User:Ceciliasheppard/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Art Destruction

Evaluating Topic:

Q: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

A: Everything in the article was related to the topic. I was surprised by the order of sections, natural, accidental, and intentional destruction. I would have thought that intentional destruction would have been the first element presented because it seems like the most looked for element.

Q: Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

A: Information seems rather up to date. However, It could be really nice to have a timeline that provided a little more context for the different sections. For instance, information about when intentional art destruction began would add a lot.

Q: What could be improved?

A: There could be more examples for each of the subjects within the topic.

Evaluating Tone:

Q: Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that seem heavily biased toward a particular position?

A: Article tone is very neutral, and not heavily biased in one direction.

Q: Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, underrepresented?

A: Viewpoint seems pretty neutral as well. However, there is much more information about intentional art destruction than either natural or accidental destruction. These two sections may be underrepresented and could use some more examples.

Evaluating Sources:

Q: Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims of the article?

A: A few of the citation links do not work properly. Although the sources support the claims of the article, there are not enough sources. More sources would provided a greater wealth of knowledge that would inherently become even more neutral.

Q: Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

A: Each fact in not referenced, and not are all reliable. One of the references is a BBC news article which is not as biased as an academic journal for instance would be. Many times, that bias is not noted.

Checking the Talk Page:

Q: What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

A: This article was written by one person. He explained his process when writing this article but a lot of his reasons for why he structured this article in the way that he did, although may have seemed obvious to him, were not explained well enough for other editors to properly understand.

Q: How is this article rated? Is it apart of any WikiProjects?

A: Article does not appear to be rated. This is apart of the WikiProject: WikiProjectArts.

Q: How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

A: There is a wealth of information about what art was intentionally destroyed, however, unlike in class, the article does not focus on reactions or even retaliations against artistic destruction practices.

Article Selection:

1. Virtual Reality Censorship:

Q: Is the article content relevant to the topic?

A: I would be creating this article. There is a lot of debate around the ethics of certain proposed and current uses of virtual reality. Censoring certain games or parental controls are a huge part of the conversation around virtual reality.

Q: Is it written neutrally?

A: This might be the hardest aspect of writing this wiki-page. Most information I would be sourcing from would be very biased over the ethical issues virtual reality faces. Finding neutral information from academic journals or blogs might prove quite difficult.

Q: Does each claim have a citation?

A: NA

Q: Are the citations reliable?

A: No citations yet, but once again, I am concerned about how biased the references might be.

Video Game Censorship:

Q: Is the article content relevant to the topic?

A: The article content is relevant to the topic. However, Wikipedia points out that the lead section of the article could do a better job summarizing the rest of the article. This is an area I could help out with.

Q: Is it written neutrally?

A: Article is written pretty neutrally.

Q: Does each claim have a citation?

A: Most claims do have citations but there are a few that are lacking.

Q: Are the citations reliable?

A: There are 44 references, the majority of which seem reliable.

Link: Video game censorship

Parental Controls:

Q: Is the article content relevant to the topic?

A: The article content is relevant to the topic.

Q: Is it written neutrally?

A: Article content is not written as neutrally as it could be. Wikipedia noted that there may be original research within this article. It would be good for me to find some more reliable sources and edit the article so that it reads even more neutral than it currently is.

Q: Does each claim have a citation?

A: Each question does not have a citation but there are quite a lot of references.

Q: Are the citations reliable?

A: References seem pretty reliable.

Link: Parental controls

Art Destruction:

A: I answered all of the questions above because this was my article evaluation topic. I identified a number of areas that I think would be particularly good for me to edit to strengthen this article. I also really like that this is a WikiProjectArt because I am an art history major, and so I am particularly passionate about editing this article.

Link: Art destruction#cite note-2

Art Censorship:

Lead:

Art Censorship is when art works are decommissioned, taken down from an art gallery, museum, or public space, modified, defaced, or destroyed often times due to political, religious, or graphic content deemed inappropriate.

Notable Examples:

thumb|Piss Christ by Andres Serrano (1987)

1. Piss Christ by Andres Serrano

Piss Christ is a photograph (60x40in) of a crucifix submerged in Serrano's own urine.

The thing about the crucifix itself is that we treat it almost like a fashion accessory. When you see it, you're not horrified by it at all, but what it represents is the crucifixion of a man. And for Christ to have been crucified and laid on the cross for three days where he bled to death, he shat himself and peed himself to death. So if Piss Christ upsets you, maybe it's a good thing to think about what happened on the cross.

2. Open Casket by Dana Schutz

Open Casket (2016) was shown at the Whitney Biennale in 2017. The work was very controversial because the artist, Dana Schutz, a white woman, portrayed Emmitt Till who was lynched by two white men after he supposedly cat-called a white woman. Some people thought it was inappropriate that a white woman would choose a black Civil Rights movement figure as her subject. The work was protested to be taken down. Hannah Black, a black artist, in conjunction with over 25 artists of color wrote an open letter to the Whitney Biennials' curators, Christopher Y Lew and Mia Locks demanding that the painting be destroyed. Dana Schutz responded by saying,

"I don't know what it is like to be black in America but I do know what it is like to be a mother. Emmitt was Mamie Till's only son. The thought of anything happening to your child is beyond comprehension. Their pain is your pain. My engagement with the image was through empathy with the mother."

Dana Schutz also decided that she would not be putting Open Casket up for sale. The Whitney left the painting up despite calls for its removal and destruction. thumb|Charlie Hebdo

3. Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1178

L'Origine du monde by Gustave Courbet (1866)

5. Fountain by Marcel Duchamp

Fountain (1917) is the first examples of readymade art. The artwork was made from a urinal that Marcel Duchamp bought at a sanitary supply store, and signed. Duchamp submitted Fountain to be shown in the Society of Independent Artist's inaugural exhibition under the name R. Mutt which he signed and dated on the side of the work, "R. Mutt 1917." Fountain was censored because not only was it deemed inappropriate, but the board did not consider a urinal a piece of art. When the Fountain was censored, Duchamp resigned from his position as one of the board members of the Society.

6. Michelangelo's David

Michelangelo's David (1501)

Methods:

• Going to add information about methods in which art was destroyed, artists were given death threats, etc.

Damnatio Memoriae:

Damnatio Memoriae, or "condemnation of memory" in Latin, is the process of eradicating someone's memory. This practice primarily took place in ancient Rome, and was one of the worst punishments someone could receive. In ancient Roman society, "a Roman's house was perceived as an extension of the self, signaling to divine protectors and social and genealogical status to the world outside." Similarly, just as the house would have been seen as an extension of the self, memory was thought of as one of the best ways to understand the self. In a society without much written documentation, memory training was a big part of Roman education. Orators, leaders, and poets alike used memory training devices or memory palaces to help give speeches or tell long epic poems. In The Natural History, Pliny writes,

It would be far from easy to pronounce what person has been the most remarkable for the excellence of his memory, that blessing so essential for the enjoyment of life, there being so many that were celebrated for it. King Cyrus knew all the soldiers of his army by name: L. Scipio the names of all the Roman people.

Memory palaces were used to provide an aid for remembering certain key ideas. By assigning locations in their homes for different ideas, poets or the like, could walk back and forth through their house, recalling ideas with every step. Many times, memory training involved assigning ideas to wall paintings, floor mosaics, and sculptures that adorned many ancient Roman homes. The punishment of damnatio memoriae involved altering the rooms, many times destroying or tampering with the art in their homes as well, so that the house would no longer be identifiable as the perpetrator's home. This would in turn, erase the perpetrator's very existence.

Obscenity:

Throughout history, many nude artworks, were censored with fig leaves over the genitals. In 1504, Michelangelo's David was censored by the authorities with bronze fig leafs. Although the statue does not have a fig leaf over the genitals any more, reproductions and memorabilia are many times still censored.