This page should be redirected from the Viractuality page. Valueyou ( talk) 12:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a discission here about the merge. freshacconci talktalk 11:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. [1]
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.
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. [2]
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.
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. [3]
Above statement displays similar analytical problems again. The cited source is again primary.
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:
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)
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)
OK I surrender. Merge it is.
Valueyou (
talk)
19:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This page should be redirected from the Viractuality page. Valueyou ( talk) 12:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a discission here about the merge. freshacconci talktalk 11:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. [1]
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.
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. [2]
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.
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. [3]
Above statement displays similar analytical problems again. The cited source is again primary.
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:
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)
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)
OK I surrender. Merge it is.
Valueyou (
talk)
19:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)