New Membership Policy

Posted by Lauren Cornell | Mon May 23rd 2005 10:15 a.m.

Hi,

I am pleased to announce the launch of our new membership policy. Every
individual Member should be receiving a dedicated email about this shortly,
but I would also like to bring attention to the new policy on the list to
get your thoughts and feedback.

This change was prompted by a reconsideration of our current membership
system. When we enacted a $5 membership requirement in January 2003, we
thought that such a policy would balance our need for a stable revenue
source with our mission to serve new media arts communities around the
world. However, having reviewed Rhizome's usage and subscription statistics,
we concluded that our membership policy was stifling wide-scale
participation in our online programs. We have rethought and restructured our
membership policy to make Rhizome more inclusive, relevant, and open.

Under our new policy, anyone, regardless of whether they have donated to
Rhizome or not, will be able to post or access Rhizome content from the last
year simply by signing up. It
  • Francis Hwang | Mon May 23rd 2005 10:37 a.m.
    Just to add to what Lauren said: Some of you may have noticed that the
    website is down for maintenance right now. This is because I'm
    currently doing work to move the website to the new membership policy,
    particularly in transitioning all our current members to the new
    system. Right now the website isn't visible, but email is working, the
    list is working, and all emails through the list are being archived as
    normal. I expect this process to be done by the end of the day.

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: 212-219-1288x202
    AIM: francisrhizome
    + + +
    On May 23, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Lauren Cornell wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I am pleased to announce the launch of our new membership policy.
    > Every
    > individual Member should be receiving a dedicated email about this
    > shortly,
    > but I would also like to bring attention to the new policy on the list
    > to
    > get your thoughts and feedback.
    >
    > This change was prompted by a reconsideration of our current membership
    > system. When we enacted a $5 membership requirement in January 2003, we
    > thought that such a policy would balance our need for a stable revenue
    > source with our mission to serve new media arts communities around the
    > world. However, having reviewed Rhizome's usage and subscription
    > statistics,
    > we concluded that our membership policy was stifling wide-scale
    > participation in our online programs. We have rethought and
    > restructured our
    > membership policy to make Rhizome more inclusive, relevant, and open.
    >
    > Under our new policy, anyone, regardless of whether they have donated
    > to
    > Rhizome or not, will be able to post or access Rhizome content from
    > the last
    > year simply by signing up. It's completely free to sign up - all you
    > have to
    > do is register an email address and password.
    >
    > Artworks and texts that are *more than one year old* will reside in the
    > Rhizome Archives. Only Rhizome Members will be able to access the
    > Archives.
    > Members will also be able to maintain a Member Page in the Community
    > Directory, create Member-Curated Exhibits, and use special features
    > such as
    > Advanced Search. In the coming months, we will roll out innovative
    > features
    > to keep our membership program dynamic and worthwhile.
    >
    > All current Members will retain their membership status under the new
    > policy. When your membership expires, you will still be able to
    > subscribe
    > to Rhizome lists and browse the site. But, in order to retain member
    > benefits, you will be asked to renew your membership at an annual
    > level of
    > $25. I hope you will consider continuing your membership at this
    > level.
    > Rhizome is just as reliant on our base of Members for financial
    > support now
    > as ever before.
    >
    > In announcing our new membership, I would also like to acknowledge the
    > vision and work of the Rhizome staff, Francis Hwang, Kevin McGarry and
    > particularly former Executive Director Rachel Greene, who initiated and
    > developed the plans for this new policy.
    >
    > We feel confident that everyone involved with Rhizome will benefit
    > from our
    > expanded availability, and we hope you agree.
    >
    > Thanks for reading this, and thank you for sticking with us as we try
    > to
    > find the best system to support our programs and organization.
    >
    >
    > Yours,
    >
    >
    > Lauren Cornell
    > Executive Director
    > Rhizome.org
    >
    > + + +
    >
    >
    > Rhizome.org is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. For U.S.
    > taxpayers,
    > contributions to Rhizome are tax-deductible, minus the value of any
    > goods or
    > services received, to the extent allowed by law.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Lauren Cornell
    > Executive Director, Rhizome.org
    > New Museum of Contemporary Art
    > 210 Eleventh Ave, NYC, NY 10001
    >
    > tel. 212.219.1222 X 208
    > fax. 212.431.5328
    > ema. laurencornell@rhizome.org
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • MTAA | Mon May 23rd 2005 3:13 p.m.
    Hi all,

    Posted a bit of a reaction to MTAA-RR:

    http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
    rhizome\_drops\_membership\_fee\_sort\_of.html

    Quoted below:

    It's not clear if things fall into the archive automatically after they
    are a year old or if everything added before May 23, 2004 goes into the
    archive and everything after is out. I assume the former. So there will
    be a moving archive deadline I'm assuming.

    I was pro-fee when it was proposed, but later changed my mind and
    became anti-fee. At first I felt that if Rhizome needed the money, then
    a Rhizome behind a fee firewall is better than no Rhizome at all. But
    then I realized that the firewall was slowly strangling Rhizome and
    urged them to ditch it. Which they've now done. Good!

    A small bit of criticism: I don't like the archive idea. It's my
    opinion that the text and art archives should be open forever. Rhizome
    needs to figure out other services/features that people will pay a
    membership fee for, but they shouldn't restrict access to the artbase
    or text archives.

    Putting my criticism aside, I'll say congrats to all the Rhizome staff
    for getting the new policy in place. I'm sure it was a lot of work.
    Good job guys!

    And now that we've got a fairly substantial hole in the firewall,
    perhaps we can tear it down entirely someday :-)

    On May 23, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Francis Hwang wrote:

    > Just to add to what Lauren said: Some of you may have noticed that the
    > website is down for maintenance right now. This is because I'm
    > currently doing work to move the website to the new membership policy,
    > particularly in transitioning all our current members to the new
    > system. Right now the website isn't visible, but email is working, the
    > list is working, and all emails through the list are being archived as
    > normal. I expect this process to be done by the end of the day.
    >
    > Francis Hwang
    > Director of Technology
    > Rhizome.org
    > phone: 212-219-1288x202
    > AIM: francisrhizome
    > + + +
    > On May 23, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Lauren Cornell wrote:
    >
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I am pleased to announce the launch of our new membership policy.
    >> Every
    >> individual Member should be receiving a dedicated email about this
    >> shortly,
    >> but I would also like to bring attention to the new policy on the
    >> list to
    >> get your thoughts and feedback.
    >>
    >> This change was prompted by a reconsideration of our current
    >> membership
    >> system. When we enacted a $5 membership requirement in January 2003,
    >> we
    >> thought that such a policy would balance our need for a stable revenue
    >> source with our mission to serve new media arts communities around the
    >> world. However, having reviewed Rhizome's usage and subscription
    >> statistics,
    >> we concluded that our membership policy was stifling wide-scale
    >> participation in our online programs. We have rethought and
    >> restructured our
    >> membership policy to make Rhizome more inclusive, relevant, and open.
    >>
    >> Under our new policy, anyone, regardless of whether they have donated
    >> to
    >> Rhizome or not, will be able to post or access Rhizome content from
    >> the last
    >> year simply by signing up. It's completely free to sign up - all you
    >> have to
    >> do is register an email address and password.
    >>
    >> Artworks and texts that are *more than one year old* will reside in
    >> the
    >> Rhizome Archives. Only Rhizome Members will be able to access the
    >> Archives.
    >> Members will also be able to maintain a Member Page in the Community
    >> Directory, create Member-Curated Exhibits, and use special features
    >> such as
    >> Advanced Search. In the coming months, we will roll out innovative
    >> features
    >> to keep our membership program dynamic and worthwhile.
    >>
    >> All current Members will retain their membership status under the new
    >> policy. When your membership expires, you will still be able to
    >> subscribe
    >> to Rhizome lists and browse the site. But, in order to retain member
    >> benefits, you will be asked to renew your membership at an annual
    >> level of
    >> $25. I hope you will consider continuing your membership at this
    >> level.
    >> Rhizome is just as reliant on our base of Members for financial
    >> support now
    >> as ever before.
    >>
    >> In announcing our new membership, I would also like to acknowledge the
    >> vision and work of the Rhizome staff, Francis Hwang, Kevin McGarry and
    >> particularly former Executive Director Rachel Greene, who initiated
    >> and
    >> developed the plans for this new policy.
    >>
    >> We feel confident that everyone involved with Rhizome will benefit
    >> from our
    >> expanded availability, and we hope you agree.
    >>
    >> Thanks for reading this, and thank you for sticking with us as we try
    >> to
    >> find the best system to support our programs and organization.
    >>
    >>
    >> Yours,
    >>
    >>
    >> Lauren Cornell
    >> Executive Director
    >> Rhizome.org
    >>
    >> + + +
    >>
    >>
    >> Rhizome.org is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. For U.S.
    >> taxpayers,
    >> contributions to Rhizome are tax-deductible, minus the value of any
    >> goods or
    >> services received, to the extent allowed by law.
    >>

    ===
    <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
    ===
  • Chris Read | Tue May 24th 2005 3:03 a.m.
    Dear Lauren,

    You state:
    “… having reviewed Rhizome's usage and subscription statistics, we concluded that our membership policy was stifling wide-scale participation in our online programs. We have rethought and restructured our membership policy to make Rhizome more inclusive, relevant, and open.”

    You have not clearly stated what the problem is, nor provided data to support your findings. What is “wide-scale participation”. Implementing radical change before the community has the chance to debate the problem (as yet to be defined) is not inclusive, open or promotes participation. If this is an emergency and the only remedy is a 500% increase in the membership fee you need to explain your case better.

    Sincerely,
    Chris Read

    Lauren Cornell wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I am pleased to announce the launch of our new membership policy.
    > Every
    > individual Member should be receiving a dedicated email about this
    > shortly,
    > but I would also like to bring attention to the new policy on the list
    > to
    > get your thoughts and feedback.
    >
    > This change was prompted by a reconsideration of our current
    > membership
    > system. When we enacted a $5 membership requirement in January 2003,
    > we
    > thought that such a policy would balance our need for a stable revenue
    > source with our mission to serve new media arts communities around the
    > world. However, having reviewed Rhizome's usage and subscription
    > statistics,
    > we concluded that our membership policy was stifling wide-scale
    > participation in our online programs. We have rethought and
    > restructured our
    > membership policy to make Rhizome more inclusive, relevant, and open.
    >
    > Under our new policy, anyone, regardless of whether they have donated
    > to
    > Rhizome or not, will be able to post or access Rhizome content from
    > the last
    > year simply by signing up. It�s completely free to sign up - all you
    > have to
    > do is register an email address and password.
    >
    > Artworks and texts that are *more than one year old* will reside in
    > the
    > Rhizome Archives. Only Rhizome Members will be able to access the
    > Archives.
    > Members will also be able to maintain a Member Page in the Community
    > Directory, create Member-Curated Exhibits, and use special features
    > such as
    > Advanced Search. In the coming months, we will roll out innovative
    > features
    > to keep our membership program dynamic and worthwhile.
    >
    > All current Members will retain their membership status under the new
    > policy. When your membership expires, you will still be able to
    > subscribe
    > to Rhizome lists and browse the site. But, in order to retain member
    > benefits, you will be asked to renew your membership at an annual
    > level of
    > $25. I hope you will consider continuing your membership at this
    > level.
    > Rhizome is just as reliant on our base of Members for financial
    > support now
    > as ever before.
    >
    > In announcing our new membership, I would also like to acknowledge the
    > vision and work of the Rhizome staff, Francis Hwang, Kevin McGarry and
    > particularly former Executive Director Rachel Greene, who initiated
    > and
    > developed the plans for this new policy.
    >
    > We feel confident that everyone involved with Rhizome will benefit
    > from our
    > expanded availability, and we hope you agree.
    >
    > Thanks for reading this, and thank you for sticking with us as we try
    > to
    > find the best system to support our programs and organization.
    >
    >
    > Yours,
    >
    >
    > Lauren Cornell
    > Executive Director
    > Rhizome.org
    >
    > + + +
    >
    >
    > Rhizome.org is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. For U.S.
    > taxpayers,
    > contributions to Rhizome are tax-deductible, minus the value of any
    > goods or
    > services received, to the extent allowed by law.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Lauren Cornell
    > Executive Director, Rhizome.org
    > New Museum of Contemporary Art
    > 210 Eleventh Ave, NYC, NY 10001
    >
    > tel. 212.219.1222 X 208
    > fax. 212.431.5328
    > ema. laurencornell@rhizome.org
    >
    >
  • Lauren Cornell | Tue May 24th 2005 5:45 a.m.
    Hi Chris,

    What I meant by that statement was that the rate of subscriptions to our
    mailing lists had been declining for a long time, as was the rate of
    people signing up to be new members and using the site and our services.
    So, while it may not necessarily be a sink or swim moment, the urgency to
    make a change that would spur Rhizome's long-term growth was very real.

    As Rhizome is very active, perhaps its hard to see those statistics on the
    front end. Rachel Greene watched the declining figures over a long period
    of time and they were what prompted her to develop the change in
    membership - which Francis, Kevin and I worked very hard to implement.

    Our hope is that our current constituents will benefit from a more open
    system - one that allows the organization to broaden its base of
    participants - not just paying participants, but anyone who is interested
    in knowing more about new media art and utilizing Rhizome as a resource.

    Another factor in the change, which was mentioned in the individual
    letters to Members, is that the $5 inhibits Rhizome from keeping pace with
    the net. Removing the $5 will hopefully allow us to make other changes
    that will keep us evolving. On that note, we would be happy to share any
    upcoming changes - significant or not so - with you for debate.

    I hope that provides a satisfactory answer to your question.

    Thanks,
    Lauren

    > Dear Lauren,
    >
    > You state:
    > aEoeaE
  • Jason Van Anden | Tue May 24th 2005 6:36 a.m.
    This policy change is super - thank you! Offering value-added features for paying members makes a lot of sense - and I look forward to the features Rhizome has in store.

    I disagree with the archiving concept though. I feel the membership gets more value by the "old" content being freely available. Placing this content in a lock box prevents a casual audience from discovering Rhizome (and its membership's art and words) via the serach engines. It seems to me that a better model might be the reverse - paying members would have access to fresher content - and everyone else would have access after some time period (a day, a week, etc...).

    Jason Van Anden
    www.smileproject.com
  • Robert Spahr | Tue May 24th 2005 7:59 a.m.
    If a paid membership is necessary, a site that consists of community created
    content should keep the archive open and free to all.

    If some information must be limited by paid membership, limit the newest and
    most current information. That is the information I am willing to pay for.

    Think about how many people could be linking to archived content as well as
    search engines indexing the archive. This would allow the rhizome roots to
    grow and enlarge the community. Putting a locked gate around those roots for
    a paid membership does not contribute to growth.

    Much like the NYTimes is planning on offering a paid subscription for op-ed
    articles and their archive, this plan does not make sense to me. I would pay
    for the current days newspaper, but for the NYTimes to really participate in
    the online world where others freely link to their content, they need to
    allow their news archive to be open and free.

    Robert Spahr
    http://www.robertspahr.com

    On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?"
    And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly."

    On Tue May 24 2005 08:36 am, Jason Van Anden wrote:
    > This policy change is super - thank you! Offering value-added features for
    > paying members makes a lot of sense - and I look forward to the features
    > Rhizome has in store.
    >
    > I disagree with the archiving concept though. I feel the membership gets
    > more value by the "old" content being freely available. Placing this
    > content in a lock box prevents a casual audience from discovering Rhizome
    > (and its membership's art and words) via the serach engines. It seems to
    > me that a better model might be the reverse - paying members would have
    > access to fresher content - and everyone else would have access after some
    > time period (a day, a week, etc...).
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > www.smileproject.com
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    --
    --
  • void void | Tue May 24th 2005 8:50 a.m.
    cancel my subscription to the resurrection"

    void void.
  • Francis Hwang | Tue May 24th 2005 3:35 p.m.
    Well, it's a funny thing. Newest content is the most valuable, for
    sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can charge for it. I
    actually blogged about this, a few months back, on my own site:

    http://fhwang.net/blog/51.html

    It's useful, for the purposes of discussion, to divide content into two
    completely arbitrary categories: "news" and "archives". News--which is
    to say anything that's about notifying you of a new thing happening
    recently--is a highly in-demand product, but there are lots of people
    giving it away for free online, so you can't really charge for it. I
    can only think of one company that's been able to do this reliably
    online, and that's the Wall Street Journal--and obviously that works
    for them because their customers are Godless capitalists who are
    willing to pay for premium services like WSJ content. But it hasn't
    worked reliably for Salon or the NYT online, and I don't personally
    have any faith that it'd work for us.

    Archives aren't nearly as popular as news, and in fact, people who want
    archives are looking for somewhat different reasons as those who want
    news. Someone looking for a one-day-old text wants to read that funny
    thing that somebody wrote yesterday, or join some chatter about a
    recent news article or how to make a living in the field. Someone
    looking for a five-year-old text is more likely to be doing some sort
    of research.

    It turns out that a lot of people would like a little bit of access to
    the archives, but people who really need access to the archives--we're
    talking academics, researchers, historians, etc.--are more likely to
    justify paying some money for it. Hence the $25 requirement at 1
    year-plus. Of course, an individual donation of $25 can be steep for
    some of those folks; the idea is that if they're affiliated with some
    sort of an organization, like a library or a university, that
    organization can sign up for an organizational subscription instead.

    ( By the way, we also offer complimentary organizational subscriptions
    to new media arts organizations in developing countries; contact Kevin
    at kevin@rhizome.org if you think you'd qualify. )

    The division between news consumers and archive consumers is quite
    arbitrary, of course. And you can make the case that with the rise of
    amateur publishing, amateur history, etc., etc., enabled by internet
    culture, such a division may be rendered entirely useless at some point
    in the near future. But it works for some organizations today, and
    we're hoping it'll work for us for a while.

    Of course, ideally you wouldn't have to charge for anything. But I'm
    fairly confident that our new policy is one that will be significantly
    less irritating for everybody on a day-to-day basis. And it does so
    while letting us sustain or increase our member-driven revenue--which
    is, unfortunately, something we always have to be conscious of here in
    the office.

    But of course, this is just another try at a difficult problem. Like
    the New York Times, like Salon, like Kuro5hin, and everyone else, we're
    always looking for the best policy that allows us to make enough money
    to keep doing interesting things, while annoying people as little as
    possible. I don't think we'll need to tinker with this policy for some
    time--but this is the internets, after all, so eventually you're going
    to have to tinker with everything.

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: 212-219-1288x202
    AIM: francisrhizome
    + + +
    On May 24, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Jason Van Anden wrote:

    > This policy change is super - thank you! Offering value-added
    > features for paying members makes a lot of sense - and I look forward
    > to the features Rhizome has in store.
    >
    > I disagree with the archiving concept though. I feel the membership
    > gets more value by the "old" content being freely available. Placing
    > this content in a lock box prevents a casual audience from discovering
    > Rhizome (and its membership's art and words) via the serach engines.
    > It seems to me that a better model might be the reverse - paying
    > members would have access to fresher content - and everyone else would
    > have access after some time period (a day, a week, etc...).
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > www.smileproject.com
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • jimpunk | Tue May 24th 2005 4:54 p.m.
    X

    Francis Hwang wrote:

    > Well, it's a funny thing. Newest content is the most valuable, for
    > sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can charge for it. I
    > actually blogged about this, a few months back, on my own site:
    >
    > http://fhwang.net/blog/51.html
    >
    > It's useful, for the purposes of discussion, to divide content into
    > two
    > completely arbitrary categories: "news" and "archives". News--which
    > is
    > to say anything that's about notifying you of a new thing happening
    > recently--is a highly in-demand product, but there are lots of people
    > giving it away for free online, so you can't really charge for it. I
    > can only think of one company that's been able to do this reliably
    > online, and that's the Wall Street Journal--and obviously that works
    > for them because their customers are Godless capitalists who are
    > willing to pay for premium services like WSJ content. But it hasn't
    > worked reliably for Salon or the NYT online, and I don't personally
    > have any faith that it'd work for us.
    >
    > Archives aren't nearly as popular as news, and in fact, people who
    > want
    > archives are looking for somewhat different reasons as those who want
    > news. Someone looking for a one-day-old text wants to read that funny
    > thing that somebody wrote yesterday, or join some chatter about a
    > recent news article or how to make a living in the field. Someone
    > looking for a five-year-old text is more likely to be doing some sort
    > of research.
    >
    > It turns out that a lot of people would like a little bit of access
    > to
    > the archives, but people who really need access to the
    > archives--we're
    > talking academics, researchers, historians, etc.--are more likely to
    > justify paying some money for it. Hence the $25 requirement at 1
    > year-plus. Of course, an individual donation of $25 can be steep for
    > some of those folks; the idea is that if they're affiliated with some
    > sort of an organization, like a library or a university, that
    > organization can sign up for an organizational subscription instead.
    >
    > ( By the way, we also offer complimentary organizational
    > subscriptions
    > to new media arts organizations in developing countries; contact
    > Kevin
    > at kevin@rhizome.org if you think you'd qualify. )
    >
    > The division between news consumers and archive consumers is quite
    > arbitrary, of course. And you can make the case that with the rise of
    > amateur publishing, amateur history, etc., etc., enabled by internet
    > culture, such a division may be rendered entirely useless at some
    > point
    > in the near future. But it works for some organizations today, and
    > we're hoping it'll work for us for a while.
    >
    > Of course, ideally you wouldn't have to charge for anything. But I'm
    > fairly confident that our new policy is one that will be
    > significantly
    > less irritating for everybody on a day-to-day basis. And it does so
    > while letting us sustain or increase our member-driven revenue--which
    > is, unfortunately, something we always have to be conscious of here
    > in
    > the office.
    >
    > But of course, this is just another try at a difficult problem. Like
    > the New York Times, like Salon, like Kuro5hin, and everyone else,
    > we're
    > always looking for the best policy that allows us to make enough
    > money
    > to keep doing interesting things, while annoying people as little as
    > possible. I don't think we'll need to tinker with this policy for
    > some
    > time--but this is the internets, after all, so eventually you're
    > going
    > to have to tinker with everything.
    >
    > Francis Hwang
    > Director of Technology
    > Rhizome.org
    > phone: 212-219-1288x202
    > AIM: francisrhizome
    > + + +
    > On May 24, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Jason Van Anden wrote:
    >
    > > This policy change is super - thank you! Offering value-added
    > > features for paying members makes a lot of sense - and I look
    > forward
    > > to the features Rhizome has in store.
    > >
    > > I disagree with the archiving concept though. I feel the
    > membership
    > > gets more value by the "old" content being freely available.
    > Placing
    > > this content in a lock box prevents a casual audience from
    > discovering
    > > Rhizome (and its membership's art and words) via the serach engines.
    >
    > > It seems to me that a better model might be the reverse - paying
    > > members would have access to fresher content - and everyone else
    > would
    > > have access after some time period (a day, a week, etc...).
    > >
    > > Jason Van Anden
    > > www.smileproject.com
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
    >
  • curt cloninger | Tue May 24th 2005 5:16 p.m.
    Hi Francis,

    This is something we worked through last time around, but I just want to make sure it stays in place.

    For those of us who have written articles for rhizome, and then we want to link to those articles from our web sites, will the links still work? Behind the $5 firewall they worked if they were linked from an online web page, but not from an email. I assume the same will remain true behind the $25 firewall?

    And just for fun (from 2003):
    http://www.computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/rebranding/rhizome/

    again from 2003:
    http://www.lab404.com/rhizome/

    Doug Butabi: You can take away our phones. You can take away our keys. But, you can't take away our dreams!

    Steve Butabi: That's right. 'Cause we're like sleeping when we have them!

    peace,
    curt

    _

    Francis Hwang wrote:

    > Well, it's a funny thing. Newest content is the most valuable, for
    > sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can charge for it. I
    > actually blogged about this, a few months back, on my own site:
    >
    > http://fhwang.net/blog/51.html
    >
    > It's useful, for the purposes of discussion, to divide content into
    > two
    > completely arbitrary categories: "news" and "archives". News--which
    > is
    > to say anything that's about notifying you of a new thing happening
    > recently--is a highly in-demand product, but there are lots of people
    > giving it away for free online, so you can't really charge for it. I
    > can only think of one company that's been able to do this reliably
    > online, and that's the Wall Street Journal--and obviously that works
    > for them because their customers are Godless capitalists who are
    > willing to pay for premium services like WSJ content. But it hasn't
    > worked reliably for Salon or the NYT online, and I don't personally
    > have any faith that it'd work for us.
    >
    > Archives aren't nearly as popular as news, and in fact, people who
    > want
    > archives are looking for somewhat different reasons as those who want
    > news. Someone looking for a one-day-old text wants to read that funny
    > thing that somebody wrote yesterday, or join some chatter about a
    > recent news article or how to make a living in the field. Someone
    > looking for a five-year-old text is more likely to be doing some sort
    > of research.
    >
    > It turns out that a lot of people would like a little bit of access
    > to
    > the archives, but people who really need access to the
    > archives--we're
    > talking academics, researchers, historians, etc.--are more likely to
    > justify paying some money for it. Hence the $25 requirement at 1
    > year-plus. Of course, an individual donation of $25 can be steep for
    > some of those folks; the idea is that if they're affiliated with some
    > sort of an organization, like a library or a university, that
    > organization can sign up for an organizational subscription instead.
    >
    > ( By the way, we also offer complimentary organizational
    > subscriptions
    > to new media arts organizations in developing countries; contact
    > Kevin
    > at kevin@rhizome.org if you think you'd qualify. )
    >
    > The division between news consumers and archive consumers is quite
    > arbitrary, of course. And you can make the case that with the rise of
    > amateur publishing, amateur history, etc., etc., enabled by internet
    > culture, such a division may be rendered entirely useless at some
    > point
    > in the near future. But it works for some organizations today, and
    > we're hoping it'll work for us for a while.
    >
    > Of course, ideally you wouldn't have to charge for anything. But I'm
    > fairly confident that our new policy is one that will be
    > significantly
    > less irritating for everybody on a day-to-day basis. And it does so
    > while letting us sustain or increase our member-driven revenue--which
    > is, unfortunately, something we always have to be conscious of here
    > in
    > the office.
    >
    > But of course, this is just another try at a difficult problem. Like
    > the New York Times, like Salon, like Kuro5hin, and everyone else,
    > we're
    > always looking for the best policy that allows us to make enough
    > money
    > to keep doing interesting things, while annoying people as little as
    > possible. I don't think we'll need to tinker with this policy for
    > some
    > time--but this is the internets, after all, so eventually you're
    > going
    > to have to tinker with everything.
    >
    > Francis Hwang
    > Director of Technology
    > Rhizome.org
    > phone: 212-219-1288x202
    > AIM: francisrhizome
  • Chris Read | Wed May 25th 2005 2:48 a.m.
    Dear Lauren,

    You state:
    “… that the rate of subscriptions to our mailing lists had been declining for a long time, as was the rate of people signing up to be new members and using the site and our services.”

    So subscriptions are NOT decreasing, they are either increasing or flat, only the RATE of subscriptions is decreasing. Post the data and let it speak for itself. Don’t treat us like idiots. Statistics may not be perceived as an exciting subject but that does not mean that we can not read a table or understand the meaning represented by an S-curve.

    “…the $5 [fee] inhibits Rhizome from keeping pace with the net.”

    Why must Rhizome.org grow at a similar rate as the net? Do other communities share the same goal?

    “ Our hope is that our current constituents will benefit from a more open system - one that allows the organization to broaden its base of
    participants - not just paying participants, but anyone who is interested in knowing more about new media art and utilizing Rhizome as a resource. “

    You use the term “constituents” but you don’t treat us as such. If you represent the community, you are obligated to involve that community in major policy changes before implementing them.

    “…..Rachel Greene watched the declining figures over a long period
    of time and they were what prompted her to develop the change in membership - which Francis, Kevin and I worked very hard to implement.”

    You know as well as I do, that it does not matter if you work hard at something. If you were a musician in a symphony, and you can’t perform the notes required for the piece, should the conductor let you continue because you worked “very hard” and other symphony members liked your effort? Should the group let you continue regardless that the critics will state the obvious in their review and in turn hurt everyone who is involved with the performance? The fact you have worked very hard does not give you the legitimacy to implement the changes you want to make. If you remove yourself from this line thinking you will understand how dangerous your behavior is. You are changing the very fabric of this community.

    “On that note, we would be happy to share any upcoming changes - significant or not so - with you for debate.”

    Please don’t make this about me; I don’t want to spend my time in an on going debate. What has transpired compels me to speak up and ask you to clearly state what the problem is and to provide the data that support your findings and justifiy your actions. You will to need to explain these changes to the organizations Rhizome receives funding from, why not do the same for the rest of us?

    Sincerely,
    Chris Read

    Lauren Cornell wrote:

    > Hi Chris,
    >
    > What I meant by that statement was that the rate of subscriptions to
    > our
    > mailing lists had been declining for a long time, as was the rate of
    > people signing up to be new members and using the site and our
    > services.
    > So, while it may not necessarily be a sink or swim moment, the urgency
    > to
    > make a change that would spur Rhizome's long-term growth was very
    > real.
    >
    > As Rhizome is very active, perhaps its hard to see those statistics on
    > the
    > front end. Rachel Greene watched the declining figures over a long
    > period
    > of time and they were what prompted her to develop the change in
    > membership - which Francis, Kevin and I worked very hard to implement.
    >
    > Our hope is that our current constituents will benefit from a more
    > open
    > system - one that allows the organization to broaden its base of
    > participants - not just paying participants, but anyone who is
    > interested
    > in knowing more about new media art and utilizing Rhizome as a
    > resource.
    >
    > Another factor in the change, which was mentioned in the individual
    > letters to Members, is that the $5 inhibits Rhizome from keeping pace
    > with
    > the net. Removing the $5 will hopefully allow us to make other changes
    > that will keep us evolving. On that note, we would be happy to share
    > any
    > upcoming changes - significant or not so - with you for debate.
    >
    > I hope that provides a satisfactory answer to your question.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Lauren
    >
    >
    >
    > > Dear Lauren,
    > >
    > > You state:
    > > “… having reviewed Rhizome's usage and subscription statistics,
    > we
    > > concluded that our membership policy was stifling wide-scale
    > participation
    > > in our online programs. We have rethought and restructured our
    > membership
    > > policy to make Rhizome more inclusive, relevant, and open.�?
    > >
    > >
    > > You have not clearly stated what the problem is, nor provided data
    > to
    > > support your findings. What is “wide-scale participation�?.
    > > Implementing radical change before the community has the chance to
    > debate
    > > the problem (as yet to be defined) is not inclusive, open or
    > promotes
    > > participation. If this is an emergency and the only remedy is a 500%
    > > increase in the membership fee you need to explain your case better.
    > >
    > > Sincerely,
    > > Chris Read
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Lauren Cornell wrote:
    > >
    > >> Hi,
    > >>
    > >> I am pleased to announce the launch of our new membership policy.
    > >> Every
    > >> individual Member should be receiving a dedicated email about this
    > >> shortly,
    > >> but I would also like to bring attention to the new policy on the
    > list
    > >> to
    > >> get your thoughts and feedback.
    > >>
    > >> This change was prompted by a reconsideration of our current
    > >> membership
    > >> system. When we enacted a $5 membership requirement in January
    > 2003,
    > >> we
    > >> thought that such a policy would balance our need for a stable
    > revenue
    > >> source with our mission to serve new media arts communities around
    > the
    > >> world. However, having reviewed Rhizome's usage and subscription
    > >> statistics,
    > >> we concluded that our membership policy was stifling wide-scale
    > >> participation in our online programs. We have rethought and
    > >> restructured our
    > >> membership policy to make Rhizome more inclusive, relevant, and
    > open.
    > >>
    > >> Under our new policy, anyone, regardless of whether they have
    > donated
    > >> to
    > >> Rhizome or not, will be able to post or access Rhizome content from
    > >> the last
    > >> year simply by signing up. It�s completely free to sign up - all
    > you
    > >> have to
    > >> do is register an email address and password.
    > >>
    > >> Artworks and texts that are *more than one year old* will reside in
    > >> the
    > >> Rhizome Archives. Only Rhizome Members will be able to access the
    > >> Archives.
    > >> Members will also be able to maintain a Member Page in the
    > Community
    > >> Directory, create Member-Curated Exhibits, and use special features
    > >> such as
    > >> Advanced Search. In the coming months, we will roll out innovative
    > >> features
    > >> to keep our membership program dynamic and worthwhile.
    > >>
    > >> All current Members will retain their membership status under the
    > new
    > >> policy. When your membership expires, you will still be able to
    > >> subscribe
    > >> to Rhizome lists and browse the site. But, in order to retain
    > member
    > >> benefits, you will be asked to renew your membership at an annual
    > >> level of
    > >> $25. I hope you will consider continuing your membership at this
    > >> level.
    > >> Rhizome is just as reliant on our base of Members for financial
    > >> support now
    > >> as ever before.
    > >>
    > >> In announcing our new membership, I would also like to acknowledge
    > the
    > >> vision and work of the Rhizome staff, Francis Hwang, Kevin McGarry
    > and
    > >> particularly former Executive Director Rachel Greene, who initiated
    > >> and
    > >> developed the plans for this new policy.
    > >>
    > >> We feel confident that everyone involved with Rhizome will benefit
    > >> from our
    > >> expanded availability, and we hope you agree.
    > >>
    > >> Thanks for reading this, and thank you for sticking with us as we
    > try
    > >> to
    > >> find the best system to support our programs and organization.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Yours,
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Lauren Cornell
    > >> Executive Director
    > >> Rhizome.org
    > >>
    > >> + + +
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Rhizome.org is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. For U.S.
    > >> taxpayers,
    > >> contributions to Rhizome are tax-deductible, minus the value of any
    > >> goods or
    > >> services received, to the extent allowed by law.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Lauren Cornell
    > >> Executive Director, Rhizome.org
    > >> New Museum of Contemporary Art
    > >> 210 Eleventh Ave, NYC, NY 10001
    > >>
    > >> tel. 212.219.1222 X 208
    > >> fax. 212.431.5328
    > >> ema. laurencornell@rhizome.org
    > >>
    > >>
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
  • Rob Myers | Wed May 25th 2005 4:15 a.m.
    Yay! A more open Rhizome! This is great!

    Thanks to everyone who's worked to make this happen.

    - Rob.
  • x-arn | Wed May 25th 2005 5:37 a.m.
    Rob Myers wrote:

    >Yay! A more open Rhizome! This is great!
    >
    >Thanks to everyone who's worked to make this happen.
    >
    >- Rob.
    >+
    >
    Yes, it's nice to be there again. And for those who are angry about the
    artbase, don't forget you still can have a free und unrestricted access
    here ;-) :
    --------

    http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/

    "This is not a cloned object"

    The first purpose of this work is to provide a simplified access to
    artworks contained in the Rhizome Artbase. Using Artbase parameters such
    as art object identifiers, the work focuses on anonymity wich can emerge
    from the relatively large amount of artworks. Furthermore, it's an
    illustration of the possible relations between interfaces and a database
    as described by Lev Manovich : "The new media object consists of one or
    more interfaces to a database of multimedia material. If only one
    interface is constructed, the result will be similar to a traditional
    art object; but this is an exception rather than the norm."

    (http://time.arts.ucla.edu/AI_Society/manovich.html).

    http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/

    -----------
  • Jim Andrews | Wed May 25th 2005 6:35 a.m.
    > http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/
    >
    > "This is not a cloned object"
    >
    > The first purpose of this work is to provide a simplified access to
    > artworks contained in the Rhizome Artbase. Using Artbase parameters such
    > as art object identifiers, the work focuses on anonymity wich can emerge
    > from the relatively large amount of artworks. Furthermore, it's an
    > illustration of the possible relations between interfaces and a database
    > as described by Lev Manovich : "The new media object consists of one or
    > more interfaces to a database of multimedia material. If only one
    > interface is constructed, the result will be similar to a traditional
    > art object; but this is an exception rather than the norm."

    That's pretty anonymous, yes.

    As a work of its own, the piece is interesting as a piece of code, perhaps
    as software art.

    As a way to present the work in the artbase, it's a bit depressing in the
    way it reduces each of the works to a near anonymous cipher. Until you click
    on a number, of course, and then the work becomes a bit more than a number.
    And thence into the work itself. Where it attains...what status of
    existence? Can it overcome its having been reduced to one among so many?

    I admire the efforts Rhizome has made to rescue the works in the artbase
    from negligability among many and the attempts to reveal relationship
    amongst the works and also to open the artbase to multiple interfaces such
    as yours and several others. I'm thinking of the chatbot, in particular,
    that queens on and drops links. Impressive, really.

    So if your piece uses the works in the artbase as material in a piece of its
    own, the rhizome artbase perhaps uses your piece in its work of multiple
    interfaces into the artbase.

    Once again, though, the artists seem to be at the bottom of this hierarchy.
    Do you think so? I suppose it is possible to see it otherwise.

    A little bit similar to the artist-curator relationship, I suppose. One
    sometimes wonders about the role of the art and artists in many curatorial
    projects in which the focus seems more on the art of the curator than the
    presented works. Sometimes it seems that the art and artists are merely
    pawns.

    Your piece perhaps highlights this sort of phenomenon rather than covering
    it up. It doesn't seem exploitative, somehow, if only because of the
    simplicity of your own interface, which is without pretension to artistic
    extravagance. Nicely done, actually, in its spareness, which leaves room for
    these sorts of questions to emerge uncluttered by complex curatorial agenda.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • MTAA | Wed May 25th 2005 8:08 a.m.
    Some of the discussion over this has been unnecessarily antagonistic.
    Some of us should settle down a tad.

    +++++++

    permenant link:
    http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/suggestions\_for\_rhizome.html

    First a disclaimer: I
  • x-arn | Wed May 25th 2005 9:07 a.m.
    Jim Andrews wrote:

    >Once again, though, the artists seem to be at the bottom of this hierarchy.
    >Do you think so? I suppose it is possible to see it otherwise.
    >
    Yes it is possible to see it otherwise. People (artists, critics, ...)
    and objects (pieces, projects, events, organizations...) are nodes in a
    network. These nodes are linked if, for example, someone works on a
    project or someone takes part in an organization, or, if a work needs
    another one to exist, we can link the works. It is the case as you
    pointed out with with any kind of interface to the artbase. So with this
    model, there is no hierarchy, we are on a flat network, nodes are more
    or less connected to others, and that's how i think about art in a
    networked environment. I guess also this kind of network map would be
    very useful to give us a picture of what new media art, or whatever we
    call it, is globally.
  • Lauren Cornell | Wed May 25th 2005 9:31 a.m.
    Hi,

    Just wanted to thank everyone for all the feedback. Just one minor update in
    response to it all: Francis is going to make it possible for each artist to
    access their works in the ArtBase regardless of the date they were entered.
    As soon as he has implemented this change, we will update the new membership
    policy to reflect it.

    Thanks,
    Lauren

    On 5/25/05 10:08 AM, "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:

    > Some of the discussion over this has been unnecessarily antagonistic.
    > Some of us should settle down a tad.
    >
    > +++++++
    >
    > permenant link:
    > http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/suggestions_for_rhizome.html
    >
    > First a disclaimer: I
  • Plasma Studii | Wed May 25th 2005 10:15 a.m.
    i dunno. seems like rhizome is doing a pretty good job of testing
    out is net art worth the cost, where and how?

    using the traditional model of newest works = more demand = worth
    money isn't exactly accurate (as francis pointed out, but seems
    perfectly clear, amazed anyone would disagree). but the question is
    is there some aspect, that's worth $$$ to somebody (individuals or
    institutions). this newest tweek is a guess that maybe that part's,
    worth much more to institutions than individuals.

    cool. the testing is good for web artists in the long run. we get
    to see the results.

    but what if it's not a part but the impression of computer art beyond
    the whole? what if that individual or institution is saying "no way.
    if i only make so many dollars an hour, am i giving any up for a
    bunch of rich kids." they may be wrong, but makes sense that art in
    general is pretty elitist. expensive objects, with no real visible
    material value, the value is purely hype. (talking a million dollar
    painting in the met or a budget for a dance show in the thousands.
    this stuff literally would cost next to nothing, but is pretty much a
    vacuum for expendable cash, and the zealousness of idle philosophers)

    to the majority of those people "computer art" appears to them the
    worst of the worst. it is marketed as techno babble they aren't privy
    to. the packaging of web art looks a techy manual not fun. math
    turns so many off. no doubt, computer art gets its share of eye
    rolling just by proxy. not because it is like math, but because from
    the outside, it looks like math. people use buzz words that are cool
    to their friends but undefined passwords keeping others out. math
    that is just really expensive play time (which isn't accurate, but is
    the impression).

    to the majority of arty institutions, they feel comfortable with art,
    but not all aspects of computers. they can say "of course this isn't
    art. art doesn't make me feel like a moron". so the perceived
    elitism is shutting people out from both sides. buzzwords may have
    meanings for us, but essentially just translate to others as "you
    can't follow this".

    the idea is that net art, instead of looking like a serious, solemn
    techno whiz kid production (which it often is but so often not)
    invite the broader public in. until computer art has a footing and
    people comfortable how to approach it, the mystique and theory are
    just turning them off. we need to concentrate not on complicating
    with more analysis but showing ways to make it possible to relate.

    hence, i propose, rhizome try changing the layout of their site from
    stereotypical white blog columns to polka dots!
  • Jim Andrews | Wed May 25th 2005 3:02 p.m.
    > >Once again, though, the artists seem to be at the bottom of this
    > >hierarchy.
    > >Do you think so? I suppose it is possible to see it otherwise.

    > Yes it is possible to see it otherwise. People (artists, critics, ...)
    > and objects (pieces, projects, events, organizations...) are nodes in a
    > network. These nodes are linked if, for example, someone works on a
    > project or someone takes part in an organization, or, if a work needs
    > another one to exist, we can link the works. It is the case as you
    > pointed out with with any kind of interface to the artbase. So with this
    > model, there is no hierarchy, we are on a flat network, nodes are more
    > or less connected to others, and that's how i think about art in a
    > networked environment. I guess also this kind of network map would be
    > very useful to give us a picture of what new media art, or whatever we
    > call it, is globally.

    First let me say I enjoyed the ARN Hub work you or your organization did
    previously, I think? This let people browse various lists. Is that project
    still up? What is the URL if so? And what is ARN, by the way?

    That seemed 'flatter' in the sense you mention, ie, less 'hierarchical' for
    some reason. As I said, I did not find your http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/
    piece exploitative, but it is something I wonder about concerning curatorial
    projects--particularly when they involve sufficiently many works that each
    work begins to look like a data point in a data set that has the real focus
    and attention, not the art works themselves. Usually I do not find such
    projects of artistic interest, though not always. Often, when a project
    curates a hundred works (or whatever--more than 4), the statement is 'look
    at the curation, not the art'. Again, I didn't really get that sense from
    your project.

    The word 'database' is used quite loosely these days. What separates a
    database from 'a bunch of collected things' is that a database is
    relational. In other words, it is cross-indexable and queriable concerning
    the cross-indexed information.

    It is one thing to encounter a work as an anonymous data point in a huge
    collection of artworks. It is quite another to encounter it in some sort of
    context where one already has been told interesting facts about the artwork
    which predispose one to view the work. For example, in viewing your
    http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/ , I did not actually view any of the art
    works. I was not motivated to do so, to view anonymous data points in a huge
    data set.

    I did not find your project exploitative, but neither did I find it an
    interesting art experience of the works themselves.

    I think the relational aspect of databases make it possible to rescue large
    databases from presenting art works in vacuo, but it would seem to be an
    ambitious undertaking that usually doesn't work very well. Part of the
    ambition, I take it, of the Rhizome artbase is to try to present the art
    works themselves in contexts wherein the works can be experienced
    rewardingly.

    Part of the work of art is to battle the forces of dullness, deadening
    sameness. If works are not significantly distinguished, and also
    significantly related, the forces of dullness triumph and the universe yawns
    once more, poor thing.

    cordially,
    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • x-arn | Wed May 25th 2005 4:08 p.m.
    Jim Andrews wrote:

    >First let me say I enjoyed the ARN Hub work you or your organization did
    >previously,
    >
    Jim, thanks for your interest.

    >I think? This let people browse various lists. Is that project
    >still up? What is the URL if so?
    >
    http://www.x-arn.org/hub/

    >And what is ARN, by the way?
    >
    ARN is a small organization, a kind of collective. You can check
    http://www.x-arn.org/w3/NumericalNetworksActions for more.

    >That seemed 'flatter' in the sense you mention, ie, less 'hierarchical' for
    >some reason. As I said, I did not find your http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/
    >piece exploitative, but it is something I wonder about concerning curatorial
    >projects--particularly when they involve sufficiently many works that each
    >work begins to look like a data point in a data set that has the real focus
    >and attention, not the art works themselves. Usually I do not find such
    >projects of artistic interest, though not always. Often, when a project
    >curates a hundred works (or whatever--more than 4), the statement is 'look
    >at the curation, not the art'. Again, I didn't really get that sense from
    >your project.
    >
    >The word 'database' is used quite loosely these days. What separates a
    >database from 'a bunch of collected things' is that a database is
    >relational. In other words, it is cross-indexable and queriable concerning
    >the cross-indexed information.
    >
    Absolutely. This work focuses on the identifier (primary key) which
    allows the cross-reference, not used here.

    >It is one thing to encounter a work as an anonymous data point in a huge
    >collection of artworks. It is quite another to encounter it in some sort of
    >context where one already has been told interesting facts about the artwork
    >which predispose one to view the work. For example, in viewing your
    >http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/ , I did not actually view any of the art
    >works. I was not motivated to do so, to view anonymous data points in a huge
    >data set.
    >
    >I did not find your project exploitative, but neither did I find it an
    >interesting art experience of the works themselves.
    >
    >
    Your critic is really interesting. It means this piece has a kind of
    autonomy despite it completely relies on other pieces ?

    >I think the relational aspect of databases make it possible to rescue large
    >databases from presenting art works in vacuo, but it would seem to be an
    >ambitious undertaking that usually doesn't work very well. Part of the
    >ambition, I take it, of the Rhizome artbase is to try to present the art
    >works themselves in contexts wherein the works can be experienced
    >rewardingly.
    >
    >Part of the work of art is to battle the forces of dullness, deadening
    >sameness. If works are not significantly distinguished, and also
    >significantly related, the forces of dullness triumph and the universe yawns
    >once more, poor thing.
    >
    You're right, but didn't Duchamp show us a long time ago that you make
    the artwork when experiencing it ? It means you're able to create a
    landscape in your mind when looking at grey numbers.

    cordially,
    yann /ARN
  • Jim Andrews | Wed May 25th 2005 7:11 p.m.
    > >This let people browse various lists. Is that project
    > >still up? What is the URL if so?
    > >
    > http://www.x-arn.org/hub/

    Right, so it seems hooking into databases is part of what ARN does.

    > >And what is ARN, by the way?
    > >
    > ARN is a small organization, a kind of collective. You can check
    > http://www.x-arn.org/w3/NumericalNetworksActions for more.

    Very interesting. So the group works both on net projects and offline
    projects. Are you all in the same city? Whereabouts are you?

    > >That seemed 'flatter' in the sense you mention, ie, less
    > 'hierarchical' for
    > >some reason. As I said, I did not find your http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/
    > >piece exploitative, but it is something I wonder about
    > concerning curatorial
    > >projects--particularly when they involve sufficiently many works
    > that each
    > >work begins to look like a data point in a data set that has the
    > real focus
    > >and attention, not the art works themselves. Usually I do not find such
    > >projects of artistic interest, though not always. Often, when a project
    > >curates a hundred works (or whatever--more than 4), the
    > statement is 'look
    > >at the curation, not the art'. Again, I didn't really get that sense from
    > >your project.
    > >
    > >The word 'database' is used quite loosely these days. What separates a
    > >database from 'a bunch of collected things' is that a database is
    > >relational. In other words, it is cross-indexable and queriable
    > concerning
    > >the cross-indexed information.
    > >
    > Absolutely. This work focuses on the identifier (primary key) which
    > allows the cross-reference, not used here.
    >
    > >It is one thing to encounter a work as an anonymous data point in a huge
    > >collection of artworks. It is quite another to encounter it in
    > some sort of
    > >context where one already has been told interesting facts about
    > the artwork
    > >which predispose one to view the work. For example, in viewing your
    > >http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/ , I did not actually view any of the art
    > >works. I was not motivated to do so, to view anonymous data
    > points in a huge
    > >data set.
    > >
    > >I did not find your project exploitative, but neither did I find it an
    > >interesting art experience of the works themselves.
    > >
    > >
    > Your critic is really interesting. It means this piece has a kind of
    > autonomy despite it completely relies on other pieces ?

    What was your feeling about that? I would have thought so, yes.

    > >I think the relational aspect of databases make it possible to
    > rescue large
    > >databases from presenting art works in vacuo, but it would seem to be an
    > >ambitious undertaking that usually doesn't work very well. Part of the
    > >ambition, I take it, of the Rhizome artbase is to try to present the art
    > >works themselves in contexts wherein the works can be experienced
    > >rewardingly.
    > >
    > >Part of the work of art is to battle the forces of dullness, deadening
    > >sameness. If works are not significantly distinguished, and also
    > >significantly related, the forces of dullness triumph and the
    > universe yawns
    > >once more, poor thing.
    > >
    > You're right, but didn't Duchamp show us a long time ago that you make
    > the artwork when experiencing it ? It means you're able to create a
    > landscape in your mind when looking at grey numbers.

    Perhaps so. But the frame is certainly influential on what we make of
    things.

    *

    of course the ultimate triumph of the forces of dullness occurs if all
    distinction disappears from the universe, rendering everything deadly the
    same and the universe returns to the state of the undifferentiated monad.
    it's only through distinction and relation that the universe is rescued from
    undifferentiable dullness. this is a bit like the 'primitive' story in which
    the obeisances must be performed each day or the sun will fail to rise. as
    artists we are impelled to create/discover significant distinction and
    relation, perhaps to help manifest complex ideals such as justice, beauty,
    truth etc.

    the relational database of art objects is like a periodic table made up of
    imaginative art elements. I am pure flatulence therein. It's mine. I insist.
    There are the elements but it's the relations between them and distinctions
    between them and what happens when you put them together that interests us
    most about the periodic table, though we may take special interest in
    particular elements. And indeed each element has its rich lore which the
    cunning chemist cultivates over the course of a career.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Jason Van Anden | Thu May 26th 2005 7:40 a.m.
    Hi Francis,

    A few hours after posting my comments about the new policy, I cringed as I thought "Wow - that was kind of arrogant." Although the format of Rhizome lends itself to the ideal that any member can have an impact on its policies - its easy to forget that in fact there is a really smart group of professional staff devoted to this task. Your blog entry underscored this for me.

    That being said ...

    What kind of feedback would the Rhizome Staff find useful from its membership?

    Jason Van Anden
    www.smileproject.com
  • Francis Hwang | Thu May 26th 2005 2:45 p.m.
    Yeah, that should be the case. Of course, you're welcome to try it out
    and submit a bug report to me if it turns out not to work. There have
    been a lot of details for me to keep track of these past few weeks; I
    may have missed a few things.

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: 212-219-1288x202
    AIM: francisrhizome
    + + +
    On May 24, 2005, at 7:16 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

    > Hi Francis,
    >
    > This is something we worked through last time around, but I just want
    > to make sure it stays in place.
    >
    > For those of us who have written articles for rhizome, and then we
    > want to link to those articles from our web sites, will the links
    > still work? Behind the $5 firewall they worked if they were linked
    > from an online web page, but not from an email. I assume the same
    > will remain true behind the $25 firewall?
    >
    > And just for fun (from 2003):
    > http://www.computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/rebranding/
    > rhizome/
    >
    > again from 2003:
    > http://www.lab404.com/rhizome/
    >
    > Doug Butabi: You can take away our phones. You can take away our
    > keys. But, you can't take away our dreams!
    >
    > Steve Butabi: That's right. 'Cause we're like sleeping when we have
    > them!
    >
    > peace,
    > curt
    >
    > _
    >
    > Francis Hwang wrote:
    >
    >> Well, it's a funny thing. Newest content is the most valuable, for
    >> sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can charge for it. I
    >> actually blogged about this, a few months back, on my own site:
    >>
    >> http://fhwang.net/blog/51.html
    >>
    >> It's useful, for the purposes of discussion, to divide content into
    >> two
    >> completely arbitrary categories: "news" and "archives". News--which
    >> is
    >> to say anything that's about notifying you of a new thing happening
    >> recently--is a highly in-demand product, but there are lots of people
    >> giving it away for free online, so you can't really charge for it. I
    >> can only think of one company that's been able to do this reliably
    >> online, and that's the Wall Street Journal--and obviously that works
    >> for them because their customers are Godless capitalists who are
    >> willing to pay for premium services like WSJ content. But it hasn't
    >> worked reliably for Salon or the NYT online, and I don't personally
    >> have any faith that it'd work for us.
    >>
    >> Archives aren't nearly as popular as news, and in fact, people who
    >> want
    >> archives are looking for somewhat different reasons as those who want
    >> news. Someone looking for a one-day-old text wants to read that funny
    >> thing that somebody wrote yesterday, or join some chatter about a
    >> recent news article or how to make a living in the field. Someone
    >> looking for a five-year-old text is more likely to be doing some sort
    >> of research.
    >>
    >> It turns out that a lot of people would like a little bit of access
    >> to
    >> the archives, but people who really need access to the
    >> archives--we're
    >> talking academics, researchers, historians, etc.--are more likely to
    >> justify paying some money for it. Hence the $25 requirement at 1
    >> year-plus. Of course, an individual donation of $25 can be steep for
    >> some of those folks; the idea is that if they're affiliated with some
    >> sort of an organization, like a library or a university, that
    >> organization can sign up for an organizational subscription instead.
    >>
    >> ( By the way, we also offer complimentary organizational
    >> subscriptions
    >> to new media arts organizations in developing countries; contact
    >> Kevin
    >> at kevin@rhizome.org if you think you'd qualify. )
    >>
    >> The division between news consumers and archive consumers is quite
    >> arbitrary, of course. And you can make the case that with the rise of
    >> amateur publishing, amateur history, etc., etc., enabled by internet
    >> culture, such a division may be rendered entirely useless at some
    >> point
    >> in the near future. But it works for some organizations today, and
    >> we're hoping it'll work for us for a while.
    >>
    >> Of course, ideally you wouldn't have to charge for anything. But I'm
    >> fairly confident that our new policy is one that will be
    >> significantly
    >> less irritating for everybody on a day-to-day basis. And it does so
    >> while letting us sustain or increase our member-driven revenue--which
    >> is, unfortunately, something we always have to be conscious of here
    >> in
    >> the office.
    >>
    >> But of course, this is just another try at a difficult problem. Like
    >> the New York Times, like Salon, like Kuro5hin, and everyone else,
    >> we're
    >> always looking for the best policy that allows us to make enough
    >> money
    >> to keep doing interesting things, while annoying people as little as
    >> possible. I don't think we'll need to tinker with this policy for
    >> some
    >> time--but this is the internets, after all, so eventually you're
    >> going
    >> to have to tinker with everything.
    >>
    >> Francis Hwang
    >> Director of Technology
    >> Rhizome.org
    >> phone: 212-219-1288x202
    >> AIM: francisrhizome
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Francis Hwang | Thu May 26th 2005 3:08 p.m.
    Hi Jason,

    Thanks for the compliment. As for your question regarding what sort of
    feedback we'd like, these sorts of discussions on Raw are a good start,
    and we do all read this stuff even if we don't have the time to
    participate 100%.

    In the long-term, though, such discussions are probably not sufficient.
    Here in the office we've been thinking of ways to involve our members
    more substantively in the things we do, without compromising ourselves
    strategically. For example, the new policy we enacted this week has
    been in the works for, literally, more than six months. It would've
    been great to involve the membership in some way in this discussion,
    but you can't talk about something so drastic for six months unless you
    want your normal member contributions to be completely out of wack
    while you're talking about it. It's sort of a Heisenberg thing, I
    guess.

    When we say that we want your feedback, we mean it, even if we can't
    always turn on a dime to incorporate it. During our discussions of this
    policy, we did actually cull through personal emails from Rhizome
    members from the months before--I think one was even from you, Jason.
    So that feedback did in fact help guide our thinking, even if took some
    time.

    So, on one hand, we know we're nothing without our members and we spend
    a lot of time trying to incorporate their ideas & their criticisms. On
    the other hand, there are only three of us, and there are a lot of
    things to do in any given day. So I want everyone to feel like they can
    speak up, and they'll be listened to, but I also want people to have
    realistic expectations about how quickly their suggestions can be
    turned into reality.

    One concrete idea I had recently was that maybe we could have
    super-casual face-to-face meetings, say once a month. By necessity,
    such meetings would be NYC-centric, of course, which is always a
    problem, but maybe that'd give NYC Rhizome members a chance to say
    hello, talk about Rhizome stuff, talk about non-Rhizome stuff, and just
    have a drink. Is that a useful idea?

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: 212-219-1288x202
    AIM: francisrhizome
    + + +
    On May 26, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Jason Van Anden wrote:

    > Hi Francis,
    >
    > A few hours after posting my comments about the new policy, I cringed
    > as I thought "Wow - that was kind of arrogant." Although the format
    > of Rhizome lends itself to the ideal that any member can have an
    > impact on its policies - its easy to forget that in fact there is a
    > really smart group of professional staff devoted to this task. Your
    > blog entry underscored this for me.
    >
    > That being said ...
    >
    > What kind of feedback would the Rhizome Staff find useful from its
    > membership?
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > www.smileproject.com
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Francis Hwang | Thu May 26th 2005 3:27 p.m.
    On May 23, 2005, at 5:12 PM, t.whid wrote:

    > It's not clear if things fall into the archive automatically after
    > they are a year old or if everything added before May 23, 2004 goes
    > into the archive and everything after is out. I assume the former. So
    > there will be a moving archive deadline I'm assuming.

    Yup, it's a moving archive deadline.

    > I was pro-fee when it was proposed, but later changed my mind and
    > became anti-fee. At first I felt that if Rhizome needed the money,
    > then a Rhizome behind a fee firewall is better than no Rhizome at all.
    > But then I realized that the firewall was slowly strangling Rhizome
    > and urged them to ditch it. Which they've now done. Good!
    >
    > A small bit of criticism: I don't like the archive idea. It's my
    > opinion that the text and art archives should be open forever. Rhizome
    > needs to figure out other services/features that people will pay a
    > membership fee for, but they shouldn't restrict access to the artbase
    > or text archives.

    To lapse into some dot-com-speak: There are very few community-driven
    websites that have really solid revenue streams. What we've got how is
    our best guess at what will work for us, given our resources and who we
    serve, but of course it's always a work-in-progress. Giving away more
    for free is good, and if we can figure out how to do that safely one
    day, then I'm sure we'll do it. I wouldn't hold your breath for that,
    though.

    Although having an archive wall cuts off some webbish uses for crawlers
    and the like, I'm fairly confident that the one-year line will be
    pretty good in terms of most online discussion--by which I mean
    discussion both inside and outside of the rhizome.org domain. The fact
    is that the internet has an astonishingly narrow attention span; most
    of the time you link to something, it's something that's only weeks or
    months old.

    Anyway, even though I hate promising stuff before I actually do it, we
    are in fact planning on adding new features that add value, both for
    Members and for everyone else. We've got a couple of ideas and are
    trying to figure out which one to do, so watch this space.

    > Putting my criticism aside, I'll say congrats to all the Rhizome staff
    > for getting the new policy in place. I'm sure it was a lot of work.
    > Good job guys!
    >
    > And now that we've got a fairly substantial hole in the firewall,
    > perhaps we can tear it down entirely someday :-)
    >

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: 212-219-1288x202
    AIM: francisrhizome
    + + +
  • curt cloninger | Thu May 26th 2005 6:47 p.m.
    Hi Francis:

    From http://lab404.com/dreams/library.html#text
    under "art":
    "chinese musak always sets me free" (2002) works
    but
    "on the inherent bias of words" doesn't work. I get the firewall.

    And that's even with me logged in as a $5 member.

    best,
    curt

    At 4:45 PM -0400 5/26/05, Francis Hwang wrote:
    >Yeah, that should be the case. Of course, you're welcome to try it
    >out and submit a bug report to me if it turns out not to work. There
    >have been a lot of details for me to keep track of these past few
    >weeks; I may have missed a few things.
    >
    >Francis Hwang
    >Director of Technology
    >Rhizome.org
    >phone: 212-219-1288x202
    >AIM: francisrhizome
    >+ + +
    >On May 24, 2005, at 7:16 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
    >
    >>Hi Francis,
    >>
    >>This is something we worked through last time around, but I just
    >>want to make sure it stays in place.
    >>
    >>For those of us who have written articles for rhizome, and then we
    >>want to link to those articles from our web sites, will the links
    >>still work? Behind the $5 firewall they worked if they were linked
    >>from an online web page, but not from an email. I assume the same
    >>will remain true behind the $25 firewall?
    >>
    >>And just for fun (from 2003):
    >>http://www.computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/rebranding/rhizome/
    >>
    >>again from 2003:
    >>http://www.lab404.com/rhizome/
    >>
    >>Doug Butabi: You can take away our phones. You can take away our
    >>keys. But, you can't take away our dreams!
    >>
    >>Steve Butabi: That's right. 'Cause we're like sleeping when we have them!
    >>
    >>peace,
    >>curt
    >>
    >>_
    >>
    >>Francis Hwang wrote:
    >>
    >>>Well, it's a funny thing. Newest content is the most valuable, for
    >>>sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can charge for it. I
    >>>actually blogged about this, a few months back, on my own site:
    >>>
    >>>http://fhwang.net/blog/51.html
    >>>
    >>>It's useful, for the purposes of discussion, to divide content into
    >>>two
    >>>completely arbitrary categories: "news" and "archives". News--which
    >>>is
    >>>to say anything that's about notifying you of a new thing happening
    >>>recently--is a highly in-demand product, but there are lots of people
    >>>giving it away for free online, so you can't really charge for it. I
    >>>can only think of one company that's been able to do this reliably
    >>>online, and that's the Wall Street Journal--and obviously that works
    >>>for them because their customers are Godless capitalists who are
    >>>willing to pay for premium services like WSJ content. But it hasn't
    >>>worked reliably for Salon or the NYT online, and I don't personally
    >>>have any faith that it'd work for us.
    >>>
    >>>Archives aren't nearly as popular as news, and in fact, people who
    >>>want
    >>>archives are looking for somewhat different reasons as those who want
    >>>news. Someone looking for a one-day-old text wants to read that funny
    >>>thing that somebody wrote yesterday, or join some chatter about a
    >>>recent news article or how to make a living in the field. Someone
    >>>looking for a five-year-old text is more likely to be doing some sort
    >>>of research.
    >>>
    >>>It turns out that a lot of people would like a little bit of access
    >>>to
    >>>the archives, but people who really need access to the
    >>>archives--we're
    >>>talking academics, researchers, historians, etc.--are more likely to
    >>>justify paying some money for it. Hence the $25 requirement at 1
    >>>year-plus. Of course, an individual donation of $25 can be steep for
    >>>some of those folks; the idea is that if they're affiliated with some
    >>>sort of an organization, like a library or a university, that
    >>>organization can sign up for an organizational subscription instead.
    >>>
    >>>( By the way, we also offer complimentary organizational
    >>>subscriptions
    >>>to new media arts organizations in developing countries; contact
    >>>Kevin
    >>>at kevin@rhizome.org if you think you'd qualify. )
    >>>
    >>>The division between news consumers and archive consumers is quite
    >>>arbitrary, of course. And you can make the case that with the rise of
    >>>amateur publishing, amateur history, etc., etc., enabled by internet
    >>>culture, such a division may be rendered entirely useless at some
    >>>point
    >>>in the near future. But it works for some organizations today, and
    >>>we're hoping it'll work for us for a while.
    >>>
    >>>Of course, ideally you wouldn't have to charge for anything. But I'm
    >>>fairly confident that our new policy is one that will be
    >>>significantly
    >>>less irritating for everybody on a day-to-day basis. And it does so
    >>>while letting us sustain or increase our member-driven revenue--which
    >>>is, unfortunately, something we always have to be conscious of here
    >>>in
    >>>the office.
    >>>
    >>>But of course, this is just another try at a difficult problem. Like
    >>>the New York Times, like Salon, like Kuro5hin, and everyone else,
    >>>we're
    >>>always looking for the best policy that allows us to make enough
    >>>money
    >>>to keep doing interesting things, while annoying people as little as
    >>>possible. I don't think we'll need to tinker with this policy for
    >>>some
    >>>time--but this is the internets, after all, so eventually you're
    >>>going
    >>>to have to tinker with everything.
    >>>
    >>>Francis Hwang
    >>>Director of Technology
    >>>Rhizome.org
    >>>phone: 212-219-1288x202
    >>>AIM: francisrhizome
    >>+
    >>-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >>+
    >>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • Francis Hwang | Fri May 27th 2005 8:02 a.m.
    Okay, thanks for letting me know, I'll add it to my list.

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: 212-219-1288x202
    AIM: francisrhizome
    + + +
    On May 26, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:

    > Hi Francis:
    >
    > From http://lab404.com/dreams/library.html#text
    > under "art":
    > "chinese musak always sets me free" (2002) works
    > but
    > "on the inherent bias of words" doesn't work. I get the firewall.
    >
    > And that's even with me logged in as a $5 member.
    >
    > best,
    > curt
    >
    >
    > At 4:45 PM -0400 5/26/05, Francis Hwang wrote:
    >> Yeah, that should be the case. Of course, you're welcome to try it
    >> out and submit a bug report to me if it turns out not to work. There
    >> have been a lot of details for me to keep track of these past few
    >> weeks; I may have missed a few things.
    >>
    >> Francis Hwang
    >> Director of Technology
    >> Rhizome.org
    >> phone: 212-219-1288x202
    >> AIM: francisrhizome
    >> + + +
    >> On May 24, 2005, at 7:16 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hi Francis,
    >>>
    >>> This is something we worked through last time around, but I just
    >>> want to make sure it stays in place.
    >>>
    >>> For those of us who have written articles for rhizome, and then we
    >>> want to link to those articles from our web sites, will the links
    >>> still work? Behind the $5 firewall they worked if they were linked
    >>> from an online web page, but not from an email. I assume the same
    >>> will remain true behind the $25 firewall?
    >>>
    >>> And just for fun (from 2003):
    >>> http://www.computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/rebranding/
    >>> rhizome/
    >>>
    >>> again from 2003:
    >>> http://www.lab404.com/rhizome/
    >>>
    >>> Doug Butabi: You can take away our phones. You can take away our
    >>> keys. But, you can't take away our dreams!
    >>>
    >>> Steve Butabi: That's right. 'Cause we're like sleeping when we
    >>> have them!
    >>>
    >>> peace,
    >>> curt
    >>>
    >>> _
    >>>
    >>> Francis Hwang wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Well, it's a funny thing. Newest content is the most valuable, for
    >>>> sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can charge for it. I
    >>>> actually blogged about this, a few months back, on my own site:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://fhwang.net/blog/51.html
    >>>>
    >>>> It's useful, for the purposes of discussion, to divide content into
    >>>> two
    >>>> completely arbitrary categories: "news" and "archives". News--which
    >>>> is
    >>>> to say anything that's about notifying you of a new thing happening
    >>>> recently--is a highly in-demand product, but there are lots of
    >>>> people
    >>>> giving it away for free online, so you can't really charge for it. I
    >>>> can only think of one company that's been able to do this reliably
    >>>> online, and that's the Wall Street Journal--and obviously that works
    >>>> for them because their customers are Godless capitalists who are
    >>>> willing to pay for premium services like WSJ content. But it hasn't
    >>>> worked reliably for Salon or the NYT online, and I don't personally
    >>>> have any faith that it'd work for us.
    >>>>
    >>>> Archives aren't nearly as popular as news, and in fact, people who
    >>>> want
    >>>> archives are looking for somewhat different reasons as those who
    >>>> want
    >>>> news. Someone looking for a one-day-old text wants to read that
    >>>> funny
    >>>> thing that somebody wrote yesterday, or join some chatter about a
    >>>> recent news article or how to make a living in the field. Someone
    >>>> looking for a five-year-old text is more likely to be doing some
    >>>> sort
    >>>> of research.
    >>>>
    >>>> It turns out that a lot of people would like a little bit of access
    >>>> to
    >>>> the archives, but people who really need access to the
    >>>> archives--we're
    >>>> talking academics, researchers, historians, etc.--are more likely to
    >>>> justify paying some money for it. Hence the $25 requirement at 1
    >>>> year-plus. Of course, an individual donation of $25 can be steep for
    >>>> some of those folks; the idea is that if they're affiliated with
    >>>> some
    >>>> sort of an organization, like a library or a university, that
    >>>> organization can sign up for an organizational subscription instead.
    >>>>
    >>>> ( By the way, we also offer complimentary organizational
    >>>> subscriptions
    >>>> to new media arts organizations in developing countries; contact
    >>>> Kevin
    >>>> at kevin@rhizome.org if you think you'd qualify. )
    >>>>
    >>>> The division between news consumers and archive consumers is quite
    >>>> arbitrary, of course. And you can make the case that with the rise
    >>>> of
    >>>> amateur publishing, amateur history, etc., etc., enabled by internet
    >>>> culture, such a division may be rendered entirely useless at some
    >>>> point
    >>>> in the near future. But it works for some organizations today, and
    >>>> we're hoping it'll work for us for a while.
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course, ideally you wouldn't have to charge for anything. But I'm
    >>>> fairly confident that our new policy is one that will be
    >>>> significantly
    >>>> less irritating for everybody on a day-to-day basis. And it does so
    >>>> while letting us sustain or increase our member-driven
    >>>> revenue--which
    >>>> is, unfortunately, something we always have to be conscious of here
    >>>> in
    >>>> the office.
    >>>>
    >>>> But of course, this is just another try at a difficult problem. Like
    >>>> the New York Times, like Salon, like Kuro5hin, and everyone else,
    >>>> we're
    >>>> always looking for the best policy that allows us to make enough
    >>>> money
    >>>> to keep doing interesting things, while annoying people as little as
    >>>> possible. I don't think we'll need to tinker with this policy for
    >>>> some
    >>>> time--but this is the internets, after all, so eventually you're
    >>>> going
    >>>> to have to tinker with everything.
    >>>>
    >>>> Francis Hwang
    >>>> Director of Technology
    >>>> Rhizome.org
    >>>> phone: 212-219-1288x202
    >>>> AIM: francisrhizome
    >>> +
    >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    >>> +
    >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>> Membership Agreement available online at
    >>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • x-arn | Mon Jun 20th 2005 5:40 p.m.
    Jim Andrews wrote:

    >>>text where one already has been told interesting facts about
    >>>
    >>>
    >>the artwork
    >>
    >>
    >>>which predispose one to view the work. For example, in viewing your
    >>>http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/ , I did not actually view any of the art
    >>>
    >>>

    >>>the relational database of art objects is like a periodic table made up of
    >>>imaginative art elements. I am pure flatulence therein. It's mine. I insist.
    >>>There are the elements but it's the relations between them and distinctions
    >>>between them and what happens when you put them together that interests us
    >>>most about the periodic table, though we may take special interest in
    >>>particular elements. And indeed each element has its rich lore which the
    >>>cunning chemist cultivates over the course of a career.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    I agree, but to do/show/see the relations between elements, i think you
    need an open and dynamic system and not a closed one with a strict
    internal self-promotional flux.

    >>>ja
    >>>http://vispo.com
    >>>
    >>>
  • Jason Van Anden | Tue Jun 21st 2005 6:21 a.m.
    I googled myself this morning. I liken this to looking in a mirror to see how the world sees me.

    Upon doing so I noticed that nothing I have submitted to Rhizome over the last year or so appears. Is this as a result of the new membership policy? I don't remember this always being the case.

    Jason Van Anden
    www.smileproject.com
  • Lauren Cornell | Tue Jun 21st 2005 6:29 a.m.
    I just googled you and 3 Rhizome things- your Member page, a search on
    you, and the 04-05 Commissions announcement- come up on page one. So, I'm
    not sure what you mean? Please explain - Thanks, L

    > I googled myself this morning. I liken this to looking in a mirror to see
    > how the world sees me.
    >
    > Upon doing so I noticed that nothing I have submitted to Rhizome over the
    > last year or so appears. Is this as a result of the new membership
    > policy? I don't remember this always being the case.
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > www.smileproject.com
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Jason Van Anden | Tue Jun 21st 2005 7:13 a.m.
    Hi Lauren,

    Part of my motivation for actively participating in this forum is that I am contributing to a collective public journal. If the search engines do not have access to this content - that public is limited to only those who know of Rhizome.

    I have contributed more than three pages to Rhizome in the past year. Just try the same search within Rhizome:
    http://rhizome.org/query.rhiz?words=%22Jason+Van+Anden%22&submit.x7&submit.y=1

    Jason Van Anden
    www.smileproject.com

    Lauren Cornell wrote:

    > I just googled you and 3 Rhizome things- your Member page, a search on
    > you, and the 04-05 Commissions announcement- come up on page one. So,
    > I'm
    > not sure what you mean? Please explain - Thanks, L
    >
    >
    > > I googled myself this morning. I liken this to looking in a mirror
    > to see
    > > how the world sees me.
    > >
    > > Upon doing so I noticed that nothing I have submitted to Rhizome
    > over the
    > > last year or so appears. Is this as a result of the new membership
    > > policy? I don't remember this always being the case.
    > >
    > > Jason Van Anden
    > > www.smileproject.com
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
  • M. River | Tue Jun 21st 2005 11:39 a.m.
    Jason Van Anden wrote:

    > Hi Lauren,
    >
    > Part of my motivation for actively participating in this forum is that
    > I am contributing to a collective public journal. If the search
    > engines do not have access to this content - that public is limited to
    > only those who know of Rhizome.

    Huh? 1. I just Googled your name and got a bunch of Rhizome contenet as well. 2. If you are posting to Rhizome (a small art content list) and looking for a bigger profile or historic record on YE Ole WWW thanks to Google links...your barking up the wrong tree. Love ya Jason but easy lad.
  • Jason Van Anden | Tue Jun 21st 2005 12:53 p.m.
    M.

    Touched, and confused.
    Certainly not outraged or anything.

    What did you Google? Here is my query:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=Rhizome+Jason+Van+Anden

    M. > thanks to Google links...your barking up the wrong tree.

    Why not? This is not obvious to me.

    I discovered Rhizome in the first place Googling art/tech stuff. Am I alone in using Google as a free form hyper-text encyclopedia?

    woof woof!
    Jason Van Anden

    M. River wrote:

    > Jason Van Anden wrote:
    >
    > > Hi Lauren,
    > >
    > > Part of my motivation for actively participating in this forum is
    > that
    > > I am contributing to a collective public journal. If the search
    > > engines do not have access to this content - that public is limited
    > to
    > > only those who know of Rhizome.
    >
    >
    > Huh? 1. I just Googled your name and got a bunch of Rhizome contenet
    > as well. 2. If you are posting to Rhizome (a small art content list)
    > and looking for a bigger profile or historic record on YE Ole WWW
    > thanks to Google links...your barking up the wrong tree. Love ya Jason
    > but easy lad.
Your Reply