Simply put; I think Carlo has a problem that a piece of work that is highly
derivitive and possibly an imitation of his original piece is in the
artbase, which is supposed to be reserved for "historically significant"
works of internet art. How can an imitation be historically relevant?
But this is an interesting conceptual question, as well, in that it also
raises some issues concerning authorship. For example, 01010101010101.org's
archive of hell.com, could that go into the artbase?
—– Original Message —–
From: "cz" <email@example.com>
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Cc: "Eryk Salvaggio" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "RHIZOME" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Does the artbase have an historicization function?
> Dear Rachel,
> >>> you seemed to be comparing your work to someone else's. Reading your
> posts I am more confused. You don't like a project that was accepted into
> the artbase?
> I'm not comparing my work to someone else's. The fact is that TS's work is
> the SAME I did 2 years ago and the problem is that ArtBase listed it.
> There isn't a duty to know my 2001 work (even if it passed through the
> but once this thing has been emphasized, I think artbase people have to
> attention because this fact hides two key issues : memory and authorship.
> I just want to defend my work. It's not possible to historicize a work
> already done by another artist 2 years before.
> Simple and Clear.
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
> -> questions: email@example.com
> -> 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