checking wikipedia

This week's task for our blog was to look up two subjects on wikipedia that we already knew a lot about and to check the validity of wikipedia's info. We were asked to answer the following questions:

Is this an accurate article? *
Does it cover all the basic facts that you'd need to understand this topic?*
Does this article follow the wikipedia guidelines for useful articles?*
Is this article fair and balanced, or is it biased towards a particular side or argument?

The first article I looked up had to with my favorite comedy movie Billy Madison. The wikipedia article gave the film's basic background - it's rating, total profit while it was in theaters, plot, characters, and actors in the film. The plot summary given was comprehensive and accurate and a person who was looking for a well-written synopsis of the film would be extremely satisfied. The article is not biased in any way and gives a fair and balanced portrayal of what the movie is about. If I could change anything, I would write down additional info about the movie's production - such as where it was shot and who were the film's writers and directors. The article also neglects to mention how successful the movie was out of theaters on dvd and vhs releases. But besides those minor points, I feel that the Wikipedia article was a good resource for learning about the film.

The second article I looked up was that on one of my favorite actors Bruce Willis. Wikipedia had tons of information about the actor, singer, song-writer including a list of his albums and movies, the gross profit that each made, as well as his political views, personal life, life before stardom, and up-coming projects. There isn't any more information one could ask for or expect from an article. The article follows the guidelines of a 'good' wikipedia article in that none of the article is biased and all information and quotes are backed up by over 60 reference points. I wouldn't change anything about the article except to add a couple more movie photos of the actor.

Walter Benjamin's "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

After reading Benjamin's "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" it is easy to see that the German critic's his fears for what new technologies would do to the traditional notion of art can be easily applied to the digital artwork of today. Benjamin stated that a piece of artwork's greatness is to be measured in the piece's "aura" or "original' attributes. To Benjamin, the piece of art that is to be revered is the piece that cannot be easily reproduced and whose ownership history can be traced back to its creator. To Benjamin, the easy reproduction of artwork with new technologies made such artwork have less of an "aura" than the art of a non-technological age. In our current circumstance of digital photographs and media, Benjamin would without a doubt be unhappy with how easy it is to re-create or re-record what is considered today to be new art (films, photo's, etc.).
In Benjamin's terms, the digital art of today does not possess his all-important "aura". Most, if not all digital art can be reproduced using programs, scanners, or digital recorders. Indeed, it would be very hard to distinguish which digital photo was the first of its kind, and which photo was a copy. For older works of art such as paintings and sculptures, it is somewhat easy to find discrepancies in reproductions that make them different from the originals.
Although Benjamin might disagree with me, I do believe that even though many people are currently exposed to many digital programs and resources, it still takes an artistic person to create digital artwork. I think that because so many people are now exposed to digital programs, more people have an opportunity to develop their individual artistic sides and create works of art.
I think that a photo shopped picture can indeed become a work of art if the creation is original and intriguing. Contemporary photographer Andy Warhol became famous for his doctored photos of Marilyn Monroe and The Beatles. His creations were and still are valued in our society because at their creation they were original and intriguing. Today, many people could make Warhol-Type photos, but will always be Warhol who will be accredited with the style.