Wikipedia is an internet based encyclopaedia made free to the public to access and edit. Complete with over 2 000 000 articles its easy to see why so many people decide to use such a big service, yet cannn we really trust what we are reading when anyone can edit the facts and manipulate the truth. I visited an article on the Gilmore Girls, which I found on the Wikipedia site itself. The following questions outline what i found by looking at one article amongst millions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_girls
* Does it cover all the basic facts that you'd need to understand this topic?
This article does give a good overview of the series yet at times it is a bit of a spoiler. The article gives away too many secrets of the show that people want to discover while watching. The article doesn’t include enough if not any picture of the characters or actors themselves to show people what the characters look like. With this being the case, the language used in the article doesn’t describe the characters personalities in enough extent. The article also does not contain any quotes from actors or from the director and producer herself, Amy Sherman-Palladino. The following were a few things I noticed about the article;
-When discussing history of certain aspects of the show and its characters, it is not referenced or made note when in the series it occurs, for example season 4 episode 20.
-Also makes notes to happenings within the show that were not main events but a written as if they were.
-Lorelai in fact proposes to Luke in the final seconds of the last episode of season 5 and in the premiering 6th season he accepts.
- The relationships of lorelai section is not in chronological order which would make it hard for people unfamiliar with the entire show to understand who she was with first.
Is this article fair and balanced, or is it biased towards a particular side or argument?
This article is self promoting of the Gilmore girls itself and does not in fact promote it in any negative light. Perhaps this is because the person writing the article created it for fellow fanatics to read and for people interested in the show to gain a better knowledge.
What changes would you make to this article to improve it and make it useful for the wider Wikipedia community?
If I was to edit this piece I would place more photos and pictures to illustrate the show as it is about a show that people might want to view after reading the article so by having a picture or two people can see what it is they are looking for when they go to ezy dvd etc. I’d also place in text referencing to which season and episode the occurrence being mentioned was from so the relevant information is given for someone to revisit that time and place within the series.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Walter Benjamin
Art work is an extremely subjective topic that is often up to the receivers taste as to whether they like it or not, yet the introduction of digital media is creating new boundaries from the old culture known as true art. Can something digitally mutilated still be known as art? With paintings such as the Mona Lisa preserved for years, a photo shopped picture could surely not be placed on the same pedestal? Could it? The following questions contain my answers and true and correct extracts from Walter Benjamin’s work “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” which outlines the 1930’s worries of art being lost in future society.
How do the ideas from Walter Benjamin's "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" apply to contemporary digital media?
Walter Benjamin’s "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" portrays many ideas that relate profoundly around mass media and the essence of true art within mechanical reproduction. ‘Today the cult value would seem to demand that the work of art remain hidden.’ Written in the 1930’s, Walter was on the mark for his assumption of the future of technology. His statement above relates to modern contemporary digital media whereby mass produced ‘digital media’ does not in fact contain a glowing amount of true art work, it is more hidden as a result of its decreasing validity. Walter was presenting in his work the aspect of art as being an ‘instrument of magic’ that imbedded pure and raw talent that was sought after in past times, whereas in later times it was officially recognised as a work of art. Yet as a result of new technologies such as digital media, can we honestly say that this is a piece of art?
There was a time when "Art" was made by artists who were skilled professionals. Now that anyone with a computer can create things digitally (music, images, videos, etc), what does that mean for "art"?
By digitally producing music, images and videos the implied term of art is under great duress. Works of art that used to be promoted and given its credibility through the skilled people and society that made up the artistic world, but as a replacement, computers can now generate a computerised replica of art that is able to be mass produced. Art has now become a reproduced clone of itself as a results of the introduction of computers and the technology is embeds. True art still remains yet the technology that replicates itself as art does not contain the true aspects of such a thing. Walter Benjamin stated; ‘the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value’
Is a Photo shopped image "authentic"?
Throughout his work Walker Benjamin makes the point that; ‘Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence.’ This extract highlights and confirms to a modern society that something used on a regular basis in today’s society is in no way explicitly authentic. A true authentic art work contains a history and place by which it was created and by doing so people can attach themselves to the item. A photo shopped images has been digitally mutilated to contain a presence that never existed originally, falsifying the true view of the piece. As a result of this application people are being presented with a false reality and in doing so diminishing the true essence of the original piece of Art work.
Do digital "things" have an "aura" (in Benjamin's terms)?
Walter Benjamin believed that; ‘One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.’- as a result of this that with true art comes an Aura with age. A painting created centuries ago contains an aura, a certain amount of history and presence within society that people can relate and be fascinated by. Digital media and its presence in society have altered this view of all art work containing an aura for the future. Digital things cannot possess an aura as they are a common, mass produced piece of art work. This act of cloning has diminished the aura of true art work as it is readily available for people to replicate.
How do the ideas from Walter Benjamin's "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" apply to contemporary digital media?
Walter Benjamin’s "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" portrays many ideas that relate profoundly around mass media and the essence of true art within mechanical reproduction. ‘Today the cult value would seem to demand that the work of art remain hidden.’ Written in the 1930’s, Walter was on the mark for his assumption of the future of technology. His statement above relates to modern contemporary digital media whereby mass produced ‘digital media’ does not in fact contain a glowing amount of true art work, it is more hidden as a result of its decreasing validity. Walter was presenting in his work the aspect of art as being an ‘instrument of magic’ that imbedded pure and raw talent that was sought after in past times, whereas in later times it was officially recognised as a work of art. Yet as a result of new technologies such as digital media, can we honestly say that this is a piece of art?
There was a time when "Art" was made by artists who were skilled professionals. Now that anyone with a computer can create things digitally (music, images, videos, etc), what does that mean for "art"?
By digitally producing music, images and videos the implied term of art is under great duress. Works of art that used to be promoted and given its credibility through the skilled people and society that made up the artistic world, but as a replacement, computers can now generate a computerised replica of art that is able to be mass produced. Art has now become a reproduced clone of itself as a results of the introduction of computers and the technology is embeds. True art still remains yet the technology that replicates itself as art does not contain the true aspects of such a thing. Walter Benjamin stated; ‘the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value’
Is a Photo shopped image "authentic"?
Throughout his work Walker Benjamin makes the point that; ‘Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence.’ This extract highlights and confirms to a modern society that something used on a regular basis in today’s society is in no way explicitly authentic. A true authentic art work contains a history and place by which it was created and by doing so people can attach themselves to the item. A photo shopped images has been digitally mutilated to contain a presence that never existed originally, falsifying the true view of the piece. As a result of this application people are being presented with a false reality and in doing so diminishing the true essence of the original piece of Art work.
Do digital "things" have an "aura" (in Benjamin's terms)?
Walter Benjamin believed that; ‘One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.’- as a result of this that with true art comes an Aura with age. A painting created centuries ago contains an aura, a certain amount of history and presence within society that people can relate and be fascinated by. Digital media and its presence in society have altered this view of all art work containing an aura for the future. Digital things cannot possess an aura as they are a common, mass produced piece of art work. This act of cloning has diminished the aura of true art work as it is readily available for people to replicate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)