I have been working on a concept about Wikipedia as a space for public art. First it was my last project at the IT-university of Copenhagen. Later i got the opportunity to continue working on the concept. Im really happy for that, since it’s a really central concept of trying to work with and create new spaces at the limits of what we consider art. There’s some ethical issues around it, but after that’s been dealt with i having the opportunity to work with these issues.
First off i went to visit some of my relatives, because it turned out one of them over the years had developed a huge private archive of art. It was begun before computers were a common thing, so it’s all done in the old library way. It looks really good. So if he want’s to go to some city, mostly in Denmark, he can look it up, and see, hmm i would like to see this public art on the way. If all this information was available at Wikipedia we could all do that. So this archive is an inspiration to what information about public art can be used to. GPS coordinates would make sculptures and other work acccessible in the public, both at Wikipedia and other related networks, like Google maps and different location services. At gmaps you can toggle Wikipedia content, along with pictures and videos with GPS info from users of Panoramio and Youtube, so it’s really public.
Yesterday i finished a short report in collaboration with Nis Rømer about what we would like to do. Also we’re looking forward to Gillion Grantsaan getting back from Africa. The concept is about how art practice can work out as articles and guided walks or tours online. And it’s a series of short concepts, depending on a temporary groupwork, so it’s not just about my ideas of combining network. I’m looking forward to see how it works out if we can continue working on it.
I’m not sure, but i have the impression that some people related to the art world could consider this project a devaluation of art. Maybe so. One of the things about art that comes to the surface in my talks around Boom Pearls is that a more nuanced understanding of art is present in Berlin where i have some of the talks, than in Copenhagen and Denmark, where art online isn’t such a big thing. Off course there’s a difference between different kinds of art. The Real Shit of some people isn’t the same to others, and then suddenly value changes, and RS is worth millions. If you could take the money issue out of it, it would be more about appropriation. In The Real Shit project it’s within the art world, and about building up careers, some kind of heritance i guess. When you go out of the art world, it’s also a matter of how to get back. So i also consider these projects to be building small bridges between different areas or networks and relating different spaces to each other. It’s possible other’s don’t like it. In Denmark we’re only 5 million people speaking the same language (or is it more today). So we have less experience within the language projects of Wikipedias. Local subjects from Los Angeles with 30 years of history that’s notable in the english Wikipedia can be difficult to relate to danish art history and language. Then it can be difficult to explain some projects as important because they may be academically brilliant within one context, but to other people, there’s no codes available to understand it. So i hope our work can help to improve what’s notable. One issue could be art with political content. It may be a matter of rhetorics, to make it notable in Denmark today. Today i read a blogpost about a project that’s against the danish terror law, which makes it illegal to put up a few posters or even some stickers, if the police thinks it disturbs traffic, the projects suggests to get rid of the law. The danish terror law is somehow within political consensus. Maybe this isn’t notable at Wikipedia for other cathegorical reasons, but i hope that the governing consensus of the danish language project doesn’t rule out projects because the language is to small to provide a historical context for art outside the art world.
