty (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

* 'Comment: the flags on the authors of the Wikipedia Art article are unwarranted - Kildall is a gradute of the Art Institute of Chicago, and well exhibited, I am not familiar with Biran per se, and I wrote a term paper in part about Nathaniel's work during my MFA studies on African Computer Art in the mid 2000's. These are legitimate people, and their pages are justified, and only justifiable criticism maybe citations or formatting.--Patlichty (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

* 'Comment: Well, right - "legitimate" is not the proper word. However, all three have substantial records, and if it takes an exxternal scholar to go over their records, then we can set that up.User:Patlichty|Patlichty]] (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

First, notability - as a media studies and New Media Art professor & curator, I find this missive "Highly" notable, for obvious reasons. This is a great project, either way it's resolved. It has also been picked up for discussion in at least one scholarly publication in this first day.
Secondly, verifiability - there external resources on the issue, and it is alrady in discussion in the greater community. I think the issue might be whether the site or the entry is the art, which has not been resolved.
Reliable Sources: there are two blogs, an installation, and a developing discussion on a 10,000 person listserv (Rhizome). I'm sure that this will be undeniably resolved to Wikipedia standards soon.
No Original Research: This might be the weakest leg in that much of it was written by the progenitors, but if needed, objective scholars can be asked to render their thoughts as well.
Don't Garfinkel the WIKI (DGtW); That's a bit gray, again on terms as to whether the site or the entry is the "art". In my opinion, the decision will likely be much clearer after a period of time (as stated before, 90 days, and probably minimum of 30).
--Patlichty (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've seen the new "Context" section put forth, and not by any of the artists, I think the article is MUCH more solid, is more grounded in external art historical references, and all around more grounded as an "article" per se. There the piece was truly solipsistic in the beginning, and probably fated for swift deletion, I think that comments by people like Frock, the new edits, and the development of the article over such a short amount of time shows its potential. In addition, I move that before deletion, we really should get someone in who's edited the New Media/Tech Art pages. If they're here, please chime in, and state you've been editing there.--Patlichty (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The last quote is the only one that seems unbiased.

Recommended CD of the organized sound variety: She Came From Money by RUEZ.

[RUEZ, aka Eric Laska] presents to us an idiosyncratic electronic music hyper-collage, three years worth of collected samples meticulously amalgamated into this 15 and a half minute offering: the oscillations of corrupted MP3 files, scrambling synthesizers, urban field recordings, chirping feedback electronics. [...]

Reference points include Gert-Jan Prins's Risk, Rowe/Lehn/Schmickler's Rabbit Run, early 90s Voice Crack, & the non-harsh noise work of John Wiese.

(3" CDr. Edition of 100)

Wasn't familiar with the references except through googling and discogs but it's always interesting to learn about the "noise underground" and think about the taxonomic relations among practitioners. For the non-specialist (e.g., me), RUEZ's music hews more to the classical, Stockhausen end of the yardstick as opposed to the rock, Wolf Eyes end (or even the techno German/Miami glitch middle).

The music is full-sounding (not minimal), highly detailed, organized, clean (despite the gritty sounds) and sure of what it's about. No obvious FX processing (as you hear with say, Oval) but rather keen attention to layering and pacing and the way in which the sounds are revealed (a burbling barely audible until a masking tone is suddenly or gradually peeled away, a series of drones playing just long enough to keep your attention before fading into related but dissimilar drones). Only the first tune of the five, "The Thunderclap" has an immediately recognizable song structure: an "allegro" section recalling a stuck CD, a "lento" section of doleful beeps and buzzes, and a return to the allegro.

You wouldn't guess that you were listening to a collection of anything, although the sound is heavily digital and steeped in sampling tech and errors. Laska is careful to keep obvious "real world" references out, other than the noises machines make, or the world as refracted through damaged gear. You listen to it for the sensuousness of the sound, and it's a notably consistent whole, as if made from scratch (so to speak).

The war crimes encouraged by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are starting to leak out. We knew this was going on but the press in Washington kept assuring everyone that Bush was "good people." Will Obama really change this or has our society become completely decadent? From Scott Horton, Harper's Magazine:

[Army Private Brandon Neely] describes body searches undertaken for no legitimate security purpose, simply to sexually invade and humiliate the prisoners. This was a standardized Bush Administration tactic-–the importance of which became apparent to me when I participated in some Capitol Hill negotiations with White House representatives relating to legislation creating criminal law accountability for contractors. The Bush White House vehemently objected to provisions of the law dealing with rape by instrumentality. When House negotiators pressed to know why, they were met first with silence and then an embarrassed acknowledgement that a key part of the Bush program included invasion of the bodies of prisoners in a way that might be deemed rape by instrumentality under existing federal and state criminal statutes. While these techniques have long been known, the role of health care professionals in implementing them is shocking.

Some conversations on other sites:

Bodega List (objections to the instant canon status and flavor-of-the-moment posting generally--for the record, am a huge fan of Jeff Sisson's work)

"Internet Aware" Art (some feel such an art should exist but basing a genre on a stray comment from one artist is dangerous)

Donald Judd on Andy Warhol (why did Judd ascribe social commentary to Lichtenstein but not Warhol?)

New Media vs Artists with Computers (attempt to continue conversation with Rhizome editor hijacked by annoying bloviator)

...inside a secondhand copy of Gregory Battcock's Idea Art, 1973