[Imc-uk-features] [Imc-uk-process] art on the newswire

[mini mouse]

At 10:46 +0100 30/3/07, Mr. Demeanour wrote:
>So if one in general allows art on the newswire, that would appear to
>mean that editorial guidelines apply to art in the same way as they
>apply to prose and photos. The only guidelines I'm aware of that relate
>to photos are "No photos of activists" or something.

I'm not aware of that one myself, but I think there's a general 
agreement not to publish pictures that would incriminate activists.

>
>Does that mean that anything goes, on the principle that art must be
>allowed to speak for itself, and only the artist can truly say what his
>art means?

The difficulty is that sometimes an image - frequently in political 
history a satirical cartoon - is the most apposite way to make a 
point. If it's well done it's truly "worth a thousand words".

>
>Or do the newswire editors instantly become art critics, responsible for
>judging the meaning of an image?

Maybe so. We seem to be letting these Latuff cartoons appear because 
what we perceive them to say doesn't contravene the guidelines. If 
there was "Bring Back Slavery" by Latuff it might get hidden. Then 
again, if it was clearly ironic and one 'perceived it' to be 
communicating the opposite it wouldn't.

>
>As far as prose is concerned, the guidelines do not provide for editors
>to hide material just because it is badly thought-out or written. If the
>same standards are applied to art, does that mean that any pointless
>doodle can be posted, and be immune from hiding? What about (for
>example) an image that is apparently racist, but which the artist swears
>means something quite different from that?

"Apparently" is the tricky word here, due to interpretation. However 
I'm pretty sure articles and comments have been hidden (I'm sorry I 
don't have the time right now to trawl through and find examples) 
which have clearly been troll posts - hidden as disruptive.

>
>I'm not making these observations because I'm opposed to posting art on
>the newswire; I'm actually in favour of it. But I think that if art is
>allowed, then editorial guidelines need to be extended to permit the
>hiding of crap at the editor's discretion.

I'm sure crap wasn't what you meant here, and I'm unsure about 
'editor'. In hiding posts we're moderating the newswire and enforcing 
editorial guidelines agreed upon by consensus. Editing is to me a 
much more hierarchical act.

That's important here because this dialogue has arisen precisely as 
it should, inasmuch as maqui hid a posting, the author wrote to the 
list (which I've just noticed is 'process', what happened to 
imc-editorial? - I'll add it in) and other moderators have discussed 
it. Eventually one hopes there will be a happy and negotiated 
agreement.

That seems to me to be a peerless example of open publishing.

mini mouse