Acvinci

Wikipedia Articles

The three Wikipedia articles were all American artists in the twentieth century. The three American artists I chose was, Georgia O'Keefe, Alice Adams, and Mary Cassatt. The reason why I chose to narrow down my choices is because the format they use introduces similar contents that our Wiki Project might use. The first artist is Georgia O'Keefe. IN this Wikipedia article it used two elements that are extremely useful when learning about artists. The first is the idea of a Legacy; what impact did the artists' work have on society and/or individuals. Secondly, in the information box at the top, they had a section explaining her influence. This is imperative in understanding the artists' work because it gives the viewer a sense of how the artist thinks and what may be important in his/her work. The categories for O’Keefe provide a wide range of options, here are a few that are noteworthy: American women artists, flower artists, Precisionist. These categories are helpful because they address art, objects of art, and techniques of art. These are relevant to O’Keefe because they represent exactly what she was in the art world.

Next, I analyzed Alice Adams, another American artist whose main focus is on land art in the 1970s'. I chose this article because land art is what we, as a class, are focused on. In addition, I found this article particularly as a bad example of format. There were no pictures displaying any of her work, as compared to the other two Wikipedia articles I viewed. When explaining art on a Web-based Encyclopedia it is important to view an example of the art that is being discussed. If one cannot view the example, then they may not fully understand the concepts addressed in the article. There were seven categories listed at the bottom: Land Art, Contemporary Artists, Columbia University Alumni, Living People, 1930 Births, American Sculptors, and American Women Artists. I found that the categories Land Art, Contemporary Artists, American Sculptors, and American Women Artists were all useful to this article. The reason why is because all of them are broad categories that clearly fit the content of the article allowing the reader to understand the basics of what is being explained. However, 1930 Births and Columbia University Alumni are extremely broad and are not critical in understanding the purpose of the article. They are not straight to the point like Land Art. Clarity and specificity is important when picking categories because it gives the reader and better understanding of what the article is about.

The third article I viewed was Mary Stevenson Cassatt. The format for the article is the same for the previous two artists. The format includes, Early Life, Impressionism, Later Life, Legacy, See Also, Notes, References, and External Links. One of the strengths of this article is using a See Also tab within the format. The reason this is important is because it is located right by the references and Notes section. If the viewer what’s more information about something specific then they can just click on the link to obtain more information. Another strength that is in this article, much like O’Keefe’s, is the use of pictures. It is important to use pictures, but not too many that will distract the reader from the text. This article used a too many pictures. Overall, three categories that I found in these three articles that will be useful to our class project are Land Art, defining gender art (female/male artists), and type of art (sculptures, painting, etc.). The reason why these categories are beneficial is because they offer an insight into what the content will be describing. In addition, an important feature of artist articles, are incorporating the right amount of pictures.

SIRIS

The Smithsonian’s public database (SIRIS) was fascinating. They have a plethora of information about their collection online. I enjoyed being able to browse their collections because they had a wealth of information, accompanied by pictures of the artwork. Also, I found it interesting that the search engine already had a phrase typed in the slot. For example, when I first opened the page, the search tab had “butterflies in art” already typed. At first, I thought that it was strange, but I found it to be useful as a first time visitor to the page. It helped to generate ideas as to what type search I should use. One feature that the SIRIS page used was a “make your own” slideshow. I think this was a neat idea, but I did not understand why they put that on the front page. The only reason is to interact with the visitor. If this is the reason, then it is a clever idea. However, they should move the slideshow into a different category, such as under the Arts and Design link. While visiting the site, I found that they used an ample amount of internal links. This allowed the viewer to venture further into their website and their collections, giving their collections accessibility to the visitor. Another type of accessibility that is present in SIRIS is the use of emailing information to the visitors email address. For example, when I clicked on the W. Oscar Sullivan Papers 1900-1960, it was broken down into simple categories (similar to Wikipedia articles). At the bottom of the page, there was a place to send the resource in an email to myself. Overall, this information system is extremely helpful in getting their collection out to the public and letting the public know all of the resources and information available to them. Accessibility is one of the main functions of this information system. However, I can’t help but to wonder how much of the public actually knows this system exists. This is where availability is lacking. The Smithsonian needs to market this site more effectively to the public, possibly through schools and libraries.

SOS

After reviewing the PDF file for SOS Save Outdoor Sculptures in Indiana, I discovered that “although the Indiana survey has been complete, there may still be outdoor sculptures that have not been documented.” I found this statement to be unbelievable. If there are still outdoor sculptures not reviewed, then the Indiana survey is not complete. Furthermore, I found that examples of what the SOS handbook considered to be outdoor public art was different than what I thought. For example, they consider grave markers and headstones as public art. Most people overlook the art used in making headstones, especially headstones made before the 1950’s. Also, some of the approaches to conserving these works that are in dire need of treatment seem to be more community-based projects. IN addition to their ideas, a suggestion might be to incorporate these problems into colleges. Specifically, it would interest and helpful to the students of Archaeology to do some fieldwork in preserving these historical works. The government might offer an internship to students involved in restoring and preserving these outdoor public arts.

http://www.in.gov/history/files/7026.pdfCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Acvinci (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fountain edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi Acvinci, would be nice if you could write how large the structure is. The other point would be to localize the fountain on the campus. I added a coordination tag, but only in hiding, and I only used the coordinates of the whole campus, because I do not kno where that fountain is on the campus. --Stone (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the image. Can you help me and describe where on the campus the fountain is.--Stone (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply