after rhizome?

Interestingly enough, a lot of the ideas in that article were ideas I
expressed myself during the five dollar fee discussion- including my idea
that artbase members get free access, and my complaint re: writers and
payment.

Its good that people are looking for alternatives now, and that means that
Rhizomes monopoly will [thankfully] not last. It is in my experience the
usual response of Mark Tribe to take any anti-rhizome sentiment with
cheerful encouragement, perhaps because he wants people to diversify the
resource pool or perhaps because he knows that no one will take enough
initiative to create an alternative so long as Rhizome is still around. I
had written a post to thingist and syndicate dealing with "after rhizome"
[which this site also references, without credit] explaining a model which
was 100% democratic and still relatively accessible as a resource. There was
little on list discussion- as if people are afraid of coming out and saying
anything critical about Rhizome, or being seen as some kind of enemy of the
state- maybe thier work would be less likely to make it into Digest.

As long as people sit idly by and don't demand anything from Rhizome- or
perhaps, as long as people sit around and pretend that the people who run
rhizome care about the "community"- and as long as people choose to do
nothing when people offer reasonable alternatives, then we're going to stay
open to simply doing whatever Mark Tribe envisions his social sculpture as
doing. Which is fine, he built this machine, and even if it was based on
initial innuendo concerning rhizomes, democracy and even distribution Mark
Tribe has the right to do whatever he wants with it, which seems now to be
all about crashing it into a tree, ignoring new ideas and exploiting people
with energy and enthusiasm.

I, myself, am here only to take advantage of the "opportunities" section,
and while here there is no reason not to spam one more place with
announcements. But I will not post any more interviews here, or any texts
concerning or discussing ideas on net.art, because there is no incentive for
me to do so. I wonder how many people critical of rhizome have remained on
board with it, and I wonder if the discussion actually does anything except
serve as an excuse not to just do something new, and to complain about it
loudly instead. Myself perhaps being the worst example of this.

Cheers,
-e.







—– Original Message —–
From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:21 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: after rhizome?


> from netartreveiw:
>
> You have Rhizome lovers and haters. After Rhizome is a website that
> has put a few Pro and Contra arguments next to each other. Though
> this site is clearly not on the Rhizome side (=understatement) the
> arguments it uses are for a change not only based on emotions but
> also on facts. For that reason they could well trigger a new debate
> on some Rhizome issues, as for example free access for people that
> have work in the artbase, or issues regarding the Rhizome membership
> agreement. Next to all the Pro and Contras After Rhizome reviews a
> lot of sites that can be seen as free alternatives to Rhizome. So
> really a site worth visiting if you want to read some indepth
> arguments why not to spend your money on Rhizome, or when you search
> for free Rhizome alternatives, or when you love Rhizome but you think
> the no.1 netart resource is just not enough.
> :: Peter Luining [+] ::
>
>
> here it is:
>
> http://www34.brinkster.com/afterrhizome/
> –
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

This is really sad. I guess this is an old can of worms, but:

The writer of this site, Vladimir Kovacevic, should start his own net art
community so that he can see what it is like to start, build, and manage an
online community like Rhimzome. I would love to see him realize all of his
ideals in terms of how a net art website should be run. Only then, could I
respect any of his complaints.

I'm personally thankful that there is a community like Rhizome. Their member
agreement is not a secret; you can read it before you sign up. Even their
salaries are public information. So, if you don't like what you see, why
sign up? Obviously there are people who find Rhizome to be worth $5 a year.
And, naturally there are those who don't find it useful enough to pay for
it. The same goes for anything.

I do not see the point of this crusade against Rhizome. Did he get ripped
off by Rhizome somehow? I would remove anything that this writer has ever
posted on Rhizome, so that he could not complain about copyright issues. If
he ever made any donation or paid any membership fee, I would pay them back
to him too.

It is one thing to give suggestions, but it is entirely another to insult
someone by calling him greedy and manipulative. There is no reason for that.

-Dyske

re: after rhizome

I would just like to say that I don't endorse the writer's opinions.
This should be obvious to anyone who read my posts regarding the
matter.

I'm starting to wonder if I should have dredged the debate up again
by posting the link…

The writer makes many strange accusations, calling Mark and Alex
greedy and manipulative. I'm not going to paint them as angels, they
have careers and agendas that they're striving after like everyone
else. But collecting a salary under 50K for directing a non-profit
arts org isn't out of line with the rest of NYC's non-profits. I
don't think there are many greedy people working in the arts, greedy
people usually choose other careers.

Most of Rhizome's money didn't come from members anyway. It came from
large grants and institutional funders who knew *how* Rhizome was
going to use the money. Rhizome never said they would pay members for
content so I don't see why people would feel ripped-off after the
fact. If you do it's just your own problem easily fixed by not
submitting work in the future.
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

Fame and net art world domination have been theorized (nay, asserted) as motivating factors for the OUTRAGEOUS $0.014/day tax , but I think Mark is mostly in it for the ladies:
http://www.mteww.com/rhiz_benefit_feb_03/index-Pages/Image37.html

I know this to be so since (presumptuous and absurd as it may seem) I am able see into his true heart from afar, rightly discerning (and revealing to all with itching ears) what drives this man, this MONSTER!!!

your better mousetrap awaits:
http://www.lab404.com/rhizome/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

p. luining wrote:
they could well trigger a new debate on some Rhizome issues, as for example free access for people that have work in the artbase, or issues regarding the Rhizome membership agreement.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, t.whid wrote:

> I
> don't think there are many greedy people working in the arts, greedy
> people usually choose other careers.

Yes greed is one of those viruses that avoids people in the arts.
As well as vanity and stupidity. Because people in the arts are
"simply superior".

> Most of Rhizome's money didn't come from members anyway. It came from
> large grants and institutional funders who knew *how* Rhizome was
> going to use the money. Rhizome never said they would pay members for
> content so I don't see why people would feel ripped-off after the
> fact.


> If you do it's just your own problem easily fixed by not
> submitting work in the future.

Totally. If you don't like it fuck off. Greed doesn't walk
among artists. And all the chickens have spiky boots.

I'll tell you what your problem is and I'll fix it for you too.

So after the bar brawl, you'll all go have some beer yes?
Mark Tribe can be generous and buy everybody a round.

Likewise, after the war is over, children from all countries can
exchange gestures of love and peace. You can even have a 60s revival
and a peace man barbeque where hamburgers are burgers are falafels are
kebabs are.. hey who cares anyways.

The Civilization of the "select few".

It's *hilarious* what's going on isn't it. Hi-larious.
Can't wait for the round of beer.

Dear Sunshine Daydream, Wellspring of Eternal Cheer,

let me be the first to welcome your new email address to my trash bin.

you
http://www.strindbergandhelium.com/iron.html

me
http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail20.html

preferring our poison in a less predictably petulant package,
the apple dumpling gang


-IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>It's *hilarious* what's going on isn't it. Hi-larious.
>Can't wait for the round of beer.

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Curt Cloninger wrote:

> Dear Sunshine Daydream, Wellspring of Eternal Cheer,

Abuse of language does not suit you.

> let me be the first to welcome your new email address to my trash bin.

What new e-mail address? You're confused.

> you
> http://www.strindbergandhelium.com/iron.html

No, dear. We are not your wishful derogatory projections.

> me
> http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail20.html

Nor are you any day-dreaming delusions on your behalf.

Standardly you abuse slapstick to attempt to dictate the
situation.

> preferring our poison in a less predictably petulant package,

The only one petulant + poisonous here is you dearest.
You didn't like the reflection of what you're really doing?
Do you think that ignoring the image + covering yourself
with cheap make-up + attemptong to project some undesirable
image onto us will fix the situation? :)

A bientot, ma chere.

I think it's been pretty clear that no one who has a problem with rhizome
has a problem with the five dollar fee. But if you want to pretend that's
what people are saying I guess it's a good diversion from facing the real
issues, which no one in any position in rhizome seems willing to comment on.

Maybe next rhizome will hire Ari Fleischer to edit digest.

-e.

> The writer of this site, Vladimir Kovacevic, should start his own net art
> community so that he can see what it is like to start, build, and manage
an
> online community like Rhimzome. I would love to see him realize all of his
> ideals in terms of how a net art website should be run. Only then, could I
> respect any of his complaints.


I think his aim was to promote other resources that are trying to start up
or have been underrated. I think he did this well, and he turned me on to
several new resources with this article. I have also commented before that I
am beginning to see complaints about rhizome as something that is like
complaining about a mountain. I can keep complaining or I can buy a shovel.


>
> I'm personally thankful that there is a community like Rhizome. Their
member
> agreement is not a secret; you can read it before you sign up. Even their
> salaries are public information. So, if you don't like what you see, why
> sign up? Obviously there are people who find Rhizome to be worth $5 a
year.
> And, naturally there are those who don't find it useful enough to pay for
> it. The same goes for anything.

I found it useful enough to pay the five dollars. And I still have problems
with what is occuring. I am also dismayed that there has been no honest
dialogue about the complaints that have been raised. Instead there is a
chorus of "I like it, if you don't, then you can leave." Which I find
frightening.


> I do not see the point of this crusade against Rhizome. Did he get ripped
> off by Rhizome somehow?

People have complaints about Rhizome. There are severe lapses of
responsibility in the way the organization is run, and a severe betrayal of
the founding ideals and self touted ideology of what the "community" is
supposed to be. I am looking for alternatives, and I am glad to hear about
them.


> I would remove anything that this writer has ever
> posted on Rhizome, so that he could not complain about copyright issues.
If
> he ever made any donation or paid any membership fee, I would pay them
back
> to him too.

Yes, that will solve everything. We can simply delete any evidence of his
existence now that he has offended rhizome's sacred name.


> It is one thing to give suggestions, but it is entirely another to insult
> someone by calling him greedy and manipulative. There is no reason for
that.

Are we then to assume that the corporations that are religiously declared
"greedy and manipulative" shouldn't be called that because you may have once
met the CEO? I have no lack of respect for Mark Tribe when it comes to
creating rhizome. I have a respect for anyone who can dig thier heels in and
create something like this. But I am feeling alienated and disconnected from
the decisions of the rhizome administrators and I don't like it. I feel that
my criticisms were humored and passed on without any real consideration. And
there is no "reason" for that, either.

Internet Art is relevant to me. It is important. And I have seen from
history that art forms are often assimilated into the monopoly of the ruling
"class", whatever they may be at the time. Currently, I feel that access to
information and control over information is what allows control on this
medium. Which is curious that almost every "community" on the web has moved
to moderation. [I currently define rhizome as moderated due to the five
dollar charge- which limited the number of voices who would complain about
the org by giving them the option of opting out. There you have a self
imposed censorship and the closing off of the community.] What is
interesting to me is the manner with which Rhizome now controls information,
and also doles out the positions of power where one can control information,
ie, "superusers." I don't know if this is still in effect. But the
"community" website is now run by people who are chosen to act as self
selective censors, but since it comes from within the community it is no
longer the same as "closing the community" off. This is now how rare works,
as well as the website, as well as the net.art news.

-e.

> I found it useful enough to pay the five dollars. And I still have
problems
> with what is occuring. I am also dismayed that there has been no honest
> dialogue about the complaints that have been raised. Instead there is a
> chorus of "I like it, if you don't, then you can leave." Which I find
> frightening.
>

Maybe we just have better things to talk and think about. The fact that
these complaints aren't generating any dialogue perhaps shows that the
issues are to minor to warrant in-depth discussion. Can we get back to art
now?

ps… Just a few days until a major new PANSE update (we're running on a
brand spankin' new server now, bought and paid for by the Icelandic Ministry
of Culture!).

Pall

Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony

Hello Paul,

I have to disagree, this is more a reflection of how dry Net activism is on
this list - not a thing to proud of. Especially when Net activism was what
brought about Rhizome in the first place, or the sense of it anyway. Eyrk
has some very valid points, I do not agree with all of what he says but
definately understand his frustation on this matter…

marc


> > I found it useful enough to pay the five dollars. And I still have
> problems
> > with what is occuring. I am also dismayed that there has been no honest
> > dialogue about the complaints that have been raised. Instead there is a
> > chorus of "I like it, if you don't, then you can leave." Which I find
> > frightening.
> >
>
> Maybe we just have better things to talk and think about. The fact that
> these complaints aren't generating any dialogue perhaps shows that the
> issues are to minor to warrant in-depth discussion. Can we get back to art
> now?
>
> ps… Just a few days until a major new PANSE update (we're running on a
> brand spankin' new server now, bought and paid for by the Icelandic
Ministry
> of Culture!).
>
> Pall
>
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

>
>Maybe we just have better things to talk and think about. The fact that
>these complaints aren't generating any dialogue perhaps shows that the
>issues are to minor to warrant in-depth discussion. Can we get back to art
>now?

Get back to art? Is there an inside and an outside when we speak of
art? And is it rhizome a art for art sake node? That's not an
argument and that's not a justification to leave any discussion,
specially this one.
Most the arguments being used to criticize the new membership policy
are purely demagogic, (when they try to scrutinize the rhizome staff
payments, for example). Any way, there is something interesting
happening here (as we can see in discussions about this issue being
held in other mailing lists), specially because this is a way to
discuss the dangers of closed institutionalization (and not because
of the $5) of formerly open communities, and their capacity to
survive to such stressing aspects of their growing. Probably, and
now i am arguing about this particular issue, the great danger is a
certain loss of their mobility and ability to adapt its tools of
survival. Don't forget that rhizome was mainly supported by
third-party founding and it was growing since the beginning and only
a few were worried about this issue until last year survival crisis
(with the budget requirements and compromises that rhizome assumed
until then). As I said before, I am here also as an observer, trying
to figure out the consequences of this changes…

best

miguel leal

[http://www.virose.pt]

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: after rhizome?No offence but I'm not going to answer this =
nor Marc Garrets post on the grounds that it would draw me into a discussio=
n that I've already stated that I am not interested in and that I feel does=
n't warrant discussion. I'm busy making art.

Pall
—– Original Message —–
From: miguel leal
To: Pall Thayer ; [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: after rhizome?



Maybe we just have better things to talk and think about. The fact that
these complaints aren't generating any dialogue perhaps shows that the
issues are to minor to warrant in-depth discussion. Can we get back to =
art
now?


Get back to art? Is there an inside and an outside when we speak of art? =
And is it rhizome a art for art sake node? That's not an argument and that'=
s not a justification to leave any discussion, specially this one.
Most the arguments being used to criticize the new membership policy are =
purely demagogic, (when they try to scrutinize the rhizome staff payments,=
for example). Any way, there is something interesting happening here (as w=
e can see in discussions about this issue being held in other mailing lists=
), specially because this is a way to discuss the dangers of closed instit=
utionalization (and not because of the $5) of formerly open communities, an=
d their capacity to survive to such stressing aspects of their growing. Pr=
obably, and now i am arguing about this particular issue, the great danger =
is a certain loss of their mobility and ability to adapt its tools of survi=
val. Don't forget that rhizome was mainly supported by third-party founding=
and it was growing since the beginning and only a few were worried about t=
his issue until last year survival crisis (with the budget requirements and=
compromises that rhizome assumed until then). As I said before, I am here =
also as an observer, trying to figure out the consequences of this changes.=
..


best


miguel leal


[http://www.virose.pt]

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: after rhizome?No offence taken,

Just for the record.

I am co-runnuing furtherfield.
Running a web design business & all the cash goes straight into funding fur=
therfield.
Setting up a project called skinstrip - a collaborative project.
Teaching Students how to write dissertations and marking them (40 of them) =
& written a curriculum introducing visual dissertations, marking 10 of them=
currently.
Writing articles for a couple of artists.
Making art - learning Pearl as well.
making music - ouch those monkeys.
Also apllying for grants - for furtherfield projects & netbehaviour & skins=
trip.

& I still make time to discuss with individuals for challenges my assumptio=
ns all the time, which is good for me - for it is very much part of art as =
well. Communication is good. Lateral creativity can feed into other places =
in life, it gives essence and quality & more…

Plus tomorrow night I will have an extremely very very wild & pleasurable e=
vening with friends on my birthday.

much respect - marc





No offence but I'm not going to answer this nor Marc Garrets post on the =
grounds that it would draw me into a discussion that I've already stated th=
at I am not interested in and that I feel doesn't warrant discussion. I'm b=
usy making art.

Pall
—– Original Message —–
From: miguel leal
To: Pall Thayer ; [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: after rhizome?



Maybe we just have better things to talk and think about. The fact th=
at
these complaints aren't generating any dialogue perhaps shows that the
issues are to minor to warrant in-depth discussion. Can we get back t=
o art
now?


Get back to art? Is there an inside and an outside when we speak of art=
? And is it rhizome a art for art sake node? That's not an argument and tha=
t's not a justification to leave any discussion, specially this one.
Most the arguments being used to criticize the new membership policy ar=
e purely demagogic, (when they try to scrutinize the rhizome staff payment=
s, for example). Any way, there is something interesting happening here (as=
we can see in discussions about this issue being held in other mailing lis=
ts), specially because this is a way to discuss the dangers of closed inst=
itutionalization (and not because of the $5) of formerly open communities, =
and their capacity to survive to such stressing aspects of their growing. =
Probably, and now i am arguing about this particular issue, the great dange=
r is a certain loss of their mobility and ability to adapt its tools of sur=
vival. Don't forget that rhizome was mainly supported by third-party foundi=
ng and it was growing since the beginning and only a few were worried about=
this issue until last year survival crisis (with the budget requirements a=
nd compromises that rhizome assumed until then). As I said before, I am her=
e also as an observer, trying to figure out the consequences of this change=
s…


best


miguel leal


[http://www.virose.pt]

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: after rhizome?

That's okay Pall, let me, also, respond to your comments which you aren't i=
nterested in responses to.

You say that Rhizome has better things to think and to talk about. But yet,=
for all of this sentiment, you may have noticed that there is almost no di=
scussion of new work on this list, and there hasn't been, even when it was =
an open portal. The things Rhizome as a list talks and thinks about seem to=
be less and less about art and more about the "state" of internet art. Not=
art per se, but discussions of curation, funding, the how to make rather t=
han the what we're making. That being said, Rhizome has developed into a ve=
ry strong area of contention as it relates to the "state" of internet art. =
If we can discuss the curational policies of a major museum, then it is not=
a far reach to expect that we can discuss the fast approaching decline of =
one of the largest "casual" hubs of internet art.

It used to happen that groups of artists met in cafes and bars to discuss t=
heir work. Now we meet on the internet. The problem is, Rhizome was a cafe =
started in order to turn itself into a museum. So without our full knowledg=
e of what this place was trying to be, they began keeping our sketches on n=
apkins [email posts] and asking if they could have a few pieces of ours to =
put on display where all the other patrons could see it [The Artbase]. Now =
that the bar has started charging admission fees its not a bar so much as a=
gallery with Schlitz. I have no problem with the fee- but people aren't co=
ming in to see my napkin sketches, or to discover the pieces I gave to them=
. And, I am asking where the free beer is.

We can all get "back" to art now, though I don't know when we left it. I do=
n't see how my posts are supposed to cast some magic spell that castrates y=
our artmaking ability. If people choose to respond to my messages instead o=
f messages about "art" which I have never seen on this list, [and if I have=
, I have never seen responses to them] then it is because they are choosing=
to discuss other topics and are not choosing to discuss the issue of art. =
You are more than free to simply not read or respond to the comments posted=
on this subject, I encourage you to choose that option, and if you want to=
come back into the conversation you have that option as well.

Cheers,
-e.





—– Original Message —–
From: Pall Thayer
To: miguel leal ; [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: after rhizome?


No offence but I'm not going to answer this nor Marc Garrets post on the =
grounds that it would draw me into a discussion that I've already stated th=
at I am not interested in and that I feel doesn't warrant discussion. I'm b=
usy making art.

Pall
—– Original Message —–
From: miguel leal
To: Pall Thayer ; [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: after rhizome?



Maybe we just have better things to talk and think about. The fact th=
at
these complaints aren't generating any dialogue perhaps shows that the
issues are to minor to warrant in-depth discussion. Can we get back t=
o art
now?


Get back to art? Is there an inside and an outside when we speak of art=
? And is it rhizome a art for art sake node? That's not an argument and tha=
t's not a justification to leave any discussion, specially this one.
Most the arguments being used to criticize the new membership policy ar=
e purely demagogic, (when they try to scrutinize the rhizome staff payment=
s, for example). Any way, there is something interesting happening here (as=
we can see in discussions about this issue being held in other mailing lis=
ts), specially because this is a way to discuss the dangers of closed inst=
itutionalization (and not because of the $5) of formerly open communities, =
and their capacity to survive to such stressing aspects of their growing. =
Probably, and now i am arguing about this particular issue, the great dange=
r is a certain loss of their mobility and ability to adapt its tools of sur=
vival. Don't forget that rhizome was mainly supported by third-party foundi=
ng and it was growing since the beginning and only a few were worried about=
this issue until last year survival crisis (with the budget requirements a=
nd compromises that rhizome assumed until then). As I said before, I am her=
e also as an observer, trying to figure out the consequences of this change=
s…


best


miguel leal


[http://www.virose.pt]