Social Media, Cultural Scaffolds, and Molecular Hegemonies. Musings on Anarchic Media, WIKIs, and De-territorialized Art Presentation by Patrick Lichty for the Critical Point of View (CPoV) conferece in Amsterdam, 26.03.2010 Patrick Lichty, assistant professor of Media Theory at the Columbia College in Chicago and independent curator, walks in with a Lila toy gun, the American way of defence, on the podium and states: "This presentation might get me killed". This sentence will be better understood after his ironical comment, that there seems to be not much consensus in consensual media. He analyses Wikipedia and other community-driven online media as cultural frames and curatorial models that problematize traditional power relations. From a radical perspective, the wiki template can be considered a site for anarchical organization. However, they are anarchic only when used in their most basic forms. These communities create their own power relations. This means, after the formation of the community, participants start to establish themselves a set of rules/social contracts, which are implicit or explicit, and are then enforced. These rules are created to frame for instance the user generated content, the community's mission and several internal governances, all of which are specific to this created community. Each user-generated community has its own agendas of power. He questions whether we can learn something from the relocation of power structures, from the institutional to the communal. Also, is the political structure of Wikipedia superior to the traditional one? Furthermore, are Wikis radical? Do their created social structures and communal cultural production have any effect on the larger society? Is there a potential for art in such a community structure? How does art and curation change when subjected to consensus? In order to answer some of this questions, he presents some user-generated communities as sources of cultural influence: The first one is the Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is a kind of internet counter-culture site. It consists of trolling, low culture (such as lolcats), pop songs, etc. In terms of cultural function, ED is the direct opposite of Wikipedia in its anarchical nature. The similarities of the two wikis seem not to be their form though, but their context. 4chan.org is not a wiki, but one can make an image available for comments. It is frequently the main influence that originates many of the famous internet themes, like the lol cats phenomenon. Also, in opposition to the wiki sites, which have stated missions, the 'Chans' are much more generalized and have lose categories. Discourse arises in a more ad hoc way. They are not completely anarchic, but considering the social structures of Wikipedia, they are much more flexible. However, do communities such as Wikipedia Art or YTMND suggest viable models for community based curating? Wikipedia Art was a further example. He explains that the entry was the art work, and any further editing was considered as continuation of the process. The interesting part was the community interactions surrounding the work. The entrance changed from a strategic art work into a tactical one, as the discussion turned into a sort of battle field and started bridging molecular communities (Wikiart, blogs, Wikipedia, etc.) and their cultures into a larger discourse. During its existence many of the community's rules, unknown to the outsider, revealed themselves into the discussion - eg. Trolls or snowball rules. Another example was the website Art in the Age of DataFlow and its wiki book chapter. Here he points out the wiki-based article on non linear narrative, that even though it was written to be modified, it has been modified only very little. The question that arises is whether authorship is still seen as something sacred, or if the community needs to achieve some critical mass to get conversation going on. Or: "Did no one simply give a ****ing damn?" In short, he examined the structures of these community based media production sites plus Wikipedia in order to verify the differences that emerge due to their local discourses and social protocols. How do they relate to the construction of society?He concludes that community-based media creation sites like Wikis create interesting potentials for curation and creation, however problematic. Will the future of curation be wiki based, or will it have the format of 4Chan, YTMND…? Furthermore, he points out that the emergence of communal media creates hegemonic structures which are not better than the institutions before them. He is neither for nor against either one, but he calls for intentionality. What is necessary is that as cultural production heads towards social media community based models, cultural producers need to maintain a cpov in order to maintain a notion on how culture is being shaped by online platforms and how a tecnocultural society is being build, as well as its culture in general. For more information check:

• Abstract
• Short Bio
• Homepages: patricklichty.com, voyd.com

"Wikipedia art doesnt exist anymore". These heavy words elapsed provocatively out of Scott Killdall's mouth somewhere during the first part of his speech. Only later on in his talk, were we to learn why. Scott Killdall stood behind the speech table. A short man, peering into the audience determined to get his message across about the life, death and debatable resurrection of the phenomenon called Wikipedia Art. Wikipedia Art was a performative act originally intended to be art composed on Wikipedia. Though confined by the enforced standards of quality and verifiability of Wikipedia, the artwork could potentially be edited by anyone as long as changes were published on, and cited from, 'credible' sources. To catalyze the launch of Wikipedia Art, Killdall and Stern had urged others to write about the project as it came into existence to facillitate sources. These sources, being interviews, blogs, or articles in ‘trustworthy’ media institutions, were meant to give birth to and then slowly transform the work of Art. And so it happened. Simply through writing and talking about it, the debate around Wikipedia Art ignited. The tremendously heated discussion led to the expulsion of Wikipedia Art from the Wikipedia demain only 15 hours after it's birth. This seemingly premature death is paradoxical in retrospect according to Kildall when he responds to a comment from the audience. As Wikipedia Art was to be interpreted as a critique of the shortcomming of Wikipedia, it was essentially an intervention. It was in itself destructed by the exact 'wikiality' it was critiquing. As Kildall explains "The majority of Wikipedia readers rarely think of the internal strucutres and rules behind Wikipedia.'' Wikipedia Art surely unveiled these structures, as we see in the skelletons that are left. In the eyes of the wiki community, Wikipedia Art was seen as commercial vandalism, and was banned from the site. Now, you might ask. What exactly 'is' this piece of art. The answer is abstract. For one, to understand it, you have to step away from the traditional concept of classical art that is based around an image. For Wikipedia Art is about the construct of words itself. Kildall teaches us throughout his talk that it's form is in words, as that is what Wikipedia does best. "Through citations and debate it existed." Subsequently, because of this debate which turned against the artwork itself, it was also destroyed. Wikipedia Art lives on in the minds of peoples far from the Wikipedia domain. For us who have missed its birth, bloom and death, we have to made do with the words of Patrick Lichty; "Those fifteen hours were magic".