Talk:Otto Muehl

Cleanup tag
The article was interesting to read, entertaining, informative, BUT this is not the place for essays. Problematic is the 1.ps pl. perspective, story telling style... Ben T/C 20:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a biography section to the article with the hope we can avoid a clean up. I believe the biography section would suffice for those looking for brief information on Otto Muehl. I think we should leave the remainign sections as it may interest readers to learn more about Otto Muehl's philosophy on life and arts. Although I do admit it in essay form I find it hard to edit it. Any help would be much appreciated. 14:08, 02 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit this article
This subject does not warrant such an extensive explanation. I think it would be more appropriate to summarize and keep in mind the general relevance to art and culture. This detailed explanation of events on the commune for example is very distracting. It would be difficult to find such material in any book on the subject and there are numerous illuminating and scholarly essays on Otto Muehl and the Vienna Aktionists that are much more meaningful to the uninitiated than are the juicy details of his sex commune. I think the authors should keep in mind that Otto Muehl's fame and recognition is rooted in an art movement that lasted less than ten years and which is now considered symptomatic of its times. Perhaps some of this material could be located elsewhere and linked to from here.

j.d. gliptitude@gmail.com

I found the article interesting and see no reason why it should be shortened. It is about Muhl and what happened to him. Many readers would have come to this page having seen the TV program and the further details are useful. aj

I agree, I found this article interesting, and all details pertinent. I agree that generalizations of communes should not be included on this page but the specific experiences of Otto Muehl are pertinent to his biography. anais anais 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaisdaly (talk • contribs)

In the last few months this article has been very harshly censored and the features that made it interesting to many readers have been removed. It gives the appearance that the moderator is imposing his own strongly held view on it, which is hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia. 30 Jan 2010. Thastus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.163.41 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletions
I removed among others the following Andries 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * general statements about failed communes. These belong at commune, not here. This article should treat Otto Muehl and Friedrichshof. General statements about communes belong in a general article.
 * Unsourced, unattributed opinions. These could possibly be re-added if attributed and sourced to a reputable sourced and if summarized.

Painting career
"In the sixties he began to paint;" From reading the autobiography it is clear that Muehl painted from his youth onward. This is borne out by early paintings reproduced in the exhibiton catalogue "Leben Kunst Werk." I have altered the first paragraph and this paragraph accordingly. --Gonefishin (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
I think this article violated the copyright of the author of this webpage. The reverse is also possible i.e. the webpage may have copied this article from Wikipedia, but seems more unlikely to me. Andries 16:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Criminal convictions and the legal situation in Austria
I suggest removing the description in the first line referring to Muehl as a convicted child molester. The legal system in Austria forbids newspapers etc. from publishing details of a person´s criminal acts, once sentence has been served. Although Wikipedia could probably successfully argue that Austria has no jurisdiction, the Austrian approach seems to me very Christian and laudable. Naturally we should refer to Muehl´s prison sentence but the current wording seems too frontal and, as I say, too one-sided. What do others think ? Gonefishin (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Otto Muehl's main remaining influence on this earth is 1. the creation of one of the first, the largest, the most successful and the longest lasting communes, 2. his special action art approach and 3. the destruction of his own creations, going to prison as a child molester being a part of this destruction. There are many witnesses, former communards, who published their enthusiasm and their deep disappointment and anger related to Otto Muehl. The German Wikipedia article reflects his dichotomous personality much more than this English article here. Therefore, I strongly agree with Gonefishin, I even suggest to change the categories and to edit the introduction. As I am no first hand expert on this subject, I am recommending this here instead of "being brave". However, I wish observe the development of this article and will feel free to edit it in about 1-2 months from now on (if it won't be done then).

Vigala Veia (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently without consulting the discussion Sibeliusdeblius has re-introduced the criminal box and a detailed ( and incorrect ) listing of crimes, which I am now once again removing. In general everyone knows that crimes ( especially those governing sexual relationships ) are variable between different cultures and different times. I wouldn´t think many wikipedians would want to see a criminal box for Oscar Wilde, although he broke the then current British law. ( Examples abound : Socrates,Nelson Mandela etc. etc.) And specifically as regards Muehl, his convictions related to activities in Spain ( Gomera) and in Austria. Leaving aside the probable procedural error at his trial of bringing evidence relating to territories where Austria has no jurisdiction, it is self-evident that activities which are criminal in one land are not necessarily criminal in another. To sum up
 * 1) the criminal category is, per se, very problematical
 * 2) detailed descriptions of people´s criminal acts may well contravene Austrian law
 * 3) such descriptions seem to me unchristian

Also once again correcting the length of sentence which was six and a half years according to Muehl´s website. I´m sure he knows ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonefishin (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

1) We are not in Austria.

2) Wikipedia is not censored

3) We are going to list his convictions in full, and we are going to categorize him per his convictions and include the appropriate infobox. Sibeliusdeblius (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the above comments by Sibeliusdeblius

I propose removing the info box ( again !!) and to correct the factual errors introduced by this editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonefishin (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I do not know who this " we " is; surely the only "we" that is relevant here is the community of Wikipedia editors. The question of whether Wikipedia is "in " Austria or not is too complicated for me to judge. It is also too complicated to dismiss in one line.
 * 2) the issue here is not censorship but to what extent one wants to be in-your-face with the convictions/criminal acts of ones fellow men
 * 3) same question regarding " we" ? Sibeliusdeblius seems to have an undeclared agenda and to be unwilling to engage in substantive discussion


 * Declined. We have an infobox for people convicted of serious offenses, to be used in all such articles. If you don't like the infobox, you need to nominate the infobox for deletion. Also, Wikipedia's publisher and servers are not in Austria, I'm not in Austria, and I don't give a flying --- about Austrian idiosyncrasies. Sibeliusdeblius (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, simply to say "declined" and to swear at Austrian culture and law is not discussion. The user is once again riding roughshot over the opinions of others; I have therefore removed his undo edit, and propose to leave the article as it now is, unless there can be a substantive discussion where we can find agreement.Gonefishin (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is Altenberg?
This statement is made in the article: ". . . culminated in a revolt under the direction of Altenberg." but the article does not indicate who Altenberg was. 91.32.87.77 (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"sex offender" as descriptor
In view of the issues raised in the recent case in the UK regarding the use of " sex offender" as a descriptor on a Facebook page, and the fact that the term covers completely different acts in different cultures and jurisdictions, I propose removing the term "sex offender " as descriptor. Gonefishin (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Otto Muehl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.agpf.de/Schlothauer-AAO-Muehl.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)