"

Well I had the idea that adding content to wiki was what was expected. I fail to understand the ""pure genius"" comment other an attempt to be nasty. I may add that his 2 essays on Baudrillard were accepted for publication at the International Journal of Baudrillard Studies: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/ so your testimony to their worthlessness seems silly and rather petty of you. Yes I created this page and 2 more (Frank Popper and Ebon Fisher) but after this experience there will be no more content supplied by me. There are NO claims of ""global influence"" - only specific facts concerning all three pages I created for you. If you object to my linking his early work to punk - then remove that reference but please stop your pettiness.

 Rydernechvatal

I think you dodge the issues at hand completely. The issue here is the integrity of the online encyclopedia. To place Nechvatal into the field of collage artists, on par with Matisse, is patently disrespectful to this project. There are thousands of artists who do collage, and very few deserve mention on Wikipedia. My brother is an artist but you won't find me putting him all over Wikipedia! He just doesn't have the stature required. That's not a criticism of his work (or of Nechvatal's), it's a statement about what an encyclopedia is for. May I suggest you build Nechvatal a nice MySpace page?

Similarly, to place a 2 page review on Baudrillard alongside the remarks of Susan Sontag is not helpful either. The point of the encyclopedia is not to list every possible thing connected to Baudrillard (in which case Nechvatal's piece would qualify); the point is to discuss and link things which help introduce and illuminate someone at the scale of an encyclopedia. There are thousands of published articles on Baudrillard and very, very few of them have a place on Wikipedia. The same is true of punk visual art and so on and so forth.

You really don't own up to any of this. This is why the charge of pettiness applies well to you: if you truly took responsibility, you would remove your additions and links yourself, rather than ditching this chore to the community. But that's the basic misunderstanding here: Wikipedia is not about individual promotion, by self by fans or by family, it's about a community of people building knowledge in a collaborative way.Dylanfly 

Nechvatal, as a collagist, is discussed in Brandon Taylor's recent book ""Collage"" published by Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2006, p. 221. Perhaps your brother is in that book as well? Thus I have nothing to own up to.

For the first citation: He has also exhibited in Paris, Cologne, Alalst, Belgium, Lund and Munich and has participated in museum exhibitions around the world.[citation needed]  see the artists CV here for list of exhibitions : http://www.eyewithwings.net/nechvatal/bio/bio.htm

For your 2nd citation for his work being in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.[citation needed] see: http://www.msstate.edu/Fineart_Online/Backissues/Vol_15/faf_v15_n04/text/review03.html

For #3: Art historian Donald Kuspit has written in his essay The Matrix of Sensations that Nechvatal's digital painting demonstrates that ""there are more possibilities of freedom in digital art — that is, the ""mental elements"" are ""free[r] to enter into various combinations"" and thus to be manipulated — than in architecture, painting and sculpture.""[citation needed]

see: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit8-5-05.asp which is cited in the reference section

 For #4: Frank Popper states in his book From Technological to Virtual Art that Nechvatal's computer virus work is important to the history of art as it has advanced the use of digital technology and artificial intelligence, while defending and preserving the values of formal painting.[citation needed] see: Frank Popper From Technological to Virtual Art, MIT Press, pp. 120-123

This is also cited in the reference section

Does that help?

Rydernechvatal"