<br><br>Well, I suppose if one were to write a sort of meta level on "Wikipedia
Art," you could justify an entry, in the same way that you can justify
an entry on Mariliths and Dungeons and Dragons. The D&D entry does
not present the Marilith as a "real" creature, but rather it defines it
as an object that exists within a fictional or imaginary world. In the
case of Wikipedia Art, "Wikipedia Art" is an invented concept that is
being hashed out by a bunch of people, and as such, it would seem to
merit an entry on the topic. But, off the cuff, I would say, the entry
is not the art itself, any more than conceptual art is ever contained
strictly within a discrete artifact.<br>
<br>But more important than the concept of Wikipedia Art is the concept
of Wikipedia itself. As always, the question is the difference between
the thing and its representation, or about Borges' and the uselessness
of a 1:1 scale map. To be useful, the map must represent the totality
of a territory within a fraction of its total space. To be useful, the
map must also provide a sufficient amount of detail in order to achieve
the desired outcome.<br>
<br>An encyclopedic entry maps an area of knowledge. A "good"
encyclopedic entry should provide the reader with a lay of the land
which is more efficient than the text to which it refers, it is a way
of putting a big idea or concept into a manageable nutshell.
Otherwise, what's the point of the encyclopedic entry in the first
place? But, if the concept in the nutshell, is larger than the concept
out of the nutshell, then I would say that it fails as an encyclopedia
entry. Wikipedia, as a community, has a right to correct failed
entries.<br>
<br>In the case of "Wikipedia Art," either the term refers to a larger
set of conceptual problems, in which case, it is not "performed" on
Wikipedia... but rather, it is being performed outside of the
encyclopedia, and, like a good encyclopedia should, Wikipedia only
provides a limited map to the actual "art." But, if "Wikipedia Art" is
strictly performed on Wikipedia, then it falls out of consideration as
a proper Wikipedia entry and becomes an appropriation of Wikipedia by
artists (which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your
opinion of Wikipedia and the ideology that it expresses). And,
Wikipedia has a right, as an experimental community of intention, to
protect the integrity of its community's intention through its own
internal logics... Otherwise it becomes something other than
wikipedia. One way or another, it will come down in favor of a
particular definition of wikipedia, and this will inevitably challenge
one set of priorities and affirm another.<br>
<br>So, I think that Wikipedia Art needs to figure out what it is. Is
it an encyclopedia entry documenting a conceptual project which has
played out over a larger landscape? Or, is it a conceptual project
attempting to describe itself, and struggling with each iteration of
its representation? Does the Wikipedia entry provide a metacomment on
an imaginary idea? Or is the metacommentary what we are engaging in
just confused rumination over what amounts to a "trap street," the
desire to personally mark, what is otherwise a pretty good map?<br>
<br>To state it differently: This is not a pipe, but we are all
smoking it, anyway. And, though I don't know the first thing about the
artists, I guess it's more interesting than what I was planning to do
right now (grade papers). So, aside from my scrupulous quibbles about
the essence of an encyclopedia entry, I do have to say, "thank you,"
whoever you are, in spite of myself.<br>
<br>Peace!<br><font color="#888888">Davin Heckman<br><br>P.S. Check out this essay on Encyclopedias: <a href="http://www.rhizomes.net/issue3/fernandezhtml/encyclo.htm">http://www.rhizomes.net/issue3/fernandezhtml/encyclo.htm</a><br>
</font>