User talk:Gootaga

Hyperreality

Hi, thanks for your recent edits to the Hyperreality article. I am wondering if the particular phenomenon you are discussing merits its own article because I am not quite sure it relates to what the main article is about. You can edit this page or click on my talk page and edit it to reply. Thanks - Abscissa 18:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and constructive suggestion. I have an impression that the main Hyperreality article is hopelessly fractured at best, ranging from bona fide philosophy (relatively poorly explained when compared to other existentialist branches) to non sequitor(s) in abundance throughout, i.e. Las Vegas. (Perhaps Walt Disney's foray into France or McDonalds' promulgation throughout Mainland China would be more appropriate - not to mention Wal-Mart.)

I agree that the subset of hyperrealism in the visual arts merits an addendum article dedicated to its phenomonogical rise as a burgeoning worldwide school of legitimate art. However, I respectfully suggest that it should not be dismissed as irrelevant in context of the article as a whole piece. The irony is that visual arts have as a cultural habit and political exercise been categorically dismissed from the mainstream of "reality" indeed as a hyperreal mode of expression and therefore predictably deemed as secondary in importance.

Perhaps hyperreality should be expanded more in keeping with the actual writings (rather than with commonly fanciful interpretations by relatively uninformed third parties) of the philosophers themselves - whereby hyperreality as a recognized artform can be used to legitimately illustrate hyperreality in a proper and full context, with an appropriate reference to it in an independent construct. There are, of course, various other cultural, social, economic, political and ontological hyperrealities worthy of mention within.

This is not by any means aimed at your suggestion or contributions, but rather, based upon a general impression gained from reading and re-reading the general article, albeit with some degree of frustration due to the almost comical ironies. If I can help in creating, or contributing to, a second article - it would be my pleasure. Thanks - Gootaga 01:45, 26 June 2006

Thanks for your comments. I am fairly sure that hyperreality as you understand it is different from the specific phenomenon in the article which relates only to philosophy. Las Vegas, for example, is very symptomatic of and helpful in understanding hyperreality, as is McDonald's -- and Baudrillard writes about both. "America" is his diary of his travels in the U.S. In "System of Objects" he spends a lot of time talking about consumer objects, and packaging, etc. so it is incorrect to say that he is a "pure theorist." Perhaps it would help if I could understand what background you are coming from, e.g. semiotics, philosophy, art, etc. as my background is continental philosophy. - Abscissa 08:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link about Vegas, or you can google for "baudrillard vegas" --Abscissa 08:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FYI, here is one of the many things Baudrillard says about Vegas: The secret affinity between gambling and the desert: the intensity of gambling reinforced by the presence of the desert all around the town. The air-conditioned freshness of the gaming rooms, as against the radiant heat outside. The challenge of all the artificial lights to the violence of the sun's rays. Night of gambling sunlit on all sides; the glittering darkness of these rooms in the middle of the desert. Gambling itself is a desert form, inhuman, uncultured, initiatory, a challenge to the natural economy of value, a crazed activity on the fringes of exchange. But it too has a strict limit and stops abruptly; its boundaries are exact, its passion knows no confusion. Neither the desert nor gambling are open areas; their spaces are finite and concentric, increasing in intensity toward the interior, toward a central point, be it the spirit of gambling or the heart of the desert - a privileged, immemorial space, where things lose their shadow, where money loses its value, and where the extreme rarity of traces of what signals to us there leads men to seek the instantaneity of wealth. - Abscissa 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. My reference, albeit thinly developed, to LV was meant more in the context of how it was explained within the article as an anathema to reality in a singular isolated case. I stand corrected as to B's use of LV as an example; however, my reading of the text had left me wondering as to foregone conclusions by the author(s), apparently taken for granted whereby the assumptions offered appeared as foregone conclusions of the hyperreality anomaly. Good point as to his not being a pure theorist, something I usually rationalize to overlook contrarian points of view which seem to offer more consistency, if not validity. Major interests in Jungian phenomenology and art. In any event, I will plead guilty to dissecting and adhering to B's philosophies where they align with experience, and perhaps to rationalizing what appear as less justifiable tenets. -

Gootaga 10:45, 26 June 2006

Hey again... I made Hyperreality (art) its own article... I am not fermilliar with the concept outside of philosophy so hopefully you can add to the new article as you feel necessary. - Abscissa 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it became clear that once the legitimate subject of the hyperrealism painting movement had its own "hyperreal" space it could grow and develop accordingly. However, in adding extension articles referring to leading hyperreal painters around the globe listed in the main article, a startup page was accordingly allocated to Jacques Bodin, a well known hyperreal painter who is central to the European wing of the hyperrealism painting movement. Someone thereafter arbitrarily slapped a number of editorial stickers on the article's windshield, and short of removing them, I thought of appealing to your sense of balance. Although these ancillary articles can be expanded, it would appear to be couterproductive, since the painters referenced within the main article are "agents" or extensions of the painting movement, and not singly or individually the movement itself.

Neither the main expanded article, nor the brief expositories of each painter, can stand on their own merit, as they are not mutually exclusive but rather interdependent variations on the same theme. Gootaga 11:03, 1 July 2006

Tawkerbot2 problem

I'm confused. Do you want the article deleted? Or did you just want the link removed? Typically, when an author want to delete an article they made and solely edited, they use {{db-author}}. If this is what you're looking for, let me know! :) joshbuddy, talk 22:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion and doubly sorry for the apparent ineptitude. Yes that's it exactly. I can try the {{db-author}} but where exactly is it performed? Thanks. Gootaga 18:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alicia St. Rose for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alicia St. Rose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia St. Rose until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Alicia St. Rose

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Alicia St. Rose requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. SarahStierch (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Suzana Stojanović

The article Suzana Stojanović has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unref blp - I could not establish that she does meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]