Talk:Viractualism

Untitled

This page should be redirected from the Viractuality page. Valueyou (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Joseph Nechvatal

There's a discission here about the merge. freshacconci talktalk 11:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Tagged per notability and verifiability guidelines. The text is largely based on the observations of the contributing editor and not on the research of secondary sources. Most of the citations stem from self published or non notable sources. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent addtion

If the text deals exclusively with what is written in the secondary sources outlined below there would be grounds for inclusion.

Christiane Paul, in her seminal book Digital Art discusses Nechvatal's concept of Viractualism on page 58. One of the images she chooses to illustrate that section on Nechvatal is titled: "the birth Of the viractual" (2001). Joe Lewis, in the March 2003 issue of Art in America, pp.123-124 discusses the viractual in his review "Joseph Nechvatal at Universal Concepts Unlimited". John Reed in Artforum Web 3-2004 Critc’s Picks discusses the concept in: "#1 Joseph Nechvatal". Frank Popper also write about it in his book: From Technological to Virtual Art, MIT Press, pp. 120.

Semitransgenic (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of banners request

I seem to be in a cul-de-sac at the Viractualism debate page with Semitransgenic - as all the information provided came from the books and web pages cited as references. I have written nothing original. I have reported what I found. Semitransgenic demands more. Can we get other opinions please. Valueyou (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am adding this here from my talk page. Looks like only the merger issue rests and I await further talk about that. I am against it.

Tyrenius said: You can take the tags off, whenever the issues have been addressed. If you want to play safe (which I recommend) then I suggest you dialogue with the editors who are involved and placed tags etc. A short passage on Cybism in Viractualism would seem to be appropriate, then redirecting Cybism to it. The subject of a merge of the article to Joseph Nechvatal still needs to be resolved, and I again I suggest you engage in dialogue in the appropriate places and with the more involved editors. Ty 23:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valueyou (talk • contribs)

If you want I can provide a point for point analysis of the citations and the associated content to demonstrate exactly how you have engaged in WP:OR, but that shouldn't really be necessary. It should be obvious to you, if you have indeed looked at the relevant policy on original research, where you are going astray. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you pick a very clear example (with an online ref preferably) and explain the problem. Writing on wiki has different parameters to other places and can take some getting used to. This would give Valueyou a chance to amend the article appropriately. Ty 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK but first remember that: It should be noted, however, that editing articles related to or about yourself, by you or those closely related to you, is strongly discouraged, and you are instead encouraged to discuss potential edits to such articles in the relevant talk page.

Can you define "closely related"? That does not apply to me, I think. Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Example 1:

The basis of the viractual conception is that virtual producing computer technology has become a noteworthy means for making and understanding contemporary art and that this brings artists to a place where one finds the emerging of the computed (the virtual) with the uncomputed corporeal (the actual). This amalgamate — which tends to contradict some central techno clichés of our time - is what Nechvatal calls the viractual.

The statement above results from the contributing editors analysis of a primary source. The citation points to an entire thesis. Instead the analysis should be attributable to a secondary source. The analysis is therefore WP:OR.

The basis of this is drawn from an article by Dr. Nechvatal himself web-published by a highly respected source CTheory. Please see: [3] I believe I have only reported what I found there. Perhaps the footnote is wrong and should be changed? Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Example 2

Digitization is a key metaphor for viractuality in the sense that it is the elementary translating procedure today. Nechvatal thinks that in every era the attempt must be made anew to wrest the art practice away from conformisms that are about to overcome it.

Again, the statement above results from the contributing editors analysis of a primary source, but this time the source is WP:SP. The citation points to the self published item. Again, the analysis should instead be attributable to a secondary source. The analysis is therefore WP:OR.

I am here closely referencing a line from a speech by Nechvatal at Oberlin College where he indirectly invokes Walter Benjamin. How is that WP:SP? You seem to want to become pernicious with me again. I have "analysized" nothing. Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Example 3

For Dr. Nechvatal, the viractual recognizes and uses the power of digitization while being culturally aware of the values of monumentality and permanency — qualities which can be found in some compelling analog art.

Above statement displays similar analytical problems again. The cited source is again primary.

Again, the basis of this line can be found in the article I cited by Nechvatal “Voluptuous Viractualism” published in Simultaneita 01/2003. I believe I have only reported what I found there. Are you suggesting that an article about Walter Benjamin cannot mention anything Walter Benjamin ever said? You confuse me. Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• The examples represent one paragraph of text but this type of analysis is evident throughout, the cybism section being the worst offender. What we should have is an overview that is directly attributable to reliable secondary sources.
• If the editor claims that all of the information is already taken from secondary sources I would like some time to verify this before the tags are removed.
• In case it should apply note WP:COS This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy.

Finally, a note on the use of primary sources:Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

In summary there are innumerable problematic entries in the article and I'll reiterate that it will be necessary to summarise what the secondary sources offer on the subject so the issues arising from the editor providing a review of JN's ideas can be avoided. And, if the published secondary sources do not provide enough information to derive an article-worthy summary, there may then be notability issues, and you will therefore be better off complying with the consensus to merge the essence of this article with the main JN article, but you should still stick to what the secondary sources say. Semitransgenic (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? Your shot-gun approach confuses me even more here. You say "innumerable problematic entries". Perhaps others see it differently? Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the secondary sources listed, the exhibition review in Art in America only offers: The work explores, through the amalgamation of body parts, the relationships between the virtual and actual, or the "viractual," in the artist's coinage. In the birth Of the viractual, the central labia lurk beneath a shimmering acrylic surface--as if we were looking through ripples made by Ovid's Salmacis diving into the pool after Hermaphroditus. I think the reviewer's mention of 'viractual' results from having viewed JN's exhibition statement. Semitransgenic (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So what? Lewis saw the show and reviewd it in a major art publication. Valueyou (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I have worked the text's footnotes so as to point citations to 3rd part sources - and clipped some text. Perhaps it is improved? Valueyou (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You say Can you define "closely related"? That does not apply to me, I think. You have already told us: There is no doubt that I know Joseph Nechvatal...as I work in his studio as an archivist. Sorry but this is WP:COI.

You ask what consensus? the consensus is to merge the article with the main JN article as per discussion here

If you prefer, I can add my voice to this consensus and be done with it.

I have suggested how you might avoid this action, but this doesn't suit you either.

I'm not sure what you have difficulty understanding with regard to the guidelines, and I find it strange that you can not see where the article fails with reagard to WP:OR but I'm really not interested in debating policy that is clear to most.

Please leave the tags in place until the citations you are supplying have been verified.

Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK I surrender. Merge it is. Valueyou (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)