mmmm, lots of tasty bits in here...
I'll snip and quote below:
On Jul 9, 2004, at 4:27 PM, liza sabater wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> I've followed with interest this thread and was going to post a
> meta-response but there's too much for that.
> On Sunday, Jul 4, 2004, at 10:31 America/New_York, Jason Van Anden
>> I am a fairly new member to the Rhizome community. When I first
>> discovered Rhizome, I was excited to find a forum of artists with
>> common interests and concerns, and looked forward to the discussions
>> that would take place, and that I could take place in. Since I
>> joined a few months ago, there have only been a few sustained
>> threads, while the archives are filled with lively and fascinating
>> discussion. What happened?
> Fatigue. Other interests. Growth.
I post more often to my own site then to Rhiz, here's why:
1. I have complete control over linking
No one can put any sort of impediment in front of it for any reason
(even a little $5 fee).
2. I have complete control over availability
My posts will be there for as long as I choose. Rhiz could go under.
I'm not going to close-up shop on my web site until the day I die. Look
what happened to the Walker's new media program...
3. I find I'm a better person when I'm posting to my own site.
I share more instead of making a public pose. I'm much less likely to
flame and complain. I don't know why but I'm less reactionary. (of
course this is my own issue...)
4. It's less aggressive. (this is related to point 3)
Blogs are passive; email lists are much more aggressive PUSH media.
5. I can syndicate (this is related to 1)
> What I want to bring into light is your comment about effort. Blogs
> are not things. They are technologies. Software that is meant to
> manage a site by separating the structure (HTML/PHP), from the design
> (CSS) and the content (TXT). So if you are used to creating sites with
> Dreamweaver, yeah, the thought is daunting. But as someone who is not
> a software developer, I have to say that there is nothing better for
> easily managing a site than a CMS. Now, does that mean that you should
> give up on artsy-fartsy sites? No. What it means is that artists need
> to think strategically about their sites. That the art stay separate
> from the actual management of the site. To use the CMS as a way of
> archiving and curating your site.
> Tina LaPorta the other said to me "As net artists, we've lost out
> way". It came out of a conversation that net art was supposed to be
> about decentralization, the rhizome, nomadism and as it is it's become
> institutionalized. So in effect, the first wave of net artists
> basically emulated online the very systems they sought to by-pass
> offline in order to show/disseminate their art. Is this bad? I don't
> think so because, really, social networking software like wikis and
> blogs, for example, have exploded in the last 2 years. Rhizome and the
> first wave of net artists has been around since 1996. Their old farts
> in web / technology years if you think about it.
I'm need to comment on this 'net artists lost their way' thing.
I don't see net artists losing their way. There isn't as much of it
going on, it's not as exciting and new as it was, but to say, "we've
lost our way" simply makes lots and lots of assumptions about what net
artists were thinking about in the early days. I for one didn't think
all that much about rhizomatic structures or nomadism (nomadism?). I
was more excited about the fact that I, ME, JUST LITTLE OLE ME, had
access to a mass medium! That was what excited me. Also, most newer net
art projects use decentralized, networked processes in the make-up of
the work even if it's being supported by centralized art world
>> At the time that I discovered Rhizome, I also discovered a lot of
>> other on-line resources influenced by it. After doing an unscientific
>> cost/benefits analysis, I decided that the service that Rhizome
>> provides as a centralized and democratic community was the best one,
>> and decided to become a member.
> Rhizome is centralized but is not a democratic community. It was never
> set up to work like that. Rhizome comes out of a salon / atelier /
> studio / gallery / museum tradition. It's about centralizing art. So
> that's where the technology for the site went. It's not a good or bad
> thing, BTW. The rhizome at Rhizome is a metaphor but not an actual
> realization of the blueprints given out by D&G*. That has happened
> with CMS.
> The technologies developed for blogging come from two traditions :
> Online link logging and self publishing. So the onus of disseminating
> a site is taken on by the blogger because, if they don't do it nobody
> will. And the links have become a way of not just acknowledging
> influences of showing love to other bloggers but of creating prestige
> ranking: of not only showing your influences but assessing your
> influence on others.
>> Personally, this meant that I devote some of my time (and ego) for
>> the greater good of the group, by posting my opinions and reactions
>> to topics of interest, in one place.
> With blogs, that new place is the feed reader.
> To read about feeds go to : http://news.yahoo.com/rss
> For what feed readers do, check out NetNewsWire at
>> I believe that a socialist-democracy (the ideal of Rhizome) is a much
>> better way for this community to thrive than anarchy (fractured,
>> poorly maintained blogs).
> Sorry but your analogy is hollow. Educate yourself a bit more about
> how the technologies work and then come back to that. I still have not
> read Alex Galloway's Protocol but I have on my site an essay he wrote
> with Eugene Thacker called the Limits of Networking. It's brilliant.
> Check it out at http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000574.html
Yeah, I wouldn't make that analogy either, that is, anarchy=blogs, that
really doesn't make any sense to me.
My experience in blogland is it maintains a very democratic nature as
there is no one voice of authority or mechanism of centralization. Of
course some voices rise to the top (in the web design field for
instance, there are a few 'main' bloggers: Zeldman, stopdesign, What do
i know, mezzoblue, k10k, etc). But the same thing happens on a
discussion board but it's much harder to create one's own filter of the
leading voices in a field.
Similar blog voices link via their post links, their blogrolls, their
comment links, their trackbacks, etc. The mechanism of grouping or
networking therefor is decentralized; if one blog goes down, much like
the Internet, it doesn't tear down the entire network of blogs in a
field. We need that desperately in the new media/net art world. If
Rhizome goes out tomorrow, what becomes of the artbase? the texts? our
RAW clubhouse? It's gone.
>> In order for this to happen, I think that members need to
>> deliberately devote their resources to the good of the board than
>> their own blogs.
> I will be publishing this weekend a long post on metablogging the net
> art world. Hopefully it will be informative enough about the
> importance and utility of CMS technology for net artists.
>> Given that we all have a finite amount of time to devote to our art,
>> our day-jobs, and so on, I am interested in why members feel it is
>> better to blog than to participate in a board.
> Quick thoughts : Vertical scaling (metaweb), categories, archives,
> networking, diffusion, dissemination, the rhizome. More to come.
> l i za