The Rhizome Digest merged into the Rhizome News in November 2008. These pages serve as an archive for 6-years worth of discussions and happenings from when the Digest was simply a plain-text, weekly email.
|
Subject: RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.21.04 From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME) Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:29:32 -0700 Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org RHIZOME DIGEST: May 21, 2004 Content: +announcement+ 1. kurt bigenho: The Mobile Phone Photo Show (MPPS) 2. Rachel Greene: Rhizome.org Announces Winners of 2004 Net Art Commissioning Program 3. ryan griffis: Underfire forum 4. hannah davenport: Lumen Eclipse - A Multimedia Arts Event +opportunity+ 5. Rachel Greene: Fwd: NY press screenings of The Yes Men movie tonight and later 6. Jennifer Estaris: WTD: video Game Artists in NYC +interview+ 7. Jemima Rellie: Tate in Space [with Susan Collins] +thread+ 8. t.whid, Mac McKean, Geert Dekkers, ryan griffis, Marisa S. Olson, Joy Garnett , Rob Myers, Christina McPhee, richard willis, marc, Rachel Greene, patrick lichty, Edward Tang, CK SHINE, Patrick Simons: rhizome needs to drop its membership fee and free its content + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. Date: 5.15.04 From: kurt bigenho (kurt AT unfinished.com) Subject: The Mobile Phone Photo Show (MPPS) The Mobile Phone Photo Show (MPPS) Invites Participants from Around the World to Send In Photographs Taken With Their Mobile Phones. Rx presents "The Mobile Phone Photo Show" (MPPS), a participatory exhibition of mobile phone photography curated by Kurt Bigenho and Gregory Cowley. Opening May 20 with a reception from 7-10pm, the MPPS installation will capture and process thousands of mobile phone photographs sent in by participants from all over the world, during the course of the exhibition. MPPS runs through June 18, 2004 at 132 Eddy Street, San Francisco. Gallery hours are daily by appointment, as well as nightly Thursday-Saturday. The exhibition features video monitors, projectors, kiosks, a window-display photo booth activated from outside, as well as a 60x20-foot wall which will eventually be covered in printed photos. Participants are required to register. Registration is free to anyone with a photo-capable mobile phone and is available by logging onto the rxgallery.com website and following the MPPS link. The direct link is: www.rxgallery.com/mpps. We currently have registrants from: Poland Venezuela Czech Republic Spain France Switzerland The Netherlands Canada Croatia England Moldava (partial list) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. Date: 5.17.04 From: Rachel Greene (rachel AT rhizome.org) Subject: Rhizome.org Announces Winners of 2004 Net Art Commissioning Program Rhizome.org Announces Winners of 2004 Net Art Commissioning Program FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, May 17, 2004 CONTACT Rachel Greene, Rhizome.org Phone: 212.219.1288 X208 Email: rachel AT rhizome.org NEW YORK, NYâ??Rhizome.org is pleased to announce that seven artists/groups have been awarded commissions to assist them in creating original works of net art through its Commissioning Program. Paul Catanese, Warren Sack, Jason van Anden, Luis Hernandez Galvan and Carlo Zanni will receive awards of $2,500-2,900 each. Commissions of $1,750 will be awarded to Kabir Carter and C-Level. A panel of jurorsâ??independent curator Yukiko Shikata, Francis Hwang of Rhizome.org, Natalie Bookchin of The Art Center, and Rachel Greene of Rhizome.org--selected six winners and one Honorable Mention from a pool of about fifty proposals that were received by the March 7, 2004 deadline. Members of the Rhizome.org community participated in the evaluation process through secure web-based ballots, selecting a proposal by artist Carlo Zanni to win a commission. Launched in November 2001, the Rhizome Commissioning Program makes financial support available to artists for the creation of innovative new media artwork via panel-awarded commissions. To keep the program relevant and timely, requests for proposals (RFPs) will change from year to year to reflect new developments in technology and the current cultural environment. National Endowment for the Arts, the Greenwall Foundation,the Jerome Foundation, and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. Additional support has been provided by members of the Rhizome community. This year, the RFP was sent out on January 21, 2004. Artists were invited to submit proposals relating to the theme of Games. The proposal asked artists to â??propose projects that will contribute to the art game genre, or reflect on broad interpretations of â??game.â?? â??Since 1996 Rhizome.org has been supporting the new media art community by providing a place where artists and others can exchange information, share opportunities, present new work and engage in critical dialogue,â?? said Rachel Greene, Executive Director of Rhizome.org. â??We are thrilled to be able to provide direct financial support to artists. Grants and commissions are particularly important for new media artists because, unlike artists who work with more traditional media such as painting and photography, artists who work with new technologies have a limited ability to sell their work. Giving these artworks an institutional presence is a different but very important form of support for new media artists.â?? The chosen projects will be publicly exhibited on the Rhizome.org web site at http://rhizome.org starting in November 2004. They will also be preserved in the Rhizome ArtBase archive, and presented at a public event in New York City. ... $2900 Awards: MISPLACED RELIQUARY by Paul Catanese (San Francisco/CA/US) http://www.paulcatanese.com/rhizome/index.html A collection of relics and their holy travels will be catalouged and contained within a virtual repository which will take the form of a gameboy advance ROM that can be viewed and "played" online. In addition, instructions will be given for downloading the ROM file itself and installing on gameboy advance hardware. Finally, an artist's edition of 5 game cartridges will be created as well. Paul Catanese is a hybrid media artist and Assistant Professor of New Media at San Francisco State University. He received his MFA from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, where he lectured for several years. His artwork has been exhibited internationally, notably at the Bangkok Experimental Film Festival, Parisâ?? Villette-Numerique, Germanyâ??s Stuttgarter Filmwinter and the Canadian New Forms FestivalRecently, Paul became and artist-in-residence at the Kala Art Institute in Berkeley, California through their fellowship program and was awarded a net.art commission from Turbulence.org with funds made possible by the National Endowment for the Arts. OVERSATURATION by Luis Hernandez Galvan with support from Gabriel Acevedo (Mexico City/MX) http://opensorcery.net/gaming This game is about a small sphere (the player) trying to make its way through a highly saturated, crowded system, and trying to postpone its collapse. Luis Hernandez Galvan is an artist and architect based in Mexico City, Mexico. He was recently an Artist In Residence a the Centro de La Imagen in Mexico. Other works include http://heterarquia.org and the installation vitrinas/public art. Galvan studied architecture, and has been published in architectural journals and worked with figures and studios inlcuding Jaime Varon and atelier lcm. FARKLEMPT by Jason van Anden(New York/NY/US) http://www.smileproject.com/farklempt Managing feelings is essential to getting along in the world. Keeping emotions inside can be just as damaging as just letting them flow. "Farklempt" challenges players to manage their emotional-health and maintain relationships through skillful manipulations. After earning a BFA in Sculpture from Syracuse University and attending Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture, Jason Van Anden moved to New York. Surviving New York became his preoccupation as he built a successful career designing software systems for clients as diverse as Citibank and Duggal, eventually incorporating as Quadrant 2, Inc. Recent artwork portrays human behavior in an ongoing series of artificially intelligent, interactive robotic sculptures that express themselves emotionally through body language, sound and facial expressions. This body of work is called The Smile Project (www.smileproject.com). AVERAGE SHOVELER by Carlo Zanni (New York/US and Milano/Italy) http://www.zanni.org/rhizome/ Average Shoveler takes its aesthetic inspiration from the adventure game â??Leisure Suit Larry.â?? The goal of the game is to shovel the falling snow in front of the userâ??s home. Each flake of snow contains an image taken live from the CNN.com news site, turning the project into a comment on information overload and media colonization. Carlo Zanni (La Spezia, 1975) is an Italian-born artist whose work is focused on the intersection of computation and representation. He paints landscapes and he programs portraits. His work has been shown at the P.S.1 Museum NY, the 1st Tirana Biennial, Bitforms gallery, the 3rd Biennale de Montreal, Canada and at Analix Forever gallery in Geneva among other physical and net places. For more information about Zanni, please visit: http://www.zanni.org/ $2,500 Awards: AGONISTICS: A LANGUAGE GAME by Warren Sack http://www.hactivist.com/proposals/proposal_rhizome.html The images and actions used as metaphors by Chantal Mouffe and other theorists of "agonistic democracy" can be instantiated as interactive, graphical objects and dynamics. This "literal" instantiation will then be a computer game that can played by posting messages to a public, online discussion forum. Warren Sack is a software designer and media theorist whose work explores theories and designs for online public space and public discussion. Before joining the faculty at the University of California, Santa Cruz in the Film & Digital Media Department, Warren was an assistant professor at UC Berkeley, a research scientist at the MIT Media Laboratory, and a research collaborator in the Interrogative Design Group at the MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies. He earned a B.A. from Yale College and an S.M. and Ph.D.from the MIT Media Laboratory. More information about his current work can be found at this website: http://people.ucsc.edu/~wsack $1,750 Awards: ENDGAMES by C-level (Los Angeles/CA and New York/NY/US) http://www.waco.c-level.cc/rhizome/proposal.html C-level will work on the next installment of the Endgames project, a multi-part series in which the artists incorporate elements of subjective documentary and pure fantasy with experimental technologies to create a visceral gaming experience based on psycho-social phenomena. Having addressed the 1993 Waco, Texas government/cult showdown, C-level is currently developing works addressing the MOVE conflict of 1985 and Ted Kaczynski (aka "The Unabomber"). C-level is a cooperative public and private lab formed to share physical, social and technological resources. Its members are artists, programmers, writers, designers, agit-propers, filmmakers and reverse-engineers. Part studio, part club, part stage and part screen; C-Level has a space in an isolated basement in Chinatown Los Angeles which plays host to various media events such as screenings, performances, classes, lectures, debates, readings and tournaments. LISTENING (Working Title) by Kabir Carter (New York/NY/US) http://effects.blogs.com/rhizomeproposal/ Carter will construct and deploy a non-competitive and non-linear goal oriented interactive text game. Whereas most games involve the deployment of a single subject interacting with a written description of a visual space, Listening will concentrate on the description of acoustic phenomena. Descriptions of sounds will be the vehicle that guides the game player through the environment. Kabir Carter's work focuses on urban environmental sound, acoustic feedback, analog sound synthesis, transmissive acoustics, specialized microphone technologies, and the presentation of live electroacoustic work in public spaces. Kabir lives and works in New York City, has studied electroacoustic composition with David Behrman and Richard Teitelbaum at Bard College, and currently studies privately with composer and performer Joan La Barbara. He was recently selected by Robert Ashley to attend a composers' residency at Atlantic Center for the Arts, and received a Media Alliance Independent Radio and Sound Art Fellowship for his project Shared Frequencies. Honorable Mention: Linkhunters.net by Kerstin Günther http://tandk.homeip.net/k/linkhuntersNet.html Rachel Greene Executive Director, Rhizome.org New Museum of Contemporary Art 583 Broadway, NYC, NY 10012 tel. 212.219.1288 X 208 fax. 212.431.5328 ema. rachel AT rhizome.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering subsidized memberships to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded communities.) Please visit http://rhizome.org/info/org.php for more information or contact Rachel Greene at Rachel AT Rhizome.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. Date: 5.18.04 From: ryan griffis (grifray AT yahoo.com) Subject: Underfire forum SYMPOSIUM JORDAN CRANDALL UNDER FIRE A critical forum on the organization and representation of violence Saturday May 29, 2004, 3 - 7 p.m. Location: Witte de With, Rotterdam, and online at www.v2.nl/live  Witte de With organizes in collaboration with V2_Organisation, Institute for the Unstable Media a symposium focusing on the issues debated in the Under Fire forum from January 25 till April 29, 2004. The main speakers are John Armitage, Asef Bayat, Susan Buck-Morss, Brian Holmes, Gema MartÃn Muñoz and Loretta Napoleoni. The discussions will be moderated by Jordan Crandall and will be conducted in English. The debate will be live streamed via www.v2.nl/live. Apart from viewing the live event, you can join the discussions making use of IRC chat. (For detailed directions see www.v2.nl/live). Online moderation by Stephen Kovats, V2_.  PROGRAM 3 p.m.                  Welcome by Catherine David and introduction by Jordan Crandall 3.30 - 4.30 p.m.    Lectures by Brian Holmes, Asef Bayat, and Susan Buck-Morss 4.30 - 5 p.m.         Discussion and live feedback 5 - 5.30 p.m.        Break 5.30 - 6.30 p.m.    Lectures by John Armitage, Loretta Napoleoni, and Gema MartÃn Muñoz 6.30 - 7 p.m.        Discussion and live feedback 7 p.m.                 Closing  For reservations phone +31 (0)10 4110144, or e-mail office AT wdw.nl . For more information about Under Fire, the speakers and the webarchive see www.wdw.nl.  PUBLICATION The first publication in the Under Fire series - hot off the press - entitled Jordan Crandall. Under Fire. 1. On the organization and representation of violence, will be on sale during the symposium. It contains a compilation of the dialogues that occured online in spring 2004. Price: â?¬ 12.00.  Under Fire is a project by Jordan Crandall organized by Witte de With in collaboration with V2_, Rotterdam. Witte de With, center for contemporary art Witte de Withstraat 50 3012 BR Rotterdam tel. (+ 31) 010 4110144 fax. (+ 31) 010 4117924 http://www.wdw.nl + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + For $65 annually, Rhizome members can put their sites on a Linux server, with a whopping 350MB disk storage space, 1GB data transfer per month, catch-all email forwarding, daily web traffic stats, 1 FTP account, and the capability to host your own domain name (or use http://rhizome.net/your_account_name). Details at: http://rhizome.org/services/1.php + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + SPECIAL FOR MAY 15 - JUNE 15: All those who sign on to Copper or higher hosting plans during these dates will receive three months of full service for only $1.00! That's (Copper) starting you out with 400MB disk storage space, 2GB of data transfer, 5 POP accounts, and 5 email forwarding accounts. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Date: 5.19.04 From: hannah davenport (hannah AT artafternext.org) Subject: Lumen Eclipse - A Multimedia Arts Event After Effects Chicago Presents: _____________________ LUMEN ECLIPSE Tuesday, May 25th 2004 ___________________ A Multimedia Arts Event Chicago, IL- After Effects Chicago presents *Lumen Eclipse*, their 2nd multimedia event of the summer, featuring an evening of digital art, experimental video, and a musical performance accompanied by live video mixing at Wicker Parkââ?¢Ë?s lounge-eatery Rodan (1530 North Milwaukee Ave). The evening will host a unique synergy of events representing the new digital experience in art and music. Opening the event, XChicago will be hosting an Industry Mixer with video artists and professionals, set to the rock/pop samplings of DJ Sanchez Ali. Next is an exploration of the visual and aural arts ââ?¢â?? a screening of The Best of Art After Next TV. The AFX TV line-up includes: * The experimental video art of Walter Wright (inventor of the music video) * The AFX interview w/ controversial punk rock group The Locust * AMODAââ?¢Ë?s (Austin Museum of Digital Art) experimental contemplative audio performance series with Brent Fariss & Bill Thompson *Select features from the Illegal Art Exhibit Following the video feature, The Passengers, will give their live debut performance with a one-hour set, accompanied by digital artist Mason Dixonââ?¢Ë?s live video mixing. There will also be raffle prizes, open to all, from Digital Juice, Magnet Media, and DV magazine that will help to fund future Art After Next and AE Chicago non-profit events. Event begins at 7pm. 21+ to enter. No Cover. 773/276-7036 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. Date: 5.20.04 From: Rachel Greene (rachel AT rhizome.org) Subject: Fwd: NY press screenings of The Yes Men movie tonight and later Begin forwarded message: > From: The Yes Men <administrative AT theyesmen.org> > Date: May 20, 2004 10:57:42 AM EDT > To: rachel AT rhizome.org > Subject: NY press screenings of The Yes Men movie tonight and later > > Hello! This afternoon at 4pm (and also on May 26 at 8pm and June 3 at > 6pm), > the movie called The Yes Men (http://www.theyesmen.org/movie/) will be > screened by United Artists for the press--including yourself if you can > cite some media affiliation. > > To attend, please email mailto:ina AT theyesmen.org and tell her: > > * a name for yourself > * your media affiliation (magazine, zine, website, etc.) > * your daytime phone number > * whether you are 1 or 2 people > > Then, at 4pm, go to 1350 6th Ave. (at 55th Street), 28th floor, > Manhattan. > > Additional screenings at the same place and with the same RSVP system > will > be held on May 26 at 8pm and June 3 at 6pm. > > See you soon! Or at least, be seen by you soon! > > The Yes Men > > -- > You are receiving this message because you've subscribed to the Yes > Men's > mailing list and told us that you are in the New York area. To edit > your > profile, please visit > http://theyesmen.org/dblist/prof.php?e=rachel AT rhizome.org&x=656911902 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. Date: 5/20/04 From: Jennifer Estaris (jfe2101 AT columbia.edu) Subject: WTD: Video Game Artists in NYC We're looking to hire the following on a project basis: an art director and artists for a game-like demo that we are putting together. 3D models, textures, animations, etc. We especially need artists interested in working on concept art (though we want texture artists, animators, audio ppl, etc., as well) and prefer NYC-based artists. And you should like robots. The project is part-time for a few months (and could go longer). Previous game experience--working with a real time renderer and modern game engines--is a huge plus, but we're not targeting super high-end rendering. You should be familiar with 3ds max, maya, photoshop, 3d modeling. Email your resume and portfolio link to bernie.yee AT mail.com (and mention how you found out about the opening). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. Date: 5.21.04 From: Jemima Rellie (Jemima.Rellie AT tate.org) Subject: Tate in Space [note: this is part one of a two part interview - part two will be published in next week's digest] Tate in Space © Susan Collins 2002 Tate in Space (www.tate.org.uk/space) was conceived as a site specific artwork for Tate Online. It was commissioned in 2002 as part of Tate Onlineâ??s ongoing net art programme. The site is part fact, part fiction. It is intended as an agent provocateur: a catalyst, structure and location that invites debate and reflection on the nature of art in space, cultural ambition, and an examination of the role of the institution and the individuals within. Tate in Space also works as interactive or immersive fiction, where each visitor is encouraged to engage with their own extra-terrestrial cultural fantasies. Some aspects of the work - such as the satellite sightings data - rely on participants 'wishing' or 'believing' the narrative into existence, assuming a position of co-authorship; collaborating with both the artist and each other in a work of constantly expanding collective fiction. Further information about the work can be found in Paul Bonaventuraâ??s critical essay, Floating Worlds 2002, commissioned to accompany the launch of Tate in Space. Discussion about Tate in Space with Susan Collins & Jemima Rellie 20 February 2004 - Tate Members Room, 6th floor Tate Modern JR - Jemima Rellie SC - Susan Collins JR Why the interest in Space? What is the background? I mean, are you interested in art in space or in space art? SC Iâ??m not so interested in Space Art per se but Iâ??m intrigued by why people were becoming so interested in space. I got interested in the idea when probably a lot of other people did, when the Mars Pathfinder was actually sending direct web cam images back to earth, and you could actually go and follow the Mars Pathfinder through these wonderful grainy webcam images. It was very exciting that you were actually able to see that happen in real time. And then I was also interested in the idea of, well how easy it would be to fictionalise that. At the time I was interested in possibly coming up with a spoof NASA site. JR Was it going to be a website? SC It was going to be a website, â??n a five a dot orgâ?? [NA5A.org], I checked that that was available, and discussed the idea with some net art curators [e2]. I was really interested in creating artist residencies in space, and the concept that they would be actually sending back their work. But at the same time, suddenly - and probably because of the Mars PathFinder - Arts Catalyst and various other Space related Art initiatives were launched and it seemed to be a very zeitgeisty thing. For this particular project, I wasnâ??t really interested in it being yet another Space art project. I wanted it to just come out of the blue. I didnâ??t want it to be seen within the context of a general interest in Space Art as such, I was much more interested inâ?¦ JR The fiction of it allâ?¦ SC Yes JR Which is really interesting and what separates you in a sense from those artists who are more concerned about the practicalities, the real what happens, the materiality of spaceâ?¦ whereas you are more interested in the construct of â??spaceâ?? and what it says about usâ?¦ SC And why we might be interested ... in it ... and what our motivation is, and what it says about earth, and what it says about the context for us viewing things and our understanding of how we see things. Because it suddenly became so fashionable, I wasnâ??t so interested, so I dropped the idea. But when you gave me the opportunity to come up with an idea for the Tate website, as the kind of artist who has access to web space anyway, for me the question was, well what can I do on the Tate site that I might not be able to do elsewhere. For me it was what is it about this institutional context that I could actually do something with. So I came to where we are now, Tate Modern. I spent the day just thinking about Tate Modern and all the different Tates. It took a while for me to work out what I wanted to do, it wasnâ??t quite there... I got very interested in deconstructing the branding - how the whole thing, the whole organisation works - and then it came togetherâ?¦I think it was about the day before the deadline youâ??d givenâ?¦ JR Really!? SC Yes, the day before it all sort of came to me, it was really like marrying these two ideas together [space and the Tate]. I think Iâ??d been thinking about all the different Tates, and about how I could link them, and I was very much wanting to do it within the context of Tate as an institution, I... for me I just didnâ??t see the pointâ?¦ of having a website that was just aâ?¦ websiteâ?¦ JR I think thatâ??s very interesting. As you say, the web has really allowed artists to bypass organisations like Tate. Actually, they, you donâ??t need us. SC So I wanted to take advantage of the situationâ?¦. JR As an interventionâ?¦? SC Yes, but also there was a little bit of it that was about how net art is so invisible within terrestrial institutions and how we might have an incredible visibility internationally, with a certain kind of audience reach, if we do things online. JR So when you conceived Tate in Space, was it intended to somehow address that issue? SC No, it was more a case of: I donâ??t want to do some little website that no-oneâ??s going to look at! JR So letâ??s be audacious! Lets stand up there and say that weâ??re equal to Tate Modern! SC Yeahâ?¦so its like Iâ??m not just going to make a little piece of art, Iâ??m gonna give you a whole new Tate. So it was kind of like 'oh well sod it'! And then I just had such fun, thinking it up and playing with all those funding constructs - or constraints - the things that both institutions and artists at the moment have to think about: the search for new audience, innovation, accessibility, that kind of thing. JR And it fits so well with precisely what Tate is about, that it has fooled a lot of people, and I love that. Sandy Nairne - who was instrumental in commissioning itâ?¦ His foreword to the projectâ?¦ it sounds SO real, no wonder people fell for it. It speaks about Tateâ??s â??history of innovationâ?? and â??explorationâ?? and you know we are about supposedly pushing boundaries andâ?¦ SC Well there are only two organisations that one could have done it for in the world that it would have been believable. One would be the Guggenheim, because that has satellites, and the other is Tate. And the idea of the satellite obviously has a very nice little sort of double entendre in relation to Tate in Space as wellâ?¦ JR But do you think that Tate and the Guggenheim are the same? SC No theyâ??re very different institution, but anywhere else ... it just wouldnâ??t have been plausible, and so the only reason that I mention these two [the Guggenheim and Tate] is because these are the two that are really known particularly - JR For being a network and interested in satellite sites and creating new spaces within one brand. SC And I am not sure but I think also for Tate the whole re-branding happened when Tate Modern came onstream? In terms of â??Tateâ?? as opposed to â??the Tateâ??. JR Absolutely. SC Colour coding the institutionsâ?¦and I think that itâ??s largely the branding that made it plausible as well and whilst a project like this could, in some respects have existed as an offline project in an earlier age through leafleting or posters or something like that, certainly that would have not been nearly as plausible or as economically possible - or worked in such a seamlessly integrated way as is possible now with â??Tateâ??... having such clear, graphically scripted parameters as well. So it was a very seamless thing for me to be able to borrow all your [web] templates. I have to sayâ?¦that when I made the proposal, I really enjoyed just writing it as a proposal, for me the proposal was an art work in itself I was having such fun and really, really enjoying the idea of it landing on your deskâ?¦.. JR But this fun thing I think is very crucial. A very fundamental element is that it is playful - the whole piece is playful. SC And people pick up on it, their own imagination suddenly runs with this idea of what this new Tate might be. What I thought was fantastic was that the Tate in having come up with a very serious kind of corporate brand, was willing to actually have this piece operate, and one of the things that I asked for, as you know, in the original proposal was that it should be integrated, absolutely within the Tate site and that there would be a link alongside the other Tates from the homepage of the Tate site for the first yearâ?¦and the fact that you were all so willing to actually do that made it possible. JR Well it was essential for the whole piece to work wasnâ??t it? SC Exactly. JR Iâ??m very interested in what you said before: that it wouldnâ??t have been as successful or it wouldnâ??t have worked in the same way pre-internet. And there is a tendency for some net artists to be slightly scornful of this type of work that is more conceptual and yet the piece is so successful because itâ??s online. It's taking full advantage of the medium. Itâ??s about creating a fiction and a group of people combining to contribute to this fiction that has made it work, and the participatory elementsâ?¦ are I think critical. SC Well itâ??s very much about creating a space for people to occupy, so in some respects as the artist I chose to become as invisible as possible within this structure. Although I have a role, which is director of this new Tate. But it was very much about offering this up as a space very much as other kind of public spaces are: for people to come in and make of it what they will, and all I could do is imagine what might happen. So the piece in a way whilst clearly constructed only really begins when its launched. Thatâ??s when you really find out what then may happen. JR Which makes it quite tricky as an art work, I mean, as we discovered. How do you credit everyone involved at all times? And different people talking about the work will focus on certain elements that arenâ??t necessarily the whole piece. Theyâ??re part of the piece and a way into the piece but they donâ??t constitute the whole piece and thatâ??s quite hard to manage. It does it takes on its own life, and in a sense, you have to let it do that. SC Yes, you have to relinquish controlâ?¦ There were all the different sections and it might just be worth mentioning what they were. One element was obviously the history of Space Art, which makes the site quite useful too, so whilst the whole site is a complete blend of fact and fiction, I did do my homeworkâ?¦ JR Thoroughly! SC And so the history of space art is written by Eduardo Kac, is a proper history, and then there are links to key sites so if anyone is genuinely interested in finding out more about Space Art they have somewhere to go with it. So itâ??s actually serving an educational purpose as well. It was important to make it inclusive, so whilst it wasnâ??t a real Tate in the sense that there aren't opportunities for artists to exhibit in it - although many did try - I created an online discussion group, so if people did cold call me, which did happen quite a lot or theyâ??d send me their CVâ??s and things like that, I could say that whilst there werenâ??t opportunities for them within the parameters of the Tate in Space website itself that it would be fantastic if they could contribute to the discussion. Everybody without exception said 'yes please' and jumped onto the discussion list. So actually thereâ??s this discussion list full of all the people, pretty much that are interested in Space Art in the world... [note: this is part one of a two part interview - part two will be published in next week's digest] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. Date: 5.18.04 - 5.24.04 From: t.whid (twhid AT twhid.com), Mac McKean (mac AT heaventree.com), Geert Dekkers (geert AT nznl.com), ryan griffis (grifray AT yahoo.com), Marisa S. Olson (marisa AT sfcamerawork.org), Joy Garnett (joyeria AT walrus.com), Rob Myers (robmyers AT mac.com), Christina McPhee (christina112 AT earthlink.net), richard willis (richard AT dubyasoft.co.uk), marc (marc.garrett AT furtherfield.org), Rachel Greene (rachel AT rhizome.org), patrick lichty (voyd AT voyd.com), Edward Tang (edtang AT antiexperience.com), CK SHINE (shine-a-man AT excite.com),Patrick Simons (patricksimons AT gloriousninth.com) Subject: rhizome needs to drop its membership fee and free its content t.whid (twhid AT twhid.com) posted: Rhizome needs to drop its membership fee and free its content During the debate regarding Rhizome's membership fee I was very vocal in my support of the idea. The argument went like this: an obligatory membership fee for Rhizome is better than no Rhizome at all. I was sure that if the fee wasn't implemented then Rhizome as we know it would cease to exist. There would be no more lists, no more ArtBase, and no more web site. But what I failed to understand is that the fee basically caused Rhizome to cease to exist. As the founders and current directors of Rhizome know well, to exist on the network you need to be linked. I am hyper-referenced therefor I am. Rhizome's membership fee effectively shuts down links to articles and artwork on Rhizome's web site. I know, it's free on friday. But if I want to link to a Rhizome post or artwork, am I to attach a disclaimer? "This link only functions on Fridays." I know, first time's free. But what if I have visitors to my site who follow the links to Rhizome regularly? They get shut out. Why should Rhizome care? Since I can't trust links will resolve to the article or the artwork they point too, I simply don't link to Rhizome. I didn't mean this to happen, it just started happening. I can't help but think that other people must feel the same way. These days newer on-line publishing technologies like weblogs, (RSS, RDF, Atom) feeds, and link aggregators (like del.icio.us) are connecting people to information in very exciting ways but I have a feeling that Rhizome is being left out and left behind. How many blogs link to Rhizome articles and artworks? Probably not many, blog authors know the value of freely linking across the web; Rhizome stops them at the door. Being locked up behind the membership fee leads to a degradation in the content on Rhizome. We could argue whether it's happening or not -- I'm not sure it's happening myself -- but I'm sure it's going to happen and I'll tell you why. Folks don't want to post to closed forums. If they want their articles read or their artwork looked at they want to be linked far and wide. Sure they might drop a post on Rhizome (if they're a member) and a few other places. If the other places are free, guess where the links will go? Not to Rhizome. So at best you'll get duplicate content on Rhizome which is harder to find. Since not as many people are finding Rhizome, membership might start to drop. Since membership is dropping even fewer articles are posted; a very bad downward cycle could start. Rhizome needs to drop the fee, find new ways to connect with new audiences -- an XML feed of the Rhiz list posts would be a good start -- and then work on ways to get these new audiences to donate voluntarily. Perhaps it was an emergency at the time the fee curtain came down. I hope it's over and Rhizome finds a way to free their content. I really want to link Rhizome. + + + Mac McKean (mac AT heaventree.com) replied: I agree. Very few content sites survive for long by charging for their content and those sites are all financial sites like WSJ and TheStreet.com, not art sites. Rhizome could keep the membership fee--only members can upload artworks and view Opportunities. And it could ask for donations, via PayPal, etc. However, all content should be free. And linked, blogged, RSS-fed, spread far and wide. This will probably result in an increase in members, I suspect, not a decrease, as the site goes from being a club of faithful to a public resource. Perhaps there could be a Rhizome store if more money is needed. Sell netart trinkets, t-shirts, whatever. But the content = free... + + + Geert Dekkers (geert AT nznl.com) replied: And it is possible to maintain a front store of accessible articles, and have archives accessible for members only, much as news sites do. So that there is some incentive for non-artists to become a member. + + + ryan griffis (grifray AT yahoo.com) replied: i have to say that i'm on the same page as t.whid here. while i understand the need to raise funds for programming, charging for web access doesn't make the most sense to me. as t.whid suggests, we risk becoming the porn site that charges while everyone's looking for abundantly free nudes. i don't have any firm suggestions really, and have to say that i've been paid to write some of Rhizome's content (a negligible amount by most standards, some of which goes back to RZ, but paid nonetheless) that i might not have done otherwise. My experience with non-profit art institutions isn't utopian by any means, and the inherent precariousness is understood, but one would hope that the membership program would continue voluntarily at the same level, as RZ is not so much of a service provider as a set of activities that members support out of a need to create an arena for certain forms of art and dialogue that is missing from somewhere else. and as Mac wrote, expansion of content by opening up distribution would probably result in more members. The control of access to certain content (opportunities, voting on things like commissions) is a good suggestion for member incentives. even posting could be for members only - at least that wouldn't limit reader/viewership, but would encourage those who want to reach RZ's audience to join. i've seen net art news linked to quite a bit, probably because it can be syndicated.hopefully more people will weigh in... ryan + + + Marisa S. Olson (marisa AT sfcamerawork.org) replied: here here. let's find a way. working for a small nonprofit, i certainly know about budgetary limitations. has moving in with the NM changed anything? free on fridays does not mean much to the scholars and artists relying on rhizome's archives... except that it turns them away.... it's also slightly unrhizomatic....... + + + Joy Garnett (joyeria AT walrus.com) replied: > i've seen net art news linked to quite a bit, > probably because it can be syndicated. I have to agree with you and twhid -- this really does seem the case. viva la RSS, etc. so what are the obstacles and how can they be circumvented?(ok: does th revenue generated by membership fees make it all worth it ? something tells me not. but I am just making an assumption.) + + + Rob Myers (robmyers AT mac.com) replied: 1. It keeps trolls and spammers at bay. 2. It provides a revenue stream. Servers don't pay for themselves. How is it proposed that a costless Rhizome would keep or replace these advantages? + + + Christina McPhee (christina112 AT earthlink.net) replied: Content should be free, yes. And also, perhaps not to have utopianexpectations of Rhizome...it does quite well what it does do..keeping up todate on announcements mainly, and engaging interesting, live topics as theyemerge, like the "molotov cocktail" theme that came out of Joy Garnett'sconfrontation with the copyright mavens. A both/and situation: surely Rhizome has to function somehow within acountry that has virtually zero arts funding. I like mac's thoughts about a modulated solution...members exclusives blahblah. Rachel et al at Rhizome, what are the advantages of the new museumaffiliation in your view(s)? + + + richard willis (richard AT dubyasoft.co.uk) replied: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> wrote: > Paid membership has two advantages: > > 1. It keeps trolls and spammers at bay. > 2. It provides a revenue stream. Servers don't pay for themselves. > > How is it proposed that a costless Rhizome would keep or replace these > advantages? > > - Rob. yep, that's the first reply to this thread i've read that makes any sense. andthe shortest too [i think]. y'all could have earned $5 each in the time you've taken to bandy this ballback and forth. more probably. can we get back to the net.art now people? + + + marc (marc.garrett AT furtherfield.org) replied: Hi Richard, With respect - the comments before actually were about net art, about part of its potential 'existing' future - how it will be seen by other people other than Rhizome's current members, and contributors. It is a very important issue for many net artists around the world - and yes, it does get tedious...but not because the all the 'many' people who are trying to be heard keep discussing it, but because nothing is ever done about it...by those who can do something about it. T.Whid is right in bringing it up - he's not being a whinger. In fact, he's definately one of the most dedicated Rhizome users here - so let his voice and other voices be heard, it's important. marc + + + richard willis replied: hey m. well, only indirectly m. to maintain equilibrium, servers are supported by the served. thus has itbeen, in one form or another, since ancient times. you'll pay a few quid to visit the cinema or a gallery. why should this be anydifferent? + + + t. whid replied: I outlined pretty clearly (IMHO) why it's different. Rhizome will rot behind this fee if it continues to stand. I want Rhizome to flourish. The content needs to be free for it to be an equal node on the web, otherwise, it will start to be ignored. I'm afraid it's happening already. Being a RSS/blog addict, the only presence I see Rhizome having in that area is net art news. People don't link to Rhizome articles because they can't. This can't be helpful to Rhizome. I think the increased audience which would come with opening it up may be able to cover the obligatory memberships with donations. Maybe there are 'premium' features for folks who donate (you can post to the list and events). I'm not unsympathetic to the funding question, but keeping the content behind this fee needs to stop. Other ways to fund Rhiz need to be identified. + + + Joy Garnett replied: This is surely the case. For the record: the interesting discussion threads on RAW were not what exploded the distorted molotov sit-in; it was the effect of RSS. Net.art News and Liza's culturekitchen for a start, both of which linked to Michael's call for solidarity page. Then etoy, neural, reblog, Modern Art Notes, boingboing, Stay Free! and greg.org all picked it up. In effect, there were several blog 'nodes' or loci from which the news spread or radiated among different communities. All of this resulted from the usual RSS/XML/aggregator functions, which spread the info much faster and more widely than any subscriber-based discussion could. Which makes me think that perhaps Raw or Rare should be syndicated -- didn't that possibiltiy come up way back when fees were being discussed? It's an idea... + + + patrick lichty (voyd AT voyd.com) replied: This is a really interesting subject.It's a tough proposition; Rhizome wants to stay alive (financially), but to restrict information contradicts the very concept that it was namedfor, and also the original nature of the community. I realize that $5 is miniscule, but something has had a significantimpact on the community. However, in this light, several other communities have come to fill thevoid. Therefore, I offer some ideas: Maybe Rhizome's function has changed, and should not consider itself as'grass-roots' any longer (i.e. more institutional), if even up a notch.IF it dies, then this could be portrayed more clearly to the community. If funding is a problem, perhaps Rhizome could relocate to a countrywhere funding is more prevalent (Australia, the Netherlands). Perhaps Rhizome could have a 'tiered' access plan, where a significantportion of the content is open, but contacts, opportunities, and otherparts could be pay to play. + + + Edward Tang (edtang AT antiexperience.com) replied: Patrick lichty wrote: > Perhaps Rhizome could have a 'tiered' access plan, where a > significant portion of the content is open, but contacts, > opportunities, and other parts could be pay to play. Does rhizome.org get considerably more traffic on Fridays? Reading this thread earlier today I was wondering why this sort of idea hadn't been mentioned or implemented - although I'm sure this isn't the first time this discussion has occured. Perhaps an approach when recent portions of the content (the net art news, artbase, calendar, etc.) are open to the public but to access the site fully and to contribute and participate the fee can be instituted? I don't see how spammers/hucksters would ruin the signal/noise ratio in that case. I echo the initial poster's frustations about not being able to link to rhizome pages to the outside world - rhizome feels strangely walled off. + + + Christina McPhee replied: Patrick, right on. > I realize that $5 is miniscule, but something has had a significant > impact on the community. > > However, in this light, several other communities have come to fill the > void. > > Therefore, I offer some ideas: > Maybe Rhizome's function has changed, and should not consider itself as > 'grass-roots' any longer (i.e. more institutional), if even up a notch. Yes, this is a de facto situation. Its affiliation with the museum makes itinstitutional---how could it be grass roots?? Rhizome leadership might decide that it is a necessity to sustain theinstitution of "Rhizome" as a "grass roots" brand name media services nonprofit company. Stay solvent through a multivalent funding strategyincluding memberships, volunteer work, private, corporate and grantdonations. Rhizome recognizes itself as "Rhizome â?¢ ". Rhizome becomes NPR.Rem Koolhaas has played with this idea in "Mutuations" -- the Harvard GSD "Project on the City". Shop Rhizome. Photoshop Rhizome. <http://www.thearchitectureroom.com/Koolhaas.html> A tiered hierarchical fee structure promotes a condition in which the imageof 'Rhizome" becomes a more important value to sustain than the actualrhizomatic function. > IF it dies, then this could be portrayed more clearly to the community. Exactly. > Perhaps Rhizome could have a 'tiered' access plan, where a significant > portion of the content is open, but contacts, opportunities, and other > parts could be pay to play. The kind of 'soft' modulation that is commonplace in American nonprofit arts institutions. I kind of wish Rhizome would not go this way as I love the free style approach, and like joy's idea of syndication...but, I donâ??t see how any changes can be made deliberately and carefully until Rhizome's leadership takes a hard look at what it really wants. + + + Lee Wells added: Personally I think the info should be free. Go to Google and type any one of our names in and some sort of Rhizome link will come up. Click the link andyou cannot get to it. Sometimes I cant because I donâ??t know what my passwordis. I believe it should be on the artist t-shirt subscription model, very similar to the beer of the month club. My peppermint shirt is getting a bitbeat up. You get something that you will use physically. Another Idea is a Rhizome / New Museum group show. Those that donâ??t pay do not play. Do the show at the NM and you will be turning folks away.A bit of a vanity show but just might work. The idea of community needs to be re-evaluated. Who does what. I am surprised that there isn't a rhizome store. Where all artwork is donated and all proceeds go to funding the mission. Register domains as well/ Bla Bla Bla what do I really care I am just going to pay my $20 a year and shut up. I'm not even a computer artist I am just a painter. + + + Lee Wells replied: Since Rhizome is no longer "Grass-roots" maybe its time for the New Museum to start handing over some more space and MONEY. At least in the store. Push the artwork coming out of Rhizome. The DVDs - cds - video art - tshirts - stickers - hats - rhizome homeies - anything. Look at the crap that sells to the average tourist in SoHo. Its all about cool t-shirts and hats on Broadway. Totally cheap and easy to produce. A Tiered system could also work as well. The more money you put in the more perks you get. $1000 gets you dinner with Mark and Rachel. + + + Dyske Suematsu (dyske AT dyske.com) added: The difficulty of this issue, especially for Rachel, is that many long-time members feel they own shares of the organization. To some degree, this is rightfully so, because they have contributed to what makes Rhizome valuable. However, you do not see this kind of passionate opinions about how to run particular organizations when speaking of institutions like Whitney, DIA, or Guggenheim. To some degree, they could easily tell you, "How we run our organization is none of your business!" Now, this gets further complicated when you pay member subscriptions, because all members then become sponsors. Sponsors are legitimate share owners, and they are entitled to their opinions, and the directors of the organization cannot simply ignore them. The difficulty of running any organization is that you need a good balance between democracy and leadership. If you listen too much to what everyone says, everything gets diluted and nothing gets done. If you lead too dogmatically, like Bush does, you could cause a lot of trouble. Either way, it is not good for the organization. In the end, it all comes down to how Rachel wants to run it. We cannot formulate a constructive criticism if we do not have the whole picture. For instance, from outside, I feel that free membership would be more beneficial than their ability to give out commissions, but I do not have all the information necessary to determine if this is truly the case. Given the fixed amount of resources, how it should be allocated is a call that we cannot make intelligently unless we know the whole picture. My bottom line is that we could only make suggestions, not tell them what they should do. I think there is a certain danger in feeling like we all own Rhizome. A large organization without a strong leadership could quickly fall apart. And we don't want that to happen either. + + + Rachel Greene (rachel AT rhizome.org) replied: Hi all: I have read every post in this thread and will continue to do so. Thank you Tim for initiating this discussion and for your constructive critcism. I really appreciate all of the contributions (even the Free Rhizome ones) and think many of the suggestions are good and potentially viable. I stand behind our foray into membership, but want to reassure everyone that we are 1. Aware of the impact of Google, RSS and Blogs on how people search, read, and interact online (and consequently, the perception of Rhizome), and 2. We are working on projects that will relieve the burden on individuals and make our content more accessible. For example, through the Organizational Subscriptions program ( http://rhizome.org/info/org.php ) this year we will give away scores and scores of Rhizome memberships to people who come to us via centers or schools in poor and excluded communities (such as in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia). I am developing more public programs that will bring ArtBase works and Rhizome more generally into art spaces (not just online). To answer people who inquired about Free Fridays and all that... I don't have Friday statistics available (and Francis is out of town), but we are finding that membership and web traffic are on the increase while subscriptions to email lists (except for the free, highly editorial list Net Art News which has an explosive growth rate) grow much more slowly. This suggests to me that more and more people are using our web site and (obviously) signing up for membership. It may be that the Raw, Rare, and Digest lists feel closed and small, but that in fact people are reading Rhizome content a lot via the web site instead of interacting over email. We found some general statistics that across the Internet, email lists are withering because of spam and the popularity of blogs. So one could argue that our spam-proof, members-only lists are reasonable for our times. I also wanted to mention that we do not receive any financial support from the New Museum, though they do give us office space. Rhizome raises its own monies, as always. It also seems relevant to note that we received twice as much money this year from our dear Rhizome members than from American Government Agencies. But back to the New Museum -- we do receive other kinds of important support from them -- they believe in Rhizome's mission and staff. Their entire staff is really supportive and interested in Rhizome, and we will be collaborating in the future. I hope this can be an ongoing conversation. I am in the difficult position of representing an institution so I can't always move that quickly, but I know more than anyone that the voices on RAW are important and crucial to what I do and what Rhizome is. Thanks, Rachel p.s. I will be following this thread closely, but I wanted to add that if anyone wants to chat in real time, on Thursday afternoons EST, Rhizome staff is going to hold informal office hours on AIM or ICHAT. Feel free to ping me at RachelFayeGreene or Francis at francisrhizome. + + + Christina McPhee replied: Rachel, Thanks for the very informative and exciting response. Could you put this up on rare and digest too? It would be great if you and Francis could take time to post often regarding goals and strategies like the ones you describe here, like giving away memberships , and public programs for artbase...etc. Maybe a once a month post on the state of rhizome? + + + Rachel Greene added: To anyone who wants to check out the Rhizome.org 2003 audit: http://rhizome.org/financials/ + + + t.whid replied: Hi Tim, I just read the thread or I would have chimed in about this sooner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can link straight to any single article at rhizome and surfers can access the article you linked any day of the week without having to be rhizome members. Before Mark left, I talked to him and francis about this, because it was a concern of mine. >From my site, I link to several articles I wrote at rhizome (they're really just long posts I made to raw). It seemed ridiculous that once rhizome started charging for membership I would no longer be able to link my own articles. I would have stopped contributing to rhizome long ago had this been the case. Mark agreed that it was not right. So they set up the protocol to work this way -- If I'm writing a friend, and I include the URL to a rhizome post in the email, unless my friend is a member, they can't view the post simply by clicking on the link in their email client. Furthermore, yhey can't manually type in the URL and get it either. (both situations are regrettable, but a necessary evil to the membership model). BUT if I link a rhizome URL (artbase piece, post at raw, whatever) from an online web page, non-rhizome members can still access the rhizome URL I linked. In this respect, rhizome is unlike the New York Times and most other password-protected content sites. Once the non-rhizome-member visits the rhizome URL I linked, she still can't wander around the rest of rhizome for free from there, but she can at least read the single post to which I linked. I assume this is true for a dynamically-generated link from a google search-results page as well. That's how critics of rhizome's $5 policy have been able to make "mirrors" of the entire rhizome artbase. They simply link directly to each piece of content in the artbase, and the way rhizome has set up their protocol, since the call is coming from another online web page, Francis allows the content to pass through, even if the visitor doesn't have the rhizome login cookie. Francis would know more about the technical details. I'm not sure how the above "backdoor" protocol works with RSS feeds and content aggregators. I'm not disagreeing with your suggestion to drop the membership fee. But the argument that one can't link non-members directly to specific rhizome content except on Fridays is not valid. One can (unless I'm missing something). + + + CK SHINE (shine-a-man AT excite.com) added: this is an interesting issue to consider. paid members can post.unpaid members can consume but not post. $5.00 is a small price to pay. less than the cost of almost anything worth having. $5.00 mandatory fee does not mean there is no grassroots. $5.00 mandatory fee means that the paying members agree that at least some aspect of the endeavor is worth supporting. how many participants are listed in the community directory? rough estimate: 3000(?) x $5.00/year each = $15,000/year to provide network infrastructure and content organization/distribution? a small price to pay. before i discovered rhizome.org, i knew nothing of Joy Garnett's paintings. now i do. i may not buy her work but she is known to one more person who may reference her work in a conversation, article or catalog, etc. i'll bet Joy Garnett would be happy to fork over $5.00 to expand her reputation to a community of 3000. let's say that maybe only 5% of the community has shown some interest in the aesthetic values of her work -excellent! for $5.00 or, the price of a tasty sandwich, a mid-day matinee, or one and a half hour's post-tax wage as a museum guide, one can be informed of Joy's artwork/ideas or engage in a stimulating conversation, workshop concepts, market themselves/their works and be informed of income opportunities in fields they are truly interested in. for 365 days. geez, i don't know about you all but 5 bucks is a meager requirement to maintain and even expand the capabilities our network and all it has to offer. + + + Patrick Simons (patricksimons AT gloriousninth.com) added: Hi Rachael, Francis..... Have you/we/they ever looked at the numbers(in membership terms) needed for rhizome to become a completely self funding organisation? I suppose I am asking what amount of money would be needed to be raised for rhizome to do what it does so well, and how many members paying $5 would be needed to cover that? Seems to me that once a critical mass is reached, all sorts of useful discussions could be had about self organising organisations and structures, as well as free memberships for those unable to pay etc. Obviously an autonomous rhizome (what the.. would that be like!) is not feasible at the moment, but would it be something to work towards? The difficulty I have with the current calls for rhizome to become a more accessible or fluid institution (oh yes it is) by removing the membership fee, is that it forces us all into the hands of external funding bodies, over whom we have even less control. Perhaps it is the curse of the middle stage organisation, caught between two tensions, firstly that it becomes the focus of our anxieties about its lack of fluidity and openess, its inability to "interface" with the other smaller or informal orgs that we work with, secondly that it wants to modernise its structures but within the existing paradigm, that is as a formally incorporated not for profit organisation in order to best represent internetart practice in art institutional terms. I undestand the push for removing the $5 but I dont think it would solve the underlying questions, if the choice is an org which is dependent on unaccountable trust funds or membership based, the latter is so much more what this whole community is about. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the New Museum of Contemporary Art. Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome Digest is filtered by Kevin McGarry (kevin AT rhizome.org). ISSN: 1525-9110. Volume 9, number 21. Article submissions to list AT rhizome.org are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome Digest, please contact info AT rhizome.org. To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe. Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php. Please invite your friends to visit Rhizome.org on Fridays, when the site is open to members and non-members alike. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
-RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.12.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.5.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.27.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.20.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.13.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.6.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.30.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.23.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.16.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.9.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.2.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.19.2007 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.12.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.5.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.28.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.21.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.14.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.7.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.31.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.24.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.17.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.10.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.3.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.26.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.19.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.12.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.5.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.29.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.22.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.15.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.8.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.1.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.25.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.18.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.11.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.4.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.27.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.20.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.13.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.6.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.30.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.23.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.16.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.9.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.2.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.25.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.18.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.11.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.4.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.28.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.14.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.28.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.14.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.7.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.31.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.24.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.17.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.03.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.20.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.13.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: November 29, 2006 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.22.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.15.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.08.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.27.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.20.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.13.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.29.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.22.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.15.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.08.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.01.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.25.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.18.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.11.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.28.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.21.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.14.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.07.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.30.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.23.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.16.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.02.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.26.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.19.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.12.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.05.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.28.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.21.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.14.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.07.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.31.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.24.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.17.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.12.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.03.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.24.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.17.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.10.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.03.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.27.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.20.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.13.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.30.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.23.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.16.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.09.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.02.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.25.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.18.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.11.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.4.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.28.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.21.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.14.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.07.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.30.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.23.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.16.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.9.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.2.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.26.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.22.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.14.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.07.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.31.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.24.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.17.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.10.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.03.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.26.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.19.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.12.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.05.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.29.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.22.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.15.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.08.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.29.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.22.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.15.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.01.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.25.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.18.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.11.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.04.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.25.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.18.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.11.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.04.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.28.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.21.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.14.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.08.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.01.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.17.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.10.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.03.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.26.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.19.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.12.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.05.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.29.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.22.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.15.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.08.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.01.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.24.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.17.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.10.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.03.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.27.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.20.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.13.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.06.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.30.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.23.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.16.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.09.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.02.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.25.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.18.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.11.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.04.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.28.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.21.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.14.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.07.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.30.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.16.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.09.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.02.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.27.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.19.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.13.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.05.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.27.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.20.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.13.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.06.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.31.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.23.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.16.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.10.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.05.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.21.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.13.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.05.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.28.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.21.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.14.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.07.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.31.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.25.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.18.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.10.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.03.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.27.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.19.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.13.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.05.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.29.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.22.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.17.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.09.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.17.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.10.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.03.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.20.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.13.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.06.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.29.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.22.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.15.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.01.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.25.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.18.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.11.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.04.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.27.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.20.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.13.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.6.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.30.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.23.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.16.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST:8.9.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.02.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.26.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.19.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.12.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.5.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.28.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.21.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.14.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.7.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.2.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.26.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.19.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.12.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.5.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.28.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.21.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.14.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.7.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.31.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.23.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.15.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.8.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.3.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.24.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.17.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.10.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.1.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.27.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.18.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.12.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.6.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.30.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.23.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.29.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.2.00 |