Art Space Talk: Jimmy Wales (Part 2)

Brian Sherwin: Wikipedia has been criticized for lack of art coverage. For example, Jonathan Jones of The Guardian suggests that a lot of the amassed art knowledge that can be found on Wikipedia lacks passion and basic understanding of art-- he goes as far as to say that articles about art on Wikipedia are "dull".

Jones has stated that “Art is not science”-- going on to say, “the "facts" about art don't take you very far. Knowing what date Goya died doesn't mean very much if you can't enter the emotional world of his paintings.”. In other words, Jones feels that Wikipedia contributors forget-- possibly due to policy-- to inject meaning in the art articles they contribute to.

Jones used the Wikipedia bio about Goya as an example, stating, “The Wikipedia entry just goes through his life in this flat, unemphatic way, because it wants so desperately to seem serious and knowledgeable. In reality, this approach can disguise ignorance and, worse, deliver misinformation.”. What are you thoughts on Jones opinion? In your opinion, what should Jones and other critics consider when thinking about Wikipedia as a whole?

Jimmy Wales: I don't think our rules prohibit nor inhibit lively and interesting writing about artists or anything else for that matter. It is true that we don't always accomplish it, and I think everyone who writes Wikipedia in a serious way wishes and works to be interesting to the reader. Sometimes we fail, of course. And sometimes we succeed.

It may be true that some raw 'facts' about art don't take you very far. And it is true that to help our readers understand Goya, we need to help the reader "enter the emotional world of his paintings". But that shouldn't relieve us in any way of the responsibility of being factual, of citing good sources, of not substituting random opinion of any arbitrary passerby for actual good encyclopedic writing.

BS: Other art critics have had a more positive or neutral view of Wikipedia. For example, notable art critic Jerry Saltz once said at a CAA panel that, "We live in a Wikipedia art world.“ followed by, “Twenty years ago, there were only four to five encyclopedias--and I tried to get into them. Now, all writing is in the Wikipedia. Some entries are bogus, some are the best. We live in an open art world." What are your thoughts on Jerry Saltz’s viewpoint? Would you say that due to Wikipedia the art world is now more open than in the past-- at least as far as information is concerned?

JW: Well, I hope so. I agree completely with what he says about some entries being bogus, and some being the best. That's a nice way to put it.

BS: That said, is it a goal of Wikipedia to bypass the traditional ‘gatekeepers’ of information? For example, an artist may not be reviewed by an influential art critic-- he or she may not be notable within the mainstream art world itself, but he or she can still be considered notable on Wikipedia and technically have the same standing-- as far as information is concerned-- as artists who have traditionally been accepted by art critics. What are your thoughts on that?

JW: Well, in fact, Wikipedia and Wikipedians tend to be quite conservative and old-fashioned (in some ways) about notability, and quite liberal and progressive (in some other ways). We're able to find "notability" in lots of different places and for lots of different reasons.

An artist who works in commercial anime might be completely ignored by the academic art world, but adored in anime circles, and end up with lots of magazine articles about himself and an entry in Wikipedia that treats him - quite properly - as an artist of some public standing and interest. That seems fine.

But I should clarify that I don't think it is a 'goal' of Wikipedia to bypass traditional gatekeepers, and in some ways, of course, we can be perhaps criticized for empowering them too much. It's a complex question, again, and I think there are often no easy answers.

BS: Finally, do you have anything else say about Wikipedia and art in general?

JW: I suppose my greatest hope is that Wikipedia can, in some small ways, help to get the public started in art appreciation and education. Toward that end, entries about art and artists in Wikipedia should be high quality, well-sourced, and lively.

My hope is that if someone comes for some reason (school, personal interest, accidental clicking) to the entry on Picasso (for example), that they find themselves 2 hours later exploring some much less famous artist or art, or learning about particular schools of thought in art criticism, or reading about techniques in painting, or.. or... or...

Life is about knowledge and exploration. I hope that we are a cherished place for people to do that.

This is Part 2 of my interview with Jimmy Wales. To return to Part 1 click, HERE

To read more interviews visit, www.myartspace.com/interviews

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Art Space Talk: Jimmy Wales (Part 1)

According to Wikipedia Jimmy Donal “Jimbo” Wales is an American Internet entrepreneur and co-founder and promoter of Wikipedia. I recently contacted Jimmy after reporting on an art project controversy involving Wikipedia. As readers know, I try to keep things fair and balanced. Thus, I wanted to give Wales a chance to share his thoughts on Wikipedia, art, and the concept of notability as far as visual art is concerned.

Brian Sherwin: Mr. Wales, as you know this interview will focus on art. Thus, I think it would be good to start out with some general info about your opinion of art in general. You identify yourself as an Objectivist-- with that in mind, how is the philosophy that you adhere to reflected by the art that you personally enjoy? My understanding is that you are very supportive of the arts community in general. Would you like to discuss that?

Jimmy Wales: I enjoy a wide variety of art, and I don't think it's particularly easy to answer your question without a great deal of introspection on the point, and I've not really undertaken that in any systematic way.

Having given that caveat, though, I can say that there is art that I personally enjoy for a variety of reasons - sometimes because it presents a heroic vision of life, but other times because it presents a disturbing or frightening image of life - but in an intelligent way.

I suppose I can say that the common denominator for art that I admire is: intelligence.

BS: Wikipedia has shown support for visual art by establishing a Wikipedia project titled Wikipedia Loves Art. My understanding is that Wikipedia Loves Art will take place each year in February. Can you discuss the project and your involvement with it? It will be an annual event, correct?

JW: I'm not sure if it will be annual or not - I wasn't directly involved in the organization of it, and I don't know what the organizers are planning. I understand that there is now a version of the event taking place later this year in the Netherlands. Exciting stuff!

Let me get on my soapbox a bit, and in a way that I can be gentler about than I used to be. Museums should welcome the Wikipedia community because we serve a major role in bringing art to everyone in a way that will drive interest in sustaining and protecting art in the long run.

Some museums in the past have presented a rather "proprietary" view of artwork in their museums - even art that has long since passed out of copyright. I don't think they do themselves a service in that attitude, and I'm thrilled to see how many museums are coming around to the opposite view - that the best way to promote art is not to control the distribution of information about art, but to join and support the global conversation about art.

BS: Are there plans for other art-specific Wikipedia projects that are endorsed by you?

JW: I think that Wikipedia's coverage of the arts can and should be improved. It's pretty good in some ways, and not as good in other ways. We have gaps in coverage. We have uneven quality.

The community engages in lots of "Wikiprojects" around all kinds of things. This is a good thing and I'm happy about it.

BS: Concerning artist bios on Wikipedia-- in your opinion, what makes a visual artist notable? Often it is assumed-- based on the deletion debates I’ve viewed-- that an artist is simply seeking free promotional exposure by having a bio created on the site. That said, it would be helpful to know in your own words what makes a visual artist “notable” for inclusion on Wikipedia.

JW: I'm probably not the right person to ask, since I don't get directly involved in such debates. But I'm sure many people can understand the complex dilemma that the community faces. There are no easy answers here.

The fact is, there do exist people - not just artists, obviously, and in fact, I doubt if it is a very big problem with artists as compared to some other professions - who would like to use Wikipedia as a self-promotional platform. But that's not what we're here for, really.

We have to contend with potential hoaxes, with puff-piece bios that have false or inflated claims - this sort of nonsense is routinely handled by the community. And the primary way we do it is through reference to quality third-party sources. What counts as a quality third-party source is going to depend on the context. The rules should be as simple as they can be, of course. But also, no simpler.

This is Part 1 of my interview with Jimmy Wales. To read Part 2 click, HERE

To read more interviews visit, www.myartspace.com/interviews

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Wikipedia Threatens Artists and Fair Use?

www.wikipediaart.org

I have reported on the Wikipedia Art project since its ‘birth’. The project itself, as well as the communication I had with artist Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern, interested me. Due to my interest I have been very close to the story. In fact, at one time a few bloggers confused me for one of the projects ‘fathers’. Thus, I feel that it is important to reveal updates to the story as they come in. If anything you could say I’m a supportive ‘participant’ of the Wikipedia Art project as a whole.

I was informed of the project earlier this year when artist Nathaniel Stern, a fellow www.myartspace.com member, contacted me about an ‘Internet-based and interventionist project’ that he and Scott Kildall had been working on. Stern informed me that the project would be titled "Wikipedia Art," and that the project is art that exists only on Wikipedia. I found the project to be intriguing because technically it is art that anyone can edit-- a mass collaborative project that welcomes all.

At the time Stern explained to me, “The caveat, of course, is that the piece needs to follow the enforced rules on Wikipedia. Any changes to the art must be cited from 'credible' external sources: interviews, blogs, or articles in 'trustworthy' media institutions, which birth and then slowly transform what it is and does and means simply through their writing and talking about it.”. He added, “It may start as an intervention, turn into an object, die and be resurrected, etc, through what we've started calling "performative citations.".

Needless to say, the Wikipedia Art project did not last long on Wikipedia. The project, or at least that aspect of the project, was ’dead’ in under 24 hours. Thus, Kildall and Stern documented the project-- its process and outcome-- on their own website-- www.wikipediaart.org. Unfortunately, their project has not been well received by the Wikimedia Foundation. In fact, reports state that they have been threatened with legal action.

According to the Ars Technica website-- backed by contact I’ve had with Kildall and Stern-- artist Scott Kildall received a letter in March from Douglas Isenberg, counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. Isenberg demanded that the wikipediaart.org domain be transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation. Due to the letter Kildall and Stern sought legal help from James Martin. Martin sent a reply to Isenberg on the behalf of Kildall and Stern.

In the letter Martin noted that the wikimediaart.org site did not claim to be connected with or endorsed by Wikipedia in any way and that the site was not being used for any commercial purpose. Martin stated, "We are disappointed by Wikimedia's efforts to suppress free speech by threatening legal action,". However, Isenberg’s replies apparently made it clear that the Wikimedia Foundation would not accept Kildall and Stern’s project as a mere critique or art project.

According to Kildall and Stern, Wikimedia Foundation threatened to take the case to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and hinted at further legal action. In fact, Isenberg mentioned a past legal issue involving another site-- a scare tactic. The pressure was on-- Kildall and Stern sought further help from a number of sources, including the Fair Use Project and Lawrence Lessig-- FUP and Lessig offered advice, but refused to help directly. The duo than made contact with Paul Levy of the Public Citizen Litigation Group-- who accepted the case on a pro bono basis if the issue goes to litigation. Levy is noted for having worked to defend fair use of trademark names in the past.

According to reports, Levy’s position is that the Wikimedia Foundation is trying to “skirt US law” due to the fact that they are fully aware that legal precedents strongly suggest that Kildall and Stern’s Wikipedia Art project, including the domain name wikipediaart.org, are protected by free speech and fair use grounds. Needless to say, Levy has made it clear that if the Wikimedia Foundation files a UDRP claim against the Wikipedia Art site he will seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Kildall and Stern. In response to the Wikimedia Foundation’s attorney, Mike Godwin, Levy stated, “We are not willing to allow this dispute to be resolved by reference to private law instead of the law of the United States that governs both your client and mine.".

Mike Godwin, the attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, has stated that no litigation was threatened or commenced. In fact, Godwin informed Ars Technica that there was never a threat of legal action against Kildall or Stern. Godwin insists that he contacted the artists on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation in order to request that a disclaimer-- stating that the Wikimedia Foundation is not associated with the site-- be added to www.wikipediaart.org.

Godwin stated, "The possibility of a disclaimer is inherent in the suggestion that we resolve our differences amicably,". However, as reported by Ars Technica, none of Isenberg’s correspondence-- who originally contacted Kildall and Stern on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation-- mentions anything about a disclaimer request nor does the Isenberg correspondence state that a disclaimer would be a possible resolution in regards to the dispute.

Obviously, if you go by reports, the Wikimedia Foundation is flip-flopping on the situation. As for Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern-- they have support. Ars Technica and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have both showed support for the Wikipedia Art project and the issue over the domain name wikipediaart.org. In fact, Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has stated that she is disappointed with Wikipedia over the issue. It should be noted that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has represented Wikipedia in the past in support of free speech.

As it stands it seems that the situation is in legal limbo. The Wikimedia Foundation has yet to withdraw its original letter-- so the threat of facing legal action is still a reality for Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern. The situation has not been good for the Wikimedia Foundation’s image either-- bloggers have pointed out the contradictions and hypocrisy involved with this specific situation. After all, Wikipedia would not exist if it were not for free speech and 'fair use'.

That is the key point to remember when thinking about this situation-- the fact that Wikipedia would not exist if it were not for free speech and the defense of 'fair use'. If Wikimedia Foundation were to pursue legal action against Kildall and Stern it would potentially establish a legal precedent that would work against Wikipedia in the future-- which might be why the situation is in legal limbo.

Anyone who follows the Myartspace Blog knows that I take a hard stance in support of copyright and trademark law. However, I also support the concept of "fair use" as long as it is not an extreme interpretation of the defense. In this situation we have two artists who have commented on-- and made parody of-- a widely known website. Thus, I would say that the actions of Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern fall under the defense of "fair use". They are not making profit from the Wikipedia Art project or wikipediaart.org-- they are simply offering a critique of a widely known website. This is a prime example of why we have "fair use" in the first place.

That said, it is not hard to find companies and organizations that expect all or nothing interpretations of ‘fair use’ until another individual or entity expects it of them. The fact that this specific situation involves a ‘fair use’ hassle from the Wikimedia Foundation-- which relies on the defense of 'fair use'-- comes as a surprise to individuals who, up until now, were supportive of Wikipedia in general.

The Wikipedia Art project article has been removed from Wikipedia, but an article detailing the Wikipedia Art controversy has recently appeared on the site. Which begs the question-- why would the Wikimedia Foundation-- which prides itself on free speech and open knowledge-- consider taking legal action against two artists in a way that would stifle free speech and hinder 'fair use' as we know it in the first place?

Links of Interest:

Wikipedia Art controversy -- article on Wikipedia
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art_Controversy_2009

Wikipedia Threatens Artists for Fair Use -- Electronic Frontier Foundation
www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-

Wikipedia Art dispute pits artists against Wikimedia Foundation -- Ars Technica
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-on-the-wrong-side-of-fair-use.ars

Wikipedia Art: A Virtual Fireside Chat Between Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/wikipedia-art-virtual-fireside-chat.html

Art Space Talk: Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern (interview with Kildall and Stern) -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/04/art-space-talk-scott-kildall-and.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

Myartspace Blog on Twitter

www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Art Space Talk: Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern

www.wikipediaart.org logo

Wikipedia Art is Dead. Long Live Wikipedia Art. (Before they kill it again.) On February 14th, 2009 – in a nod to the infamous ILOVEYOU email virus – Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern launched a page on Wikipedia called “Wikipedia Art.” The idea: art that anyone can edit. They simultaneously oversaw the publication of several online articles about the work, and cited these back on the Wikipedia entry page itself, so as to circumvent immediate deletion by strict Wikipedia editors.

Wikipedia Art was made “legitimate” and “encyclopedia-worthy” by Wikipedia’s own standards of verifiability, since its page referenced what are considered credible sources by Wikipedia’s own editors – including this very blog. The project lived on Wikipedia for approximately 15 hours as an intervention, performance and artwork, before it was removed by one of their administrators.

Kildall and Stern, both together and individually, agreed to answer a few follow-up questions about their work.

*Addendum and postscript*
Between the writing and publication of this article, Kildall and Stern were contacted by lawyers representing the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia. They were challenged under trademark law for using the name "Wikipedia" in their project and specifically asked to transfer the WikipediaArt.org domain name to Wikimedia. The artists are currently in negotiations with their lawyers. While their research has concluded that Wikipedia Art is protected under fair use laws, Wikimedia nevertheless has deeper pockets than the artists. Updates will be intermittently posted on WIkipediaArt.org, while it lasts. The performance continues...

***
Brian Sherwin: What were some of your initial intentions for a work of art on Wikipedia?

Scott Kildall & Nathaniel Stern: We hoped to create a piece that would continuously transform, die and be resurrected, by a collaborating public. Once the initial entry and essays were published, we invited any and all potential partners – perhaps Wikipedia would call them conspirators – to write additional articles about the work. Our suggestion was that such writing should not just “cover” Wikipedia Art, but could also “change” it.

If someone publishes, for example, “On March 16, 2009, Wikipedia Art spawned the Wikipedia Art Object – which is green and spherical” on a “credible” blog, then one could cite that quotation back onto the Wikipedia page itself, making it “true.” In addition to being an interesting and artistic feedback loop between online communities and one of the main systems that informs them (Wikipedia), the work also serves as an intervention in, and pointer to, the egos and biases behind said system.

Sherwin: What was the response on Wikipedia itself?

Kildall & Stern: Within an hour, the “Wikipedia Art” page was tagged AfD (Article for Deletion) by Wikipedia editor, Daniel Rigal. After an AfD tag, the standard process is to have a 5-day community review on the merits of the article. What ensued was a hotly contested debate on several discussion pages. 15 hours its after its birth, an 18-year old Wikipedia admin calling himself “Werdna” removed the page, and locked it down from future inclusion on the site. Interestingly, this move was in violation of Wikipedia’s own standards, but we have no recourse there.

During these discussions, both of us stepped back and let others hash out the legitimacy and transformation of the project. We never participated in any of the Wikipedia Art online debates, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. We take the fact that so many people were involved in edits to the page, heated deliberation on Wikipedia, Rhizome, Art Fag City and elsewhere - not to mention that there were many outside attempts by others to put the work back on Wikipedia’s meta-Wiki, their page for Conceptual art, the page called “Wikipedia loves art,” and several others - as a testament to the piece’s success as both a collaboration and intervention.

Sherwin: What were your expectations and hopes?

Kildall & Stern: We had expected, as stated in the press release, that the “Wikipedia Art” page would just be removed temporarily, not locked down completely. We hoped there would be a chance, or chances, to get it back up after more publications came to the fore. In retrospect, we realize that this was a vain hope— the Wikipedia powers that be would never allow it. We feel lucky that it was not simply deleted immediately, without a whimper. We would have seen that as a real failure.

Sherwin: What was revealed to you about the Wikipedia structure?

Kildall & Stern: We are both strong Wikipedia supporters. We still contribute to the site on a regular basis and promote the values behind it – free information, creative commons and GNU licenses, etc. Like most encyclopedias, it only scratches the surface in its entries, but it’s a great and easy place to start when embarking on new research, or just looking for a few useful tidbits. And the fact that Wikipedia is not owned and run by a corporation is of enormous importance.

But one of the problems we discovered is that a huge demographic of very young people (ages 16-23) dominates the Wikipedia culture, ethos and information trade. The result is a bigger emphasis on pop culture and esoteric geek factoids, while topics like art movements and artists get sidelined. Try looking up something like “Warlock (Dungeons & Dragons)” as compared to, say, digital art star Cory Arcangel, who is currently on the cover of Art Forum. The standards for the two are completely opposing! The D&D page only uses online sources far from the mainstream, while the Cory Arcangel page references some of the most important museums in existence today. Despite this, the D&D page actually calls for “expansion,” while the Arcangel page is prefaced with a disclaimer that its citations are insufficient.

The pretenses that Wikipedia is somehow objective, that the same standards apply across the board, that anyone who cares enough and knows enough and is willing to dedicate their time can be an editor, all need to be challenged. Like it or not, Wikipedia is the dominant power behind online information, and so it is our responsibility – and theirs – to take each other to task.

In short, we see a self-propagating loop of dis- or mis- or what we call un-information, where websites and other references will now quote or cite Wikipedia as proof of vitality – or worse, assume something is unimportant if it does not have a Wikipedia entry, or its entry is short or full of disclaimers – reinforcing holes in cultural knowledge. Given that so many top sites simply copy text from Wikipedia in order to flesh out their content – making their surface scratching text the dominant online information – in a post-Wikipedia age, we very often have less information at our fingertips, rather than more.

Sherwin: How did the blogs respond to the event?

Kildall: We definitely received a polarized response from blogs and the public. I felt like my name was dragged around in the mud while at the same time I received numerous private emails commending the project.

The critiques ranged from the old refrain: “this is not art” to being “too slick” to being “half-baked”. The congratulations were on setting up a simple framework that led to discussions about Wikipedia’s power within a conceptual art context.

That a huge number of people had such diverse reactions to the project, in a time when many art projects simply get ignored by the blogosphere, shows that people care about how the structure of Wikipedia is deviating from its original mandate.

Stern: What I found most fascinating on both Wikipedia and in the other debates (for example, on Rhizome) was how quickly people imputed their own issues or desires on to the project. While playful artists like Pall Thayer and Shane Mecklenburger attempted to transform Wikipedia Art through conscious decisions and performative utterances on its Wikipedia page (admittedly mostly skipping over the publishing elsewhere part), many others just wrote about what it “meant,” and transformed the piece in that way, rather than how Scott and I had initially intended. Still, that precise process and debate, at least for me, was far more interesting than I would have expected.

For example, Wikipedian Daniel Rigal, who first marked the page for deletion, saw it as a well-meaning experiment that happened to break the rules; ironic, given that Wikipedia itself is a well-meaning experiment that happens to break its own rules. Performance artist and professor, Patrick Lichty, gave it its academic, tactical and tautological flare – things he and his performance-based online personae are endowed with.

Wedrna, the 18-year-old and recent high school graduate Wikipedian who eventually deleted the page, thought we “made it up at school.” Laid back artist and blogger Jon Coffelt just asked people what they thought; he found the whole thing rather amusing and interesting, from a distance.

Art blogging star Paddy Johnson felt pity for the Wikipedians, and how hard they must work to maintain such a huge web site – something she is all too familiar with over at her own site, Art Fag City. Rhizomer and blogger Tom Moody made it all about himself, his ideas, his own bruised ego – something, anyone who reads his blog or Rhizome discussions will know, he manages to accomplish this with just about every online debate he involves himself with (and there are many). South African writer, thinker and arts critic Chad Rossouw says the project is about how art only exists fully through discourse – most critics (myself included) would likely agree.

And so on; in retrospect, it seems so obvious that this would happen, that Wikipedia Art could not last, that the debates would start out interesting but then egos would get in the way and the debaters would place themselves in the front lines, then blame each other if they got hurt, and then blame the project itself as it, and they, unraveled. But during the actual unraveling, we mostly cocked our heads, opened our mouths, and watched in earnest. It was quite a performance.

Sherwin: What are your future plans with Wikipedia Art?

Kildall & Stern: Wikipedia Art is in Phase II. It has been taken off of Wikipedia, the online discussions have mostly died down, and we have properly archived the performance on our own website at WikipediaArt.org. We’re now hoping to see more in-depth writing about the work; we are courting a few academic publications and writers to see how Wikipedia Art’s meaning might still be transformed over time.

Sherwin: Where does Wikipedia Art lie within Conceptual Art’s history?

Kildall: This remains to be seen. At this point, Wikipedia Art is driving a stake into the ground, contextualizing what it was, or could be, through this very interview and beyond. It depends on how people write about it.

Stern: Isn’t that, how people write and talk about a work to find its place in history, the case with all art – conceptual or otherwise? For better or worse, it’s the writers, the media, the Wikipedians who decide.

According to his Wikipedia page, New York Times arts critic Jerry Saltz once said, “We live in a Wikipedia art world.” So be it.

Link of Interest:

Wikipedia Art: A Virtual Fireside Chat Between Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/wikipedia-art-virtual-fireside-chat.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
myartspace blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Wikipedia Art: A Virtual Fireside Chat Between Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern

Nathaniel Stern recently contacted me about an Internet-based and interventionist project that he and Scott Kildall have been working on. Entitled "Wikipedia Art," the project is art that exists only on Wikipedia. Thus, it is art that anyone can edit-- a mass collaborative project that welcomes all.

Stern explained to me, “The caveat, of course, is that the piece needs to follow the enforced rules on Wikipedia. Any changes to the art must be cited from 'credible' external sources: interviews, blogs, or articles in 'trustworthy' media institutions, which birth and then slowly transform what it is and does and means simply through their writing and talking about it.”. He added, “It may start as an intervention, turn into an object, die and be resurrected, etc, through what we've started calling "performative citations.".

Readers can take part in the project directly-- or support the project by writing about it. Feel free to use excerpts from this article and to include a link to the project itself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art

Wikipedia Art - A Fireside Chat: An edited transcript by Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern

Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern have a virtual two-way interview.

Nathaniel Stern: I was lucky enough to spend some time with Scott Kildall in Second Life last week; Scott works with various forms of digital media (video, prints, performance, sculpture) looking at what he calls “realms of the imaginary.” Around a virtual campfire, we discussed our new collaborative project, Wikipedia Art. Wikipedia Art is an artwork composed solely on Wikipedia, and so is art that anyone can edit - with a few stipulations, of course.

Scott Kildall: I finally got to meet Nathaniel Stern in person last fall at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, where we gave a double lecture about both our bodies of work and practice. Nathaniel works across socially participatory art, interactive installation, digital and traditional print and video. During this conversation, we got a chance lay out the framework for Wikipedia Art.

NS: Places virtual hands out over virtual fire. Nice fire, Scott. Feels good. But not really.

SK: Thanks. I coded it myself. Well, not really. I bought it online.

NS: This kind of playful non-reality re-mix is a common thread in your work. You often slip into roles, re-edit histories, create virtual worlds and characters and performances, to question material and knowledge and ownership.

SK: I believe we are on a precipice of losing what is real, culturally speaking. Our relationship to knowledge and histories has become murky. We see this in places like Second Life where identities are anonymous and copyright law is largely flouted. It’s like the Wild West of digital culture. I think that’s where much of my work has been focused, from performances in virtual worlds, to a recreation of the Apollo 11 moon landing, to videos that capture dream-spaces by using “in-between” shots in Hollywood films.

NS: And this led you to the idea of an intervention on Wikipedia?

SK: Yes, well, that largely came out of our discussions together; but I’m most excited about questions of knowledge and how online institutions – like Wikipedia – frame remembrance. Online histories (and memories) get confused because they can be so easily overwritten. Although it is archived somewhere, the “truth” can get buried in the eighth page return of a Google search, rendering it effectively invisible.

I keep coming back to the strange fact that Wikipedia is an assumed source of authority. Despite the huge amount of information-space on the web, one central repository of encyclopedic information persists. This is wonderful since it is to some extent democratic, but it’s also full of holes and omissions.

What led you to the Wikipedia Art idea?

NS: I’ve been interested in performance and in words for a long time. I used to do slam poetry when I lived in New York, and my first interactive installations asked people to chase or maneuver around text with their bodies. With interactivity more generally, I’m less concerned with how software responds to us, and more with how we physically move in relation to space or words or meaning.

My recent prints are performances as well, where I traverse the landscape with a scanner to make dynamic and time-based images. I think of Wikipedia Art, which is somewhat text-based, as a performance, too. Even more than that, it’s performative.

SK: My spell-checker says performative is not a word.

NS: Performative utterances, or speech acts, perform some kind of action. The most classic example of such an event is a wedding. With the spoken words, “I do,” the speaker is transformed from a single person into a spouse. If I knight thee, you are henceforth Sir Scott; or if I declare war, peacetime has ended between us. These words distinctly change my or your state of being. I (or you or our relationship) become something else the moment I utter them.

SK: Roasting a marshmallow. So how does this lead us to Wikipedia Art?
NS: Well, you’ve noted the inherent tension around notions of truth on Wikipedia. On the one hand, it’s currently the second most visited website in existence. And Google (#1) often lists Wikipedia entries at the top of any given search page. The entire world sources most of its information from Wikipedia. On the other hand, anyone can edit most Wikipedia pages, can say something there for the world to see. So, if I “utter” something on Wikipedia, it becomes “true.” This is classically performative.

SK: Yes, but Wikipedia’s success lies in that it has certain standards that enable it to function as a viable entity. Any Wikipedia articles that do not have citations from credible external sources are removed. Otherwise, anyone could post or change any article. It would be a smorgasbord of fact and fiction.

NS: But even with that regulation, there are still problems.

SK: Right: problems such as perceived lack of authority. After all, who gets to decide what is a “credible” source of information? These sources are granted an authority that winds up influencing reality, the worldly information that we “know” as “true”. The inherent problem here is that Wikipedia is not always true, and never really real. This is Wikipedia’s strength and its weakness. It is currently affecting the real world in tangible ways.

NS: That’s the funny thing. Wikipedia is indeed controlled information - try starting your own page some time and see what happens. Its odd hierarchy grants authority to people who simply have the time and inclination to write and discuss details, who get clout through their ongoing involvement and self-propagation on the site. These folks have a lot of power, and are, both wonderfully and scarily, semi-anonymous.

The artist David Horvitz played with this, with affecting the real world and propagating himself, by editing Wikipedia. Horvitz altered the Wikipedia entry for Ian Curtis – lead singer of Joy Division – to read that in the last moments before Curtis committed suicide, he glanced at one of Horvitz's photographs. The falseness of this tidbit was eventually found out and removed from the page, but not before it became part of the mythic story: many Curtis fan sites still include Horvitz in their account of his death. In other words, Horvitz didn’t just edit Curtis’ Wikipedia page; he edited his story (history).

SK: Good example. These sorts of cases where fake stories are granted a pass in reality have appeared in popular culture as well. Remember the Halloween tale of the person who put razorblades in apples, then passed them out to kids? This never really happened! But we hear it every Halloween, from parents, on the news, from teachers and in emails. (You can verify its untruthfulness on Wikipedia, by the way.)

With online communities, instant access to research and communication, there are more opportunities for ongoing interplay; you can redress propagation stories like these.

NS: And that’s where our project starts. The core “activity” of Wikipedia Art first addresses then plays with the invisible authors and authorities of and on The Web / The Google / The Wiki. It is an artwork that is composed on Wikipedia, and so is art that anyone can edit. If people edit the Wikipedia Art page, then they performatively edit Wikipedia Art itself.

SK: And here’s the rub: before we can publish the Wikipedia Art page for the very first time, we have to be able to cite its existence and “credibility” from external and “reliable” sources of information.

NS: In other words, we have to publish this very interview before we can “birth” Wikipedia Art. They have to come out at the same time. Otherwise, the page may be removed by the powers that be: Wikipedians. (Thank you, Brian Sherwin and MyArtSpace, and all rebloggers and writers elsewhere, for your performativity.)

SK: Chickens and eggs. This is a classically interventionist piece. According to the Wikipedia page on “art interventions,” this is “an interaction with a previously existing artwork, audience or venue/space.” Like Wikipedia and its community. “It has the auspice of conceptual art and is commonly a form of performance art.”

NS: And in addition to being a kind of performance, Wikipedia Art is conceptual art because the idea is more important than the material. In fact there is no material.
Go on then.

SK: “Although intervention by its very nature carries an implication of subversion, it is now accepted as a legitimate form of art and is often carried out with the endorsement of those in positions of authority over the artwork, audience or venue/space to be intervened in. However, unendorsed (i.e. illicit) interventions are common and lead to debate as to the distinction between art and vandalism.”

NS: You’re right about that. I worry about this being seen as vandalism by the Wikipedia community, about the powers that be simply removing the entry. This is where the press and citations act as a kind of doubled gesture: they validate the project while also potentially changing it (and that change also validates the project, because that’s the point of the intervention).

SK: “Performative citations.” We invite bloggers, writers and editors to join in the collaboration and construction, the transformation, the destruction and the resurrection of the work itself – by publishing then citing and thus changing Wikipedia Art.

NS: I have a feeling that there will be many Wikipedians who will see Wikipedia Art as neither valid information, nor art.

SK: Which is also why it’s such a good intervention. Wikipedia Art intervenes in Wikipedia as a venue in the contemporary construction of knowledge and information, and simultaneously intervenes in our understandings of art and the art object.

NS: Like knowledge and like art, Wikipedia Art is always already variable. It is an intervention to be intervened in. It is a project that lacks material, but still has a make up: that of social space, of the social interstice, of its own and our potential.

SK: The layered intervention. You can hijack the intervention itself. Wikipedia has flexible meaning; art has flexible meaning; meaning has flexible meaning. We are problematizing all of this, and asking others to participate in the process, in that performance.

NS: Just as the term “art intervention” alludes to, Wikipedia Art is a subversion from within the dominant paradigm. It uses context and media to speak back to power; it’s a feedback loop between what is, what could be, and who says so. Like Banksy hanging his own art in the Tate without permission; or Duchamp’s submission of a signed urinal to the Society of Independent Artists in New York.

SK: Those examples are from the Wikipedia page on art intervention.

NS: Point illustrated. And for the grand finale: “I now pronounce Wikipedia Art.”

SK: It’s alive! Alive!

Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern conclude their virtual two-way interview.

You can learn more about Scott Kildall by visiting his website-- www.kildall.com. You can learn more about Nathaniel Stern by visiting his website-- www.nathanielstern.com. You can take part in the Kildall and Stern's Wikipedia Art project by clicking here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com