I have a suggestion for Rhizome...

A very good idea…

I'll be looking into this very subject shortly for my day job.
Perhaps things could converge…

Geert
http://nznl.com

On 3/04/2006, at 7:03 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for
> a repository of open-sourced code by artists.
>
> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked
> to from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-
> sourced code that is used to run some of these server-specific
> projects would serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a
> 'preservative' archive.
>
> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for
> the sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that
> the code need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of
> itself. It could be functions or snippets of code as well that
> could easily be incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e.
> "Here's a little Perl function I use when I have to scale numbers
> into a certain range.", etc.).
>
> I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit
> the community. It would be interesting to hear what others think
> about it.
>
> Pall Thayer
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> 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

Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a repository
could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently stands?
Lauren

On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:

> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
> repository of open-sourced code by artists.
>
> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
> from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
> code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
> serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative' archive.
>
> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
> sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
> need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
> could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
> incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
> function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
> etc.).
>
> I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
> community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about it.
>
> Pall Thayer
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> 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

Sourceforge.net has a good model for open source repository - and the
software that runs sourceforge is available there.

joseph

Lauren Cornell wrote:

>Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a repository
>could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently stands?
>Lauren
>
>On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
>>repository of open-sourced code by artists.
>>
>>More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
>>specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
>>some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
>>preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
>>from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
>>code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
>>serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative' archive.
>>
>>Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
>>sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
>>need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
>>could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
>>incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
>>function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
>>etc.).
>>
>>I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
>>community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about it.
>>
>>Pall Thayer
>>
>>–
>>Pall Thayer
>>[email protected]
>>http://www.this.is/pallit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>+
>>-> 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
>>
>>
>
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>

Hi Lauren,
Well, hopefully, owners of some of the work currently in the Artbase,
linked or cloned, would contribute the code for that work and the
code would be linked to the work (i.e. "This code is used in …"). I
can't decide whether it should be a requirement that the code belong
to a piece in the Artbase or not. I think that would make it more
relevant. And just to make sure no-one freaks out, I'm not by any
means suggesting that everyone with work in the Artbase release their
code. It would be entirely voluntary and wouldn't even have to be all
the code. If I recall correctly, the Artbase already contains keyword
references for most major programming and scripting languages. I
think it would be good if code could be viewed online as a text file
instead of having to download everything but that could be
problematic for projects that contain several different files.
Submission to the Artbase would require selecting one of the
qualifying free licenses as described by the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/
licensing/licenses/index_html). I don't feel that Rhizome would have
any obligation to describe the differences between the licenses.
Owners of the code should determine that themselves before
submitting. Another thing that would be interesting is that if
someone creates a new project using code from the repository and then
submits that work to the Artbase, they should indicate that open
Artbase code was used and what code it was. That way we'll end up
with a big reference list of different ways that the code is
utilized. Also, if someone makes significant changes to existing
code, that code could be resubmitted to the Artbase with a link to
the code that it was derived from so that you get some sort of
historical code tree.

On top of everything else, I really think that this could also help
to introduce the general public to some of the processes and methods
involved in the creation of digital and networked art. The more I
think about it, the better I like it.

As Joseph has suggested, there do exist several web-based systems for
organizing and archiving open-source projects but I'm not really sure
that that's the way to go. Firstly, most of them are really ugly.
Created by computer nerds with absolutely no sense of visual
aesthetics. Secondly, they tend to be "all encompassing" whereas I
think it might be easier for Rhizome to begin with a rather simple
implementation, utilizing as much of the Artbase's current
architecture as possible and then adapt, add and alter as time goes
by and as we learn what works, what doesn't, what's good, what's bad,
etc.

best,
Pall

On 4.4.2006, at 00:52, Lauren Cornell wrote:

> Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a
> repository
> could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently
> stands?
> Lauren
>
> On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
>> repository of open-sourced code by artists.
>>
>> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
>> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
>> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
>> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
>> from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
>> code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
>> serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative'
>> archive.
>>
>> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
>> sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
>> need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
>> could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
>> incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
>> function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
>> etc.).
>>
>> I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
>> community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about
>> it.
>>
>> Pall Thayer
>>
>> –
>> Pall Thayer
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
> +
> -> 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
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a sort
of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-this-done
source??
Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
del.icio.us for code-sharing??

Someone lauched a search engine for coders/developers just the other
day. (Didn't post it to my http://del.icio.us/geert2705 page – silly
me – forgotten the url now – )

Geert
http://nznl.com


On 4/04/2006, at 6:52 AM, Lauren Cornell wrote:

> Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a
> repository
> could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently
> stands?
> Lauren
>
> On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
>> repository of open-sourced code by artists.
>>
>> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
>> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
>> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
>> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
>> from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
>> code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
>> serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative'
>> archive.
>>
>> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
>> sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
>> need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
>> could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
>> incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
>> function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
>> etc.).
>>
>> I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
>> community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about
>> it.
>>
>> Pall Thayer
>>
>> –
>> Pall Thayer
>> [email protected]
>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
> +
> -> 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

While the artbase could be linked in, I had read the original idea as more of a collaborative toolbox for artists? Programmers could donate scraps of interesting code (though how "interesting" will be hard to measure) and the repository would work
as a way for artists to get code to play with, and share projects linked by threads of code. This is an interesting idea, (very viral, nice to see how snippets of code could be mapped together with wildly varying uses), but also a potentially
massive undertaking!

-er.




Pall Thayer <[email protected]> on Monday, April 03, 2006 at 11:54 AM -0500 wrote:
>Hi Lauren,
>Well, hopefully, owners of some of the work currently in the Artbase,
>linked or cloned, would contribute the code for that work and the
>code would be linked to the work (i.e. "This code is used in …"). I
>can't decide whether it should be a requirement that the code belong
>to a piece in the Artbase or not. I think that would make it more
>relevant. And just to make sure no-one freaks out, I'm not by any
>means suggesting that everyone with work in the Artbase release their
>code. It would be entirely voluntary and wouldn't even have to be all
>the code. If I recall correctly, the Artbase already contains keyword
>references for most major programming and scripting languages. I
>think it would be good if code could be viewed online as a text file
>instead of having to download everything but that could be
>problematic for projects that contain several different files.
>Submission to the Artbase would require selecting one of the
>qualifying free licenses as described by the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/
>licensing/licenses/index_html). I don't feel that Rhizome would have
>any obligation to describe the differences between the licenses.
>Owners of the code should determine that themselves before
>submitting. Another thing that would be interesting is that if
>someone creates a new project using code from the repository and then
>submits that work to the Artbase, they should indicate that open
>Artbase code was used and what code it was. That way we'll end up
>with a big reference list of different ways that the code is
>utilized. Also, if someone makes significant changes to existing
>code, that code could be resubmitted to the Artbase with a link to
>the code that it was derived from so that you get some sort of
>historical code tree.
>
>On top of everything else, I really think that this could also help
>to introduce the general public to some of the processes and methods
>involved in the creation of digital and networked art. The more I
>think about it, the better I like it.
>
>As Joseph has suggested, there do exist several web-based systems for
>organizing and archiving open-source projects but I'm not really sure
>that that's the way to go. Firstly, most of them are really ugly.
>Created by computer nerds with absolutely no sense of visual
>aesthetics. Secondly, they tend to be "all encompassing" whereas I
>think it might be easier for Rhizome to begin with a rather simple
>implementation, utilizing as much of the Artbase's current
>architecture as possible and then adapt, add and alter as time goes
>by and as we learn what works, what doesn't, what's good, what's bad,
>etc.
>
>best,
>Pall
>
>On 4.4.2006, at 00:52, Lauren Cornell wrote:
>
>> Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a
>> repository
>> could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently
>> stands?
>> Lauren
>>
>> On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
>>> repository of open-sourced code by artists.
>>>
>>> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
>>> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
>>> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
>>> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
>>> from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
>>> code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
>>> serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative'
>>> archive.
>>>
>>> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
>>> sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
>>> need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
>>> could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
>>> incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
>>> function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
>>> etc.).
>>>
>>> I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
>>> community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Pall Thayer
>>>
>>> –
>>> Pall Thayer
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
>
>
>–
>Pall Thayer
>[email protected]
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>+
>-> 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

On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:

> Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a sort
> of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-this-done
> source??

I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge. Once
you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.

> Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
> del.icio.us for code-sharing??

I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot of
sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search the
code, which would be great.

- Rob.

for what it's worth: i think it's a great idea, Pall & hope you guys find a
way to work it out into details. It certainly would help to get the feeling
of accomplishing sth as part of the community…
Best,
dv



> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Namens Pall Thayer
> Verzonden: maandag 3 april 2006 18:55
> Aan: Lauren Cornell
> CC: rhizome
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I have a suggestion for Rhizome…
>
> Hi Lauren,
> Well, hopefully, owners of some of the work currently in the
> Artbase, linked or cloned, would contribute the code for that
> work and the code would be linked to the work (i.e. "This
> code is used in …"). I can't decide whether it should be a
> requirement that the code belong to a piece in the Artbase or
> not. I think that would make it more relevant. And just to
> make sure no-one freaks out, I'm not by any means suggesting
> that everyone with work in the Artbase release their code. It
> would be entirely voluntary and wouldn't even have to be all
> the code. If I recall correctly, the Artbase already contains
> keyword references for most major programming and scripting
> languages. I think it would be good if code could be viewed
> online as a text file instead of having to download
> everything but that could be problematic for projects that
> contain several different files.
> Submission to the Artbase would require selecting one of the
> qualifying free licenses as described by the FSF
> (http://www.fsf.org/ licensing/licenses/index_html). I don't
> feel that Rhizome would have any obligation to describe the
> differences between the licenses.
> Owners of the code should determine that themselves before
> submitting. Another thing that would be interesting is that
> if someone creates a new project using code from the
> repository and then submits that work to the Artbase, they
> should indicate that open Artbase code was used and what code
> it was. That way we'll end up with a big reference list of
> different ways that the code is utilized. Also, if someone
> makes significant changes to existing code, that code could
> be resubmitted to the Artbase with a link to the code that it
> was derived from so that you get some sort of historical code tree.
>
> On top of everything else, I really think that this could
> also help to introduce the general public to some of the
> processes and methods involved in the creation of digital and
> networked art. The more I think about it, the better I like it.
>
> As Joseph has suggested, there do exist several web-based
> systems for organizing and archiving open-source projects but
> I'm not really sure that that's the way to go. Firstly, most
> of them are really ugly.
> Created by computer nerds with absolutely no sense of visual
> aesthetics. Secondly, they tend to be "all encompassing"
> whereas I think it might be easier for Rhizome to begin with
> a rather simple implementation, utilizing as much of the
> Artbase's current architecture as possible and then adapt,
> add and alter as time goes by and as we learn what works,
> what doesn't, what's good, what's bad, etc.
>
> best,
> Pall
>
> On 4.4.2006, at 00:52, Lauren Cornell wrote:
>
> > Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a
> > repository could be mapped onto or integrated with the
> ArtBase as it
> > currently stands?
> > Lauren
> >
> > On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the
> suggestion is for a
> >> repository of open-sourced code by artists.
> >>
> >> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
> >> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
> >> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
> >> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply
> being linked to
> >> from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for
> open-sourced
> >> code that is used to run some of these server-specific
> projects would
> >> serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative'
> >> archive.
> >>
> >> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable
> resource for the
> >> sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest
> that the code
> >> need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
> >> could be functions or snippets of code as well that could
> easily be
> >> incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a
> little Perl
> >> function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain
> range.",
> >> etc.).
> >>
> >> I think that this would be a good move and that it would
> benefit the
> >> community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Pall Thayer
> >>
> >> –
> >> Pall Thayer
> >> [email protected]
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>

What about a searchable del.icio.us like, link model?
At least for the time being, just start pooling together the various places
the code currently sits.

On 4/3/06 2:49 PM, "Rob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
>
>> Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a sort
>> of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-this-done
>> source??
>
> I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge. Once
> you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.
>
>> Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
>> del.icio.us for code-sharing??
>
> I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
> think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot of
> sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search the
> code, which would be great.
>
> - Rob.
>
> +
> -> 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

–
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222

http://www.leewells.org
http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
917 723 2524

I remember that. But good ideas have to be repeated often before
they're adopted.

Geert


On 3/04/2006, at 8:49 PM, Rob Myers wrote:

> On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
>
>> Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a
>> sort of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-
>> this-done source??
>
> I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge.
> Once you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.
>
>> Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
>> del.icio.us for code-sharing??
>
> I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
> think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot
> of sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search
> the code, which would be great.
>
> - Rob.
>
> +
> -> 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

great idea…

but furtherfield have been creating just that sort of model.
http://del.icio.us/furtherfield.org

will be finished in about a week or 2…

marc


>What about a searchable del.icio.us like, link model?
>At least for the time being, just start pooling together the various places
>the code currently sits.
>
>On 4/3/06 2:49 PM, "Rob Myers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a sort
>>>of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-this-done
>>>source??
>>>
>>>
>>I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge. Once
>>you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
>>>del.icio.us for code-sharing??
>>>
>>>
>>I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
>>think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot of
>>sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search the
>>code, which would be great.
>>
>>- Rob.
>>
>>+
>>-> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>

I think this is a great idea too.

One more question, and excuse me for being a bit daft. Pall, are you
suggesting that works currently in the ArtBase have the option of making
their code available, and that the submission process would change to
reflect this option as well?

On another level, I see this suggestion as tied to the metadata changes we'd
like to make as both issues are part of an overall strategy of ArtBase
improvement which we want to hash out collectively, and then dedicate time
and resources to this year.

It would be good to start the metadata discussion this month on RAW (– as
opposed to the blog I originally proposed). Then, we can discuss these
different issues, and how we can move forward. Thanks for bringing this up
Pall, and also Rob though I missed it the first time.. :)

On 4/3/06 2:18 PM, "Geert Dekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I remember that. But good ideas have to be repeated often before
> they're adopted.
>
> Geert
>
>
> On 3/04/2006, at 8:49 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
>> On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
>>
>>> Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a
>>> sort of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-
>>> this-done source??
>>
>> I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge.
>> Once you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.
>>
>>> Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
>>> del.icio.us for code-sharing??
>>
>> I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
>> think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot
>> of sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search
>> the code, which would be great.
>>
>> - Rob.
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
> +
> -> 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

Yes, I think people who currently have work in the Artbase should be
allowed to submit the code. Because, as I mentioned, I see this as a
way of enhancing the original idea of the Artbase as a conservatory
archive. That way, even linked projects can be archived in a way that
they could potentially be reconstructed based on the source code even
if technology has changed. So that in 100 years, when computers
consist of balls of spaghetti floating around in a pool of RNA laced
with a shot of bourbon, a work of art can be reprogrammed to run on
this new hardware based on the functionality of the original code and
if there's any question about what it was actually like, it can be
examined from within the context of related work as defined within
the archeological goldmine that is the Rhizome Artbase.

If a general overhaul of the artbase structure and metadata was
already on schedule, then it would be perfect to look at
incorporating this within those changes.

Some changes would need to be made to the submission process but I
haven't really thought about what those might be. I don't think the
source code should be "judged" as such. Inclusion should depend on
the quality of the art.

Pall

On 4.4.2006, at 05:23, Lauren Cornell wrote:

> I think this is a great idea too.
>
> One more question, and excuse me for being a bit daft. Pall, are you
> suggesting that works currently in the ArtBase have the option of
> making
> their code available, and that the submission process would change to
> reflect this option as well?
>
> On another level, I see this suggestion as tied to the metadata
> changes we'd
> like to make as both issues are part of an overall strategy of ArtBase
> improvement which we want to hash out collectively, and then
> dedicate time
> and resources to this year.
>
> It would be good to start the metadata discussion this month on RAW
> (– as
> opposed to the blog I originally proposed). Then, we can discuss these
> different issues, and how we can move forward. Thanks for bringing
> this up
> Pall, and also Rob though I missed it the first time.. :)
>
> On 4/3/06 2:18 PM, "Geert Dekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I remember that. But good ideas have to be repeated often before
>> they're adopted.
>>
>> Geert
>>
>>
>> On 3/04/2006, at 8:49 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a
>>>> sort of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-
>>>> this-done source??
>>>
>>> I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge.
>>> Once you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.
>>>
>>>> Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
>>>> del.icio.us for code-sharing??
>>>
>>> I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
>>> think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot
>>> of sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search
>>> the code, which would be great.
>>>
>>> - Rob.
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
> +
> -> 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
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

The Artbase has a published set of selection criteria.
http://rhizome.org/artbase/selection_criteria.rhiz

On 3.4.2006, at 19:07, [email protected] wrote:

> Are there rules set up to qualify the quality of net.art?
> How are those judgements made?
>
> Quoting Pall Thayer <[email protected]>:
>
> Inclusion should depend on
>> the quality of the art.
>>
>> Pall
>
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

On Apr 3, 2006, at 1:03 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for
> a repository of open-sourced code by artists.


Pall, I think this is a great idea – I believe you're right that
some form of this could be implemented pretty easily, and with great
benefits.

And since we're talking about ideas for the ArtBase, I'd like to
propose one myself, which I've been thinking about for a while.

Why not make the ArtBase open? Meaning anyone could be a part of it.

Some reasons why I think this would be a good thing:

1) Open systems are more in the spirit of internet art. I think this
is actually the best reason.

2) If the ArtBase is primarily used for research, it should represent
the widest possible ideas of what internet art might be - the best
people to determine the outer boundaries of this may not be curators
(no matter how fabulous and well intentioned) – especially a small
number of curators – things on the edge are likely to be less well
understood, and seem less "good" – artists who feel they are a part
of this community could curate themselves into the ArtBase. This
would leave a richer and more interesting historical record for
future researchers.

3) The ArtBase is pretty big anyway - do we really gain so much by
excluding some projects from it? Obviously this exclusion also
creates frustration, bad feeling, and the loss of some participants
in the community.

What I see as the main likely objections:

1) Artists in the ArtBase benefit from it being a curated space – it
gives them a kind of seal of approval & looks good on cv's etc.

2) People wanting to learn about internet art benefit from it being a
curated space – they are less likely to encounter 'bad' art.

I think both of these are easily solvable.

1) The existing ArtBase curators could easily give a kind of Rhizome
Seal of Approval, or Gold Star (obviously with a less silly name) to
as many or as few projects as they liked, picking out the very best
work (from their point of view, of course). This would help people
new to internet art find iconic pieces & offer a kind of award or
status to those artists. The curators do this kind of thing anyway
by putting some pieces into shows and on rhizome news, etc.

2) But more interesting, I think, a user-based tagging system could
be integrated into the ArtBase. Any Rhizome member could add tags to
all the ArtBase works, and this would allow for a potentially rather
wonderful multi-curated space with all kinds of vectors of meaning
and interest. There's a little of this possibility now with the
member curated ArtBase 'shows', but it could go much much farther.
With tags, you can fairly easily have rss feeds for any tag, and this
offers another way for members and others to track what's flowing in
and what's being looked at. A collaborative tag/feed system would
offer much better filtering of the rather gigantic ArtBase than the
current curation-plus-keywords system, and it would have the
potential to scale up much better as the ArtBase grows.

Think of it as open-source curating.

I'd be curious to know anyone's thoughts on this.

Sal

Hi Sal & all

Yes I was also thinking often that
a more "democratic" curating
system would be good for Rhizome, like e.g. with tagging
or voting. I am glad you bring this up.
Its good to have official curators but
yes i could imagine that some interesting
stuff is "slipping through the system".
Everybody has another focus. Tagging
may allow to shift something into
general focus. But I have no idea
how "democratic" a tagging system would be
in reality - i.e.
this depends also on the frequency
of "tagging visits" of rhizome members etc.
Who has the time to browse daily?

But if one sets this up then it would also be
interesting to have
the discussion about a work linked directly
to the work itself. This would enable people
to learn and to make themselves understandable.
However I have no idea how fair or good this works
and its a lot of work to set this up…..

nad

Hi Sal,
I don't agree. I don't think the Artbase should be opened up any more
than it is. I'm sure there already exist such open systems where
anyone can upload whatever they want but the Artbase is not just a
vehicle for sharing. The original idea behind the Artbase was to
create an archive, which means that you have to be selective. It's
impossible to archive everything. Anyone is free to submit work.

On a more democratic selection process. Perhaps we could try asking
the Rhizome community if they would be willing to take the time to
review Artbase submissions and vote on them. I personally don't
really see this as working in the long-term.

But what it comes down to is this, open systems such as Flickr,
Vimeo, Blogger, MySpace, etc. are more about sharing content than
preserving it. The Artbase is more about archiving content.

Pall

On 4.4.2006, at 11:09, Sal Randolph wrote:

>
> On Apr 3, 2006, at 1:03 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for
>> a repository of open-sourced code by artists.
>
>
> Pall, I think this is a great idea – I believe you're right that
> some form of this could be implemented pretty easily, and with
> great benefits.
>
> And since we're talking about ideas for the ArtBase, I'd like to
> propose one myself, which I've been thinking about for a while.
>
> Why not make the ArtBase open? Meaning anyone could be a part of it.
>
> Some reasons why I think this would be a good thing:
>
> 1) Open systems are more in the spirit of internet art. I think
> this is actually the best reason.
>
> 2) If the ArtBase is primarily used for research, it should
> represent the widest possible ideas of what internet art might be -
> the best people to determine the outer boundaries of this may not
> be curators (no matter how fabulous and well intentioned) –
> especially a small number of curators – things on the edge are
> likely to be less well understood, and seem less "good" – artists
> who feel they are a part of this community could curate themselves
> into the ArtBase. This would leave a richer and more interesting
> historical record for future researchers.
>
> 3) The ArtBase is pretty big anyway - do we really gain so much by
> excluding some projects from it? Obviously this exclusion also
> creates frustration, bad feeling, and the loss of some participants
> in the community.
>
> What I see as the main likely objections:
>
> 1) Artists in the ArtBase benefit from it being a curated space –
> it gives them a kind of seal of approval & looks good on cv's etc.
>
> 2) People wanting to learn about internet art benefit from it being
> a curated space – they are less likely to encounter 'bad' art.
>
> I think both of these are easily solvable.
>
> 1) The existing ArtBase curators could easily give a kind of
> Rhizome Seal of Approval, or Gold Star (obviously with a less silly
> name) to as many or as few projects as they liked, picking out the
> very best work (from their point of view, of course). This would
> help people new to internet art find iconic pieces & offer a kind
> of award or status to those artists. The curators do this kind of
> thing anyway by putting some pieces into shows and on rhizome news,
> etc.
>
> 2) But more interesting, I think, a user-based tagging system could
> be integrated into the ArtBase. Any Rhizome member could add tags
> to all the ArtBase works, and this would allow for a potentially
> rather wonderful multi-curated space with all kinds of vectors of
> meaning and interest. There's a little of this possibility now
> with the member curated ArtBase 'shows', but it could go much much
> farther. With tags, you can fairly easily have rss feeds for any
> tag, and this offers another way for members and others to track
> what's flowing in and what's being looked at. A collaborative tag/
> feed system would offer much better filtering of the rather
> gigantic ArtBase than the current curation-plus-keywords system,
> and it would have the potential to scale up much better as the
> ArtBase grows.
>
> Think of it as open-source curating.
>
> I'd be curious to know anyone's thoughts on this.
>
> Sal
>
>
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

Respectfully, I would disagree about your distinction between a
sharing system and an archive. I don't think selectitivity is an
essential aspect of 'archiveness.' The Internet Archive, for example,
is an open system. The only thing required for it to be an archive
is a commitment on the part of the hosting organization to keep the
work (in some way) over the long term (this brings us back to the
preservation discussion as well). There is a resource question, but
I don't actually think the universe of internet art is so absolutely
gigantic that Rhizome's database couldn't handle it. To be a useful
archive (which is something else altogether, I realize) requires some
way for users to find what they are trying to find - but I think that
tagging/open curating would offer that.

I'm personally not so much interested in a more democratic selection
process as a solution (in the sense you mean, of asking members to
review the work). I don't submit things to the current ArtBase -
not because I don't like our curators, but because I'm really
interested in more open systems. Member review doesn't really
address what I'm thinking about.

Sal


On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> Hi Sal,
> I don't agree. I don't think the Artbase should be opened up any
> more than it is. I'm sure there already exist such open systems
> where anyone can upload whatever they want but the Artbase is not
> just a vehicle for sharing. The original idea behind the Artbase
> was to create an archive, which means that you have to be
> selective. It's impossible to archive everything. Anyone is free to
> submit work.
>
> On a more democratic selection process. Perhaps we could try asking
> the Rhizome community if they would be willing to take the time to
> review Artbase submissions and vote on them. I personally don't
> really see this as working in the long-term.
>
> But what it comes down to is this, open systems such as Flickr,
> Vimeo, Blogger, MySpace, etc. are more about sharing content than
> preserving it. The Artbase is more about archiving content.
>
> Pall

Hi Sal,
With all due respect, I can see that we have very different views and
will continue to disagree. But that doesn't matter. The important
thing is that the issue be discussed if enough people feel strongly
about it. I, personally, value the fact that the Artbase is selective
and doubt that I would submit to it if it weren't (in my opinion they
could even be a bit *more* selective). Whereas other researchers
submit their findings to journals for peer review, I see the Rhizome
Artbase as a "journal" for the peer review of findings in the field
of digital arts.

Perhaps The Internet Archive is sufficient as an open archive like
what you're suggesting. It looks to me like they welcome any and all
contributions (for instance, they don't call them "submissions") so I
don't see why we would need another such resource.

I hope this doesn't sound condescending. That's not my intention. I
understand your views, I just don't share them.

Pall

On 4.4.2006, at 16:20, Sal Randolph wrote:

> Respectfully, I would disagree about your distinction between a
> sharing system and an archive. I don't think selectitivity is an
> essential aspect of 'archiveness.' The Internet Archive, for
> example, is an open system. The only thing required for it to be
> an archive is a commitment on the part of the hosting organization
> to keep the work (in some way) over the long term (this brings us
> back to the preservation discussion as well). There is a resource
> question, but I don't actually think the universe of internet art
> is so absolutely gigantic that Rhizome's database couldn't handle
> it. To be a useful archive (which is something else altogether, I
> realize) requires some way for users to find what they are trying
> to find - but I think that tagging/open curating would offer that.
>
> I'm personally not so much interested in a more democratic
> selection process as a solution (in the sense you mean, of asking
> members to review the work). I don't submit things to the current
> ArtBase - not because I don't like our curators, but because I'm
> really interested in more open systems. Member review doesn't
> really address what I'm thinking about.
>
> Sal
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> Hi Sal,
>> I don't agree. I don't think the Artbase should be opened up any
>> more than it is. I'm sure there already exist such open systems
>> where anyone can upload whatever they want but the Artbase is not
>> just a vehicle for sharing. The original idea behind the Artbase
>> was to create an archive, which means that you have to be
>> selective. It's impossible to archive everything. Anyone is free
>> to submit work.
>>
>> On a more democratic selection process. Perhaps we could try
>> asking the Rhizome community if they would be willing to take the
>> time to review Artbase submissions and vote on them. I personally
>> don't really see this as working in the long-term.
>>
>> But what it comes down to is this, open systems such as Flickr,
>> Vimeo, Blogger, MySpace, etc. are more about sharing content than
>> preserving it. The Artbase is more about archiving content.
>>
>> Pall
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

On 4 Apr 2006, at 21:03, Pall Thayer wrote:

> I don't agree. I don't think the Artbase should be opened up any
> more than it is.

I also think the Artbase should retain curatorial (and quality)
control. To riff on Groucho Marx, I wouldn't submit my work to
anywhere I thought I might not be turned down. :-)

- Rob.

That's a nice way of putting it. My sentiments exactly.

Pall

On 4.4.2006, at 18:31, Rob Myers wrote:

> On 4 Apr 2006, at 21:03, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> I don't agree. I don't think the Artbase should be opened up any
>> more than it is.
>
> I also think the Artbase should retain curatorial (and quality)
> control. To riff on Groucho Marx, I wouldn't submit my work to
> anywhere I thought I might not be turned down. :-)
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> 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
>



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

I think both sides should be considered.


On 4/4/06 3:38 PM, "Nad" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Sal & all
>
> Yes I was also thinking often that
> a more "democratic" curating
> system would be good for Rhizome, like e.g. with tagging
> or voting. I am glad you bring this up.
> Its good to have official curators but
> yes i could imagine that some interesting
> stuff is "slipping through the system".
> Everybody has another focus. Tagging
> may allow to shift something into
> general focus. But I have no idea
> how "democratic" a tagging system would be
> in reality - i.e.
> this depends also on the frequency
> of "tagging visits" of rhizome members etc.
> Who has the time to browse daily?
>
> But if one sets this up then it would also be
> interesting to have
> the discussion about a work linked directly
> to the work itself. This would enable people
> to learn and to make themselves understandable.
> However I have no idea how fair or good this works
> and its a lot of work to set this up…..
>
> nad
> +
> -> 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

–
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222

http://www.leewells.org
http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
917 723 2524

The interesting thing about both Rhizome and the other new media community
sites is that its already a filtered group. We thought we might run into
that problem with the PAM select calls for artists. We found out that
through word of mouth and pre-filtered lists like this one, the work we
received was exceptional.

I don

I can respect both sides of this discussion. On the one hand I
completely understand the need and the desire to have quality control
for something like the ArtBase, or put another way, some mechanism to
keep the whole system from being dragged down by the lowest common
denominator. However, at the same time I really can't understand why
individuals pursuing careers as professional artists should necessarily
be an important factor when considering the quality of an individual
work. It seems to me at that point it becomes very insular and
potentially closed to new things.

I'm speaking as someone who, for various reasons, made a conscious
decision while I was still in art school that I wasn't going to pursue
the path of what I assume you mean by a professional artist, i.e. having
a CV, getting my work in galleries and exhibitions, etc. I have
confidence in my talent and I know I could have had some modicum of
success had I taken that path, but for better or worse I simply had zero
interest in it, and still don't. I know very well that this does cut me
off from certain opportunities and also tends to make my more
professional contemporaries automatically lump me in the category of
amateur or hobbyist or whatever, but I've never really regretted my
decision. A huge part of what attracted me to the web as an artist and
to the net art scene was that I could do my own thing and have fun doing
it, without having to "commodify" my work or live in a metropolitan area
with a big gallery scene, or really have to deal with the art world in
any way. I don't need any of it to validate myself as an artist, and if
that means I won't be awarded any historical significance by the powers
that be, then so be it.

All that being said, I do value community very much. I had taken a
pretty long hiatus from Rhizome until a few months ago. Part of the
reason I shelled out my $25 and became a member was because I liked what
I saw on the new website and because the organization / community had
moved in what I perceived to be a positive direction since I had last
visited. I have since submitted to the ArtBase twice and in both cases I
can only assume my work was rejected because I basically received no
response one way or the other. My submissions just disappeared into the
ether. This doesn't really bother me for the same reasons I stated
above, but I did find it interesting. I can't help but wonder if the
work would be given any more consideration if I wasn't an outsider, if I
already had my foot in the door, so to speak. I feel like given the
chance in a debate, I could make a pretty good case for the historical
significance of both of the works I submitted meeting the stated
criteria. I wonder how much of the lack of response is due to the fact
that I didn't really include much explanation text to support my case in
the first place. I've never been one to delve into theory or provide a
lot of background explanation or historical context. Hell, my artists
statement at my BFA show was simply: "Art is fun."

In the end I know I'm a small fish and I don't pretend to deserve much
say in what the ArtBase should be. Like I said, I do understand the need
for some quality control, but I also tend to think something is lost if
it becomes just another extension of the elite art world, a bouncer
guarding the gates of the museum.

Best regards,

Corey Eiseman
http://toegristle.com/
Who are *you* to deny it?!?


Lee Wells wrote:
> The interesting thing about both Rhizome and the other new media community
> sites is that its already a filtered group. We thought we might run into
> that problem with the PAM select calls for artists. We found out that
> through word of mouth and pre-filtered lists like this one, the work we
> received was exceptional.
>
> I don

I would have to say that if people are submitting work to the Artbase
and receiving no response at all, that is unprofessional and
unacceptable. Even work that is rejected should get a response. Is
this an isolated incident? Does anyone at Rhizome have an explanation
for this?

Pall

On 5.4.2006, at 06:48, toegristle wrote:

> I can respect both sides of this discussion. On the one hand I
> completely understand the need and the desire to have quality
> control for something like the ArtBase, or put another way, some
> mechanism to keep the whole system from being dragged down by the
> lowest common denominator. However, at the same time I really can't
> understand why individuals pursuing careers as professional artists
> should necessarily be an important factor when considering the
> quality of an individual work. It seems to me at that point it
> becomes very insular and potentially closed to new things.
>
> I'm speaking as someone who, for various reasons, made a conscious
> decision while I was still in art school that I wasn't going to
> pursue the path of what I assume you mean by a professional artist,
> i.e. having a CV, getting my work in galleries and exhibitions,
> etc. I have confidence in my talent and I know I could have had
> some modicum of success had I taken that path, but for better or
> worse I simply had zero interest in it, and still don't. I know
> very well that this does cut me off from certain opportunities and
> also tends to make my more professional contemporaries
> automatically lump me in the category of amateur or hobbyist or
> whatever, but I've never really regretted my decision. A huge part
> of what attracted me to the web as an artist and to the net art
> scene was that I could do my own thing and have fun doing it,
> without having to "commodify" my work or live in a metropolitan
> area with a big gallery scene, or really have to deal with the art
> world in any way. I don't need any of it to validate myself as an
> artist, and if that means I won't be awarded any historical
> significance by the powers that be, then so be it.
>
> All that being said, I do value community very much. I had taken a
> pretty long hiatus from Rhizome until a few months ago. Part of the
> reason I shelled out my $25 and became a member was because I liked
> what I saw on the new website and because the organization /
> community had moved in what I perceived to be a positive direction
> since I had last visited. I have since submitted to the ArtBase
> twice and in both cases I can only assume my work was rejected
> because I basically received no response one way or the other. My
> submissions just disappeared into the ether. This doesn't really
> bother me for the same reasons I stated above, but I did find it
> interesting. I can't help but wonder if the work would be given any
> more consideration if I wasn't an outsider, if I already had my
> foot in the door, so to speak. I feel like given the chance in a
> debate, I could make a pretty good case for the historical
> significance of both of the works I submitted meeting the stated
> criteria. I wonder how much of the lack of response is due to the
> fact that I didn't really include much explanation text to support
> my case in the first place. I've never been one to delve into
> theory or provide a lot of background explanation or historical
> context. Hell, my artists statement at my BFA show was simply: "Art
> is fun."
>
> In the end I know I'm a small fish and I don't pretend to deserve
> much say in what the ArtBase should be. Like I said, I do
> understand the need for some quality control, but I also tend to
> think something is lost if it becomes just another extension of the
> elite art world, a bouncer guarding the gates of the museum.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Corey Eiseman
> http://toegristle.com/
> Who are *you* to deny it?!?
>
>
> Lee Wells wrote:
>> The interesting thing about both Rhizome and the other new media
>> community
>> sites is that its already a filtered group. We thought we might
>> run into
>> that problem with the PAM select calls for artists. We found out that
>> through word of mouth and pre-filtered lists like this one, the
>> work we
>> received was exceptional.
>>
>> I don

There is already a non-filtered, non-curated archive for storing artworks. It's
called the Internet.

People come to Rhizome out of all those other possibilities to get to something
specific, special, or "more." By definition, that means selectivity.

-Alexis

Hi Pall, Hi Corey

Rhizome's policy is to respond to every submission with an acceptance or a
rejection letter.

During the Director of Technology transition, we encountered trouble with
our ArtBase tools and some submitted works/ and our responses to them fell
through the cracks. (This is the situation that MANIK got tangled up in.)
Patrick has since gotten the system back up and working, although its
brittle and still needs attention.

All to say, Corey, Rhizome is not the "bouncer at the museums gate" and I'm
sorry that you were made to feel like that way! Marisa Olson reviews our
ArtBase submissions (in collaboration with Rhizome staff), and she'll be in
touch with you directly.

Server issues aside, a significant amount of our organizational resources
are dedicated to maintaining our site and making sure the services we offer
are functional. We are a very small staff, and it can take a little time to
address and fix issues on top of all that we are juggling. That said, we
have been quite ambitious this year about making positive changes to the
site..

For anyone else who might have had the same experience (submitting to the
ArtBase and not hearing back), I'd like to extend the same apology and ask
that you contact Rhizome staff directly!

Thank you, and all best,
Lauren


On 4/5/06 8:48 AM, "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I would have to say that if people are submitting work to the Artbase
> and receiving no response at all, that is unprofessional and
> unacceptable. Even work that is rejected should get a response. Is
> this an isolated incident? Does anyone at Rhizome have an explanation
> for this?
>
> Pall
>
> On 5.4.2006, at 06:48, toegristle wrote:
>
>> I can respect both sides of this discussion. On the one hand I
>> completely understand the need and the desire to have quality
>> control for something like the ArtBase, or put another way, some
>> mechanism to keep the whole system from being dragged down by the
>> lowest common denominator. However, at the same time I really can't
>> understand why individuals pursuing careers as professional artists
>> should necessarily be an important factor when considering the
>> quality of an individual work. It seems to me at that point it
>> becomes very insular and potentially closed to new things.
>>
>> I'm speaking as someone who, for various reasons, made a conscious
>> decision while I was still in art school that I wasn't going to
>> pursue the path of what I assume you mean by a professional artist,
>> i.e. having a CV, getting my work in galleries and exhibitions,
>> etc. I have confidence in my talent and I know I could have had
>> some modicum of success had I taken that path, but for better or
>> worse I simply had zero interest in it, and still don't. I know
>> very well that this does cut me off from certain opportunities and
>> also tends to make my more professional contemporaries
>> automatically lump me in the category of amateur or hobbyist or
>> whatever, but I've never really regretted my decision. A huge part
>> of what attracted me to the web as an artist and to the net art
>> scene was that I could do my own thing and have fun doing it,
>> without having to "commodify" my work or live in a metropolitan
>> area with a big gallery scene, or really have to deal with the art
>> world in any way. I don't need any of it to validate myself as an
>> artist, and if that means I won't be awarded any historical
>> significance by the powers that be, then so be it.
>>
>> All that being said, I do value community very much. I had taken a
>> pretty long hiatus from Rhizome until a few months ago. Part of the
>> reason I shelled out my $25 and became a member was because I liked
>> what I saw on the new website and because the organization /
>> community had moved in what I perceived to be a positive direction
>> since I had last visited. I have since submitted to the ArtBase
>> twice and in both cases I can only assume my work was rejected
>> because I basically received no response one way or the other. My
>> submissions just disappeared into the ether. This doesn't really
>> bother me for the same reasons I stated above, but I did find it
>> interesting. I can't help but wonder if the work would be given any
>> more consideration if I wasn't an outsider, if I already had my
>> foot in the door, so to speak. I feel like given the chance in a
>> debate, I could make a pretty good case for the historical
>> significance of both of the works I submitted meeting the stated
>> criteria. I wonder how much of the lack of response is due to the
>> fact that I didn't really include much explanation text to support
>> my case in the first place. I've never been one to delve into
>> theory or provide a lot of background explanation or historical
>> context. Hell, my artists statement at my BFA show was simply: "Art
>> is fun."
>>
>> In the end I know I'm a small fish and I don't pretend to deserve
>> much say in what the ArtBase should be. Like I said, I do
>> understand the need for some quality control, but I also tend to
>> think something is lost if it becomes just another extension of the
>> elite art world, a bouncer guarding the gates of the museum.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Corey Eiseman
>> http://toegristle.com/
>> Who are *you* to deny it?!?
>>
>>
>> Lee Wells wrote:
>>> The interesting thing about both Rhizome and the other new media
>>> community
>>> sites is that its already a filtered group. We thought we might
>>> run into
>>> that problem with the PAM select calls for artists. We found out that
>>> through word of mouth and pre-filtered lists like this one, the
>>> work we
>>> received was exceptional.
>>>
>>> I don

On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Alexis Turner wrote:

> There is already a non-filtered, non-curated archive for storing
> artworks. It's
> called the Internet.

In a way of course you're right, but the internet as a whole contains
every possible kind of content – the ArtBase (curated or not) would
be for internet art specifically. This would be 'special' in and of
itself, as in 'specialization'.' As Lee mentioned elsewhere, when
I've run open projects, I find that people do a remarkably good job
of curating themselves.

S

is there any selectivity on Rhizome? can't anyone join, post, etc? does one
have to be a professional artist (and what does that mean, exactly)? if one
would have to be a professional artist, would a good programmer who may not
be an artist at all, but may have something to add, be excluded?

is there any selectivity on opensource or sourceforge or macromedia
extensions or things like puredata? how do these things work?

would selectivity necessarily mean better quality, or would it mean a
certain slant/bias, or would it be more trouble than its worth?

these are the questions that come to mind when I read these posts….

Zev

Zev Robinson
www.artafterscience.com
www.zrdesign.co.uk

> People come to Rhizome out of all those other possibilities to get to
> something
> specific, special, or "more." By definition, that means selectivity.
>
> -Alexis
>
> +
> -> 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
>

Hi, all.

I just wanted to chime in about Artbase things. I haven't meant to be
silent, but I wanted to leave the floor open for members to express
themselves without "the institution" jumping in. Needless to say, I
appreciate the opportunity to hear your thoughts. As Lauren mentioned,
we'll be discussing the Artbase much more actively in our upcoming
discussion of its Metadata, so I'll jump in more at that time.

Meanwhile, I wanted to address Corey's & Lauren's earlier posts about
the response process, when one submits to the Artbase. As Patrick
mentioned in his recent Director of Technology Report, we have had a
bit of trouble with the messaging systems associated with the Artbase.
It seems that we've mostly recovered from them but Patrick is still
working hard to get us up to 110%. In the mean time, I apologize that
some messages (which inform me of submissions, uploads, etc, and
inform you about decisions, process, etc) have fallen through the
cracks.

I hope you all know that I'm always happy to hear from you and want to
be as helpful as possible, so please do feel free to email me with any
questions or concerns.

All the best,
Marisa