Hi CRUMB list readers
As it is the first of the month (white rabbits in the snow!) this is
a brief thank you to those who participated in the theme discussion
for October and November about jurying and online curating... I
thought it was useful the way it segued into discussions about
copyright issues online, and would urge you to continue to discuss
and use this list to ask those questions you would like answers to.
Our apologies that we have been traveling and teaching/lecturing so
much we haven't been more on top of moderating discussion here.
That said, I was very glad of the suggestion which came mid-month to
contribute to a process to develop the WikipediaArt project for
display at Transmediale (crowdsourcing curating?) and I am concerned
we don't drop that thread. So I would urge CRUMB list lurkers to help
out Scott and Nathaniel in this -- so far no one has suggested any
other ideas than mine of remixing / mashing up in a performative
style the WikipediaArt debate text with another work. CRUMB, as a
list, as a distributed community, has never curated anything
collectively before, and so this could be a very nice way to end off
the year, with something productive. Nathaniel, can you rephrase what
you want in as simple a task/question as possible and set a deadline
for answers and feedback?
Meanwhile we'll try to keep the announcements to a minimum, while we
keep one eye trained on the ongoing government machinations here in
the UK which are affecting academia and the arts. Our next themed
discussion will be in February, and Beryl will tell you more about
that soon. Do please remember that the call for papers for the Media
Art Histories conference, Rewire, closes at the end of January... and
we'll be hosting a panel at CAA in New York in February, so if you
want to meet up or suggest discussions in the run-up to that, get in
touch! And friend us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/
pages/CRUMB-The-Curatorial-Resource-for-Upstart-Media-Bliss/316359367817
Cheers from very snowy England,
sarah
> On 16 Nov 2010, at 20:27, Nathaniel Stern wrote:
>
>> The original Wikipedia Art took the form of a Wikipedia page,
>> which, given the citation mechanisms behind the site, also meant
>> that all discussions both inside and outside of Wikipedia were
>> implicated. We orchestrated a small number of interviews and
>> articles and a bit of participation, then let the work unfold as
>> more folks got involved. We believe that the discussions on, for
>> example, Rhizome and ArtFagCity and iDC, were as integral to the
>> project as the mainstream press and Wikipedia-based debates that
>> allowed its very temporary existence on the site.
>>
>> The Wikipedia Art Remixed project took quite a few forms, mostly
>> video, some sound, and a few images. There were reenactments and
>> mash-ups of the deletion debate and water-cooler discussions (Sean
>> Fletcher and Isabel Reichert, and Michael Szpakowski), baseball
>> cars (Qi Peng), rock music videos (Kent Watson), the addition of
>> WIkipedia Art to many other Wikis (Gregory Kohs), and so much more.
>>
>> For the New York gallery show, we worked with Sean Fletcher and
>> Isabel Reicher, whose video we absolutely loved, and got local
>> actors to perform the script from the aforementioned video.
>>
>> And Scott and I have ourselves been working on an academic chapter
>> about Wikipedia Art, which will appear in a book that critically
>> analyzes Wikipedia put out by the Institute of Network Cultures at
>> the University of Amsterdam next year. We've got a somewhat
>> performed 20-minute paper version of this, which we've given
>> together in India, and which I gave in Milwaukee and Scott gave in
>> Amsterdam. We'd be happy to send along the short or long versions
>> of these, if you (again, plural, for CRUMB) are interested.
>>
>> Given the piece's ongoing transformations around language and
>> dialogue, I love your idea of more re-mixes/mash-ups, and agree
>> that those that are either text- and/or net-based (given the
>> piece's origins) or performed live (given the performative nature
>> of the piece) make the most sense - both formally and conceptually.
>>
>> I'm keen to start on that list you mention - or perhaps two lists:
>> one for what to mix with, and one for the form it will take in
>> exhibition? - to see where it can lead. Your suggestions are top
>> notch. Perhaps we can add relational/dialogical art from other
>> trajectories as well: like Liam GIllick's spaces for discussion or
>> Gonzales-Torres' papers to walk away with (ah, no internet, can't
>> look up the names of those pieces!). With the latter, I'm enamored
>> with the ppossibility that people can take something physical away
>> with them, since that's not how we normally think of conceptual
>> work or internet-art (or Wikipedia). Perhaps a pamphlet or
>> sticker, or a file they can download via bluetooth or USB....
>>
>> This is all very exciting. Looking forward to more. Best,
>>
>> nathaniel
>> http://nathanielstern.com
|