I have a suggestion for Rhizome...

Posted by Pall Thayer | Sun Apr 2nd 2006 11:03 p.m.

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

More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative' archive.

Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
etc.).

I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about it.

Pall Thayer

--
Pall Thayer
p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Geert Dekkers | Sun Apr 2nd 2006 11:29 p.m.
    A very good idea...

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

    Geert
    http://nznl.com

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

    > A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for
    > a repository of open-sourced code by artists.
    >
    > More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
    > specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
    > some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
    > preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked
    > to from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-
    > sourced code that is used to run some of these server-specific
    > projects would serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a
    > 'preservative' archive.
    >
    > Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for
    > the sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that
    > the code need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of
    > itself. It could be functions or snippets of code as well that
    > could easily be incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e.
    > "Here's a little Perl function I use when I have to scale numbers
    > into a certain range.", etc.).
    >
    > I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit
    > the community. It would be interesting to hear what others think
    > about it.
    >
    > Pall Thayer
    >
    > --
    > Pall Thayer
    > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
  • Lauren Cornell | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 9:54 a.m.
    Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a repository
    could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently stands?
    Lauren

    On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

    > A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
    > repository of open-sourced code by artists.
    >
    > More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
    > specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
    > some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
    > preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
    > from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
    > code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
    > serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative' archive.
    >
    > Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
    > sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
    > need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
    > could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
    > incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
    > function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
    > etc.).
    >
    > I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
    > community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about it.
    >
    > Pall Thayer
    >
    > --
    > Pall Thayer
    > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • joseph mcelroy | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 10:31 a.m.
    Sourceforge.net has a good model for open source repository - and the
    software that runs sourceforge is available there.

    joseph

    Lauren Cornell wrote:

    >Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a repository
    >could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently stands?
    >Lauren
    >
    >On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
    >>repository of open-sourced code by artists.
    >>
    >>More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
    >>specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
    >>some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
    >>preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
    >>from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
    >>code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
    >>serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative' archive.
    >>
    >>Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
    >>sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
    >>need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
    >>could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
    >>incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
    >>function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
    >>etc.).
    >>
    >>I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
    >>community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about it.
    >>
    >>Pall Thayer
    >>
    >>--
    >>Pall Thayer
    >>p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    >>http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>+
    >>-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>+
    >>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >>
    >
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 10:54 a.m.
    Hi Lauren,
    Well, hopefully, owners of some of the work currently in the Artbase,
    linked or cloned, would contribute the code for that work and the
    code would be linked to the work (i.e. "This code is used in ..."). I
    can't decide whether it should be a requirement that the code belong
    to a piece in the Artbase or not. I think that would make it more
    relevant. And just to make sure no-one freaks out, I'm not by any
    means suggesting that everyone with work in the Artbase release their
    code. It would be entirely voluntary and wouldn't even have to be all
    the code. If I recall correctly, the Artbase already contains keyword
    references for most major programming and scripting languages. I
    think it would be good if code could be viewed online as a text file
    instead of having to download everything but that could be
    problematic for projects that contain several different files.
    Submission to the Artbase would require selecting one of the
    qualifying free licenses as described by the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/
    licensing/licenses/index_html). I don't feel that Rhizome would have
    any obligation to describe the differences between the licenses.
    Owners of the code should determine that themselves before
    submitting. Another thing that would be interesting is that if
    someone creates a new project using code from the repository and then
    submits that work to the Artbase, they should indicate that open
    Artbase code was used and what code it was. That way we'll end up
    with a big reference list of different ways that the code is
    utilized. Also, if someone makes significant changes to existing
    code, that code could be resubmitted to the Artbase with a link to
    the code that it was derived from so that you get some sort of
    historical code tree.

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

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

    best,
    Pall

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

    > Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a
    > repository
    > could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently
    > stands?
    > Lauren
    >
    > On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
    >
    >> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
    >> repository of open-sourced code by artists.
    >>
    >> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
    >> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
    >> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
    >> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
    >> from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
    >> code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
    >> serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative'
    >> archive.
    >>
    >> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
    >> sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
    >> need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
    >> could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
    >> incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
    >> function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
    >> etc.).
    >>
    >> I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
    >> community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about
    >> it.
    >>
    >> Pall Thayer
    >>
    >> --
    >> Pall Thayer
    >> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    >> http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    >> subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    >> 29.php
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Geert Dekkers | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 11:11 a.m.
    Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a sort
    of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-this-done
    source??
    Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
    del.icio.us for code-sharing??

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

    Geert
    http://nznl.com

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

    > Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a
    > repository
    > could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently
    > stands?
    > Lauren
    >
    > On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
    >
    >> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
    >> repository of open-sourced code by artists.
    >>
    >> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
    >> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
    >> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
    >> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
    >> from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
    >> code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
    >> serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative'
    >> archive.
    >>
    >> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
    >> sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
    >> need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
    >> could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
    >> incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
    >> function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
    >> etc.).
    >>
    >> I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
    >> community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about
    >> it.
    >>
    >> Pall Thayer
    >>
    >> --
    >> Pall Thayer
    >> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    >> http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    >> subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    >> 29.php
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 12:34 p.m.
    While the artbase could be linked in, I had read the original idea as more of a collaborative toolbox for artists? Programmers could donate scraps of interesting code (though how "interesting" will be hard to measure) and the repository would work
    as a way for artists to get code to play with, and share projects linked by threads of code. This is an interesting idea, (very viral, nice to see how snippets of code could be mapped together with wildly varying uses), but also a potentially
    massive undertaking!

    -er.

    Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> on Monday, April 03, 2006 at 11:54 AM -0500 wrote:
    >Hi Lauren,
    >Well, hopefully, owners of some of the work currently in the Artbase,
    >linked or cloned, would contribute the code for that work and the
    >code would be linked to the work (i.e. "This code is used in ..."). I
    >can't decide whether it should be a requirement that the code belong
    >to a piece in the Artbase or not. I think that would make it more
    >relevant. And just to make sure no-one freaks out, I'm not by any
    >means suggesting that everyone with work in the Artbase release their
    >code. It would be entirely voluntary and wouldn't even have to be all
    >the code. If I recall correctly, the Artbase already contains keyword
    >references for most major programming and scripting languages. I
    >think it would be good if code could be viewed online as a text file
    >instead of having to download everything but that could be
    >problematic for projects that contain several different files.
    >Submission to the Artbase would require selecting one of the
    >qualifying free licenses as described by the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/
    >licensing/licenses/index_html). I don't feel that Rhizome would have
    >any obligation to describe the differences between the licenses.
    >Owners of the code should determine that themselves before
    >submitting. Another thing that would be interesting is that if
    >someone creates a new project using code from the repository and then
    >submits that work to the Artbase, they should indicate that open
    >Artbase code was used and what code it was. That way we'll end up
    >with a big reference list of different ways that the code is
    >utilized. Also, if someone makes significant changes to existing
    >code, that code could be resubmitted to the Artbase with a link to
    >the code that it was derived from so that you get some sort of
    >historical code tree.
    >
    >On top of everything else, I really think that this could also help
    >to introduce the general public to some of the processes and methods
    >involved in the creation of digital and networked art. The more I
    >think about it, the better I like it.
    >
    >As Joseph has suggested, there do exist several web-based systems for
    >organizing and archiving open-source projects but I'm not really sure
    >that that's the way to go. Firstly, most of them are really ugly.
    >Created by computer nerds with absolutely no sense of visual
    >aesthetics. Secondly, they tend to be "all encompassing" whereas I
    >think it might be easier for Rhizome to begin with a rather simple
    >implementation, utilizing as much of the Artbase's current
    >architecture as possible and then adapt, add and alter as time goes
    >by and as we learn what works, what doesn't, what's good, what's bad,
    >etc.
    >
    >best,
    >Pall
    >
    >On 4.4.2006, at 00:52, Lauren Cornell wrote:
    >
    >> Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a
    >> repository
    >> could be mapped onto or integrated with the ArtBase as it currently
    >> stands?
    >> Lauren
    >>
    >> On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for a
    >>> repository of open-sourced code by artists.
    >>>
    >>> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
    >>> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
    >>> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
    >>> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply being linked to
    >>> from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for open-sourced
    >>> code that is used to run some of these server-specific projects would
    >>> serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative'
    >>> archive.
    >>>
    >>> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable resource for the
    >>> sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest that the code
    >>> need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
    >>> could be functions or snippets of code as well that could easily be
    >>> incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a little Perl
    >>> function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain range.",
    >>> etc.).
    >>>
    >>> I think that this would be a good move and that it would benefit the
    >>> community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about
    >>> it.
    >>>
    >>> Pall Thayer
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Pall Thayer
    >>> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    >>> http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> +
    >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    >>> subscribe.rhiz
    >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> +
    >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    >>> 29.php
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    >> subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    >> 29.php
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >Pall Thayer
    >p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    >http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • Rob Myers | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 12:49 p.m.
    On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:

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

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

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

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

    - Rob.
  • Dirk Vekemans | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 1:04 p.m.
    for what it's worth: i think it's a great idea, Pall & hope you guys find a
    way to work it out into details. It certainly would help to get the feeling
    of accomplishing sth as part of the community...
    Best,
    dv

    > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    > Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
    > Namens Pall Thayer
    > Verzonden: maandag 3 april 2006 18:55
    > Aan: Lauren Cornell
    > CC: rhizome
    > Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I have a suggestion for Rhizome...
    >
    > Hi Lauren,
    > Well, hopefully, owners of some of the work currently in the
    > Artbase, linked or cloned, would contribute the code for that
    > work and the code would be linked to the work (i.e. "This
    > code is used in ..."). I can't decide whether it should be a
    > requirement that the code belong to a piece in the Artbase or
    > not. I think that would make it more relevant. And just to
    > make sure no-one freaks out, I'm not by any means suggesting
    > that everyone with work in the Artbase release their code. It
    > would be entirely voluntary and wouldn't even have to be all
    > the code. If I recall correctly, the Artbase already contains
    > keyword references for most major programming and scripting
    > languages. I think it would be good if code could be viewed
    > online as a text file instead of having to download
    > everything but that could be problematic for projects that
    > contain several different files.
    > Submission to the Artbase would require selecting one of the
    > qualifying free licenses as described by the FSF
    > (http://www.fsf.org/ licensing/licenses/index_html). I don't
    > feel that Rhizome would have any obligation to describe the
    > differences between the licenses.
    > Owners of the code should determine that themselves before
    > submitting. Another thing that would be interesting is that
    > if someone creates a new project using code from the
    > repository and then submits that work to the Artbase, they
    > should indicate that open Artbase code was used and what code
    > it was. That way we'll end up with a big reference list of
    > different ways that the code is utilized. Also, if someone
    > makes significant changes to existing code, that code could
    > be resubmitted to the Artbase with a link to the code that it
    > was derived from so that you get some sort of historical code tree.
    >
    > On top of everything else, I really think that this could
    > also help to introduce the general public to some of the
    > processes and methods involved in the creation of digital and
    > networked art. The more I think about it, the better I like it.
    >
    > As Joseph has suggested, there do exist several web-based
    > systems for organizing and archiving open-source projects but
    > I'm not really sure that that's the way to go. Firstly, most
    > of them are really ugly.
    > Created by computer nerds with absolutely no sense of visual
    > aesthetics. Secondly, they tend to be "all encompassing"
    > whereas I think it might be easier for Rhizome to begin with
    > a rather simple implementation, utilizing as much of the
    > Artbase's current architecture as possible and then adapt,
    > add and alter as time goes by and as we learn what works,
    > what doesn't, what's good, what's bad, etc.
    >
    > best,
    > Pall
    >
    > On 4.4.2006, at 00:52, Lauren Cornell wrote:
    >
    > > Hi Pall, This is an interesting idea. How do you think such a
    > > repository could be mapped onto or integrated with the
    > ArtBase as it
    > > currently stands?
    > > Lauren
    > >
    > > On 4/3/06 12:03 AM, "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
    > >
    > >> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the
    > suggestion is for a
    > >> repository of open-sourced code by artists.
    > >>
    > >> More and more, internet-based artwork has come to rely on server-
    > >> specific technology. Therefore it appears to me (this is based on
    > >> some very quick browsing) that fewer works are actually being
    > >> preserved in the Artbase and more projects are simply
    > being linked to
    > >> from it (as opposed to 'cloned' work). A repository for
    > open-sourced
    > >> code that is used to run some of these server-specific
    > projects would
    > >> serve to rekindle the idea of the Artbase as a 'preservative'
    > >> archive.
    > >>
    > >> Such a repository would also serve as an invaluable
    > resource for the
    > >> sharing and dissemination of knowledge. I would suggest
    > that the code
    > >> need not be complete and compilable or usable in and of itself. It
    > >> could be functions or snippets of code as well that could
    > easily be
    > >> incorporated into a variety of projects (i.e. "Here's a
    > little Perl
    > >> function I use when I have to scale numbers into a certain
    > range.",
    > >> etc.).
    > >>
    > >> I think that this would be a good move and that it would
    > benefit the
    > >> community. It would be interesting to hear what others think about
    > >> it.
    > >>
    > >> Pall Thayer
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Pall Thayer
    > >> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > >> http://www.this.is/pallit
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> +
    > >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > >> subscribe.rhiz
    > >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > >> +
    > >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > >> 29.php
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > > subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > > 29.php
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Pall Thayer
    > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
    > the Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Lee Wells | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 1:10 p.m.
    What about a searchable del.icio.us like, link model?
    At least for the time being, just start pooling together the various places
    the code currently sits.

    On 4/3/06 2:49 PM, "Rob Myers" <rob@robmyers.org> wrote:

    > On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
    >
    >> Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a sort
    >> of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-this-done
    >> source??
    >
    > I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge. Once
    > you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.
    >
    >> Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
    >> del.icio.us for code-sharing??
    >
    > I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
    > think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot of
    > sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search the
    > code, which would be great.
    >
    > - Rob.
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    --
    Lee Wells
    Brooklyn, NY 11222

    http://www.leewells.org
    http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
    917 723 2524
  • Geert Dekkers | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 1:18 p.m.
    I remember that. But good ideas have to be repeated often before
    they're adopted.

    Geert

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

    > On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
    >
    >> Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a
    >> sort of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-
    >> this-done source??
    >
    > I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge.
    > Once you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.
    >
    >> Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
    >> del.icio.us for code-sharing??
    >
    > I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
    > think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot
    > of sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search
    > the code, which would be great.
    >
    > - Rob.
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
  • marc garrett | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 1:45 p.m.
    great idea...

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

    will be finished in about a week or 2...

    marc

    >What about a searchable del.icio.us like, link model?
    >At least for the time being, just start pooling together the various places
    >the code currently sits.
    >
    >On 4/3/06 2:49 PM, "Rob Myers" <rob@robmyers.org> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a sort
    >>>of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-this-done
    >>>source??
    >>>
    >>>
    >>I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge. Once
    >>you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
    >>>del.icio.us for code-sharing??
    >>>
    >>>
    >>I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
    >>think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot of
    >>sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search the
    >>code, which would be great.
    >>
    >>- Rob.
    >>
    >>+
    >>-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>+
    >>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
  • Lauren Cornell | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 2:25 p.m.
    I think this is a great idea too.

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

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

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

    On 4/3/06 2:18 PM, "Geert Dekkers" <geert@nznl.com> wrote:

    > I remember that. But good ideas have to be repeated often before
    > they're adopted.
    >
    > Geert
    >
    >
    > On 3/04/2006, at 8:49 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
    >
    >> On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
    >>
    >>> Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a
    >>> sort of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-
    >>> this-done source??
    >>
    >> I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge.
    >> Once you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.
    >>
    >>> Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
    >>> del.icio.us for code-sharing??
    >>
    >> I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
    >> think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot
    >> of sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search
    >> the code, which would be great.
    >>
    >> - Rob.
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    >> subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    >> 29.php
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 3:47 p.m.
    Yes, I think people who currently have work in the Artbase should be
    allowed to submit the code. Because, as I mentioned, I see this as a
    way of enhancing the original idea of the Artbase as a conservatory
    archive. That way, even linked projects can be archived in a way that
    they could potentially be reconstructed based on the source code even
    if technology has changed. So that in 100 years, when computers
    consist of balls of spaghetti floating around in a pool of RNA laced
    with a shot of bourbon, a work of art can be reprogrammed to run on
    this new hardware based on the functionality of the original code and
    if there's any question about what it was actually like, it can be
    examined from within the context of related work as defined within
    the archeological goldmine that is the Rhizome Artbase.

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

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

    Pall

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

    > I think this is a great idea too.
    >
    > One more question, and excuse me for being a bit daft. Pall, are you
    > suggesting that works currently in the ArtBase have the option of
    > making
    > their code available, and that the submission process would change to
    > reflect this option as well?
    >
    > On another level, I see this suggestion as tied to the metadata
    > changes we'd
    > like to make as both issues are part of an overall strategy of ArtBase
    > improvement which we want to hash out collectively, and then
    > dedicate time
    > and resources to this year.
    >
    > It would be good to start the metadata discussion this month on RAW
    > (-- as
    > opposed to the blog I originally proposed). Then, we can discuss these
    > different issues, and how we can move forward. Thanks for bringing
    > this up
    > Pall, and also Rob though I missed it the first time.. :)
    >
    > On 4/3/06 2:18 PM, "Geert Dekkers" <geert@nznl.com> wrote:
    >
    >> I remember that. But good ideas have to be repeated often before
    >> they're adopted.
    >>
    >> Geert
    >>
    >>
    >> On 3/04/2006, at 8:49 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 3 Apr 2006, at 18:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Do you mean that you could click from the artbase through to a
    >>>> sort of code repository pertaining to each work? Like a how-is-
    >>>> this-done source??
    >>>
    >>> I keep the source for my art computing projects on SourceForge.
    >>> Once you have a cheat sheet of CVS commands it's very easy to use.
    >>>
    >>>> Of course it would also be searchable by other means. Tags? A
    >>>> del.icio.us for code-sharing??
    >>>
    >>> I suggested a Rhizome code repository some time back and I still
    >>> think it's a very good idea. Attaching it to projects makes a lot
    >>> of sense, and would allow the project keywords to be used to search
    >>> the code, which would be great.
    >>>
    >>> - Rob.
    >>>
    >>> +
    >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    >>> subscribe.rhiz
    >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> +
    >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    >>> 29.php
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    >> subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    >> 29.php
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Apr 3rd 2006 5:18 p.m.
    The Artbase has a published set of selection criteria.
    http://rhizome.org/artbase/selection_criteria.rhiz

    On 3.4.2006, at 19:07, lee@leewells.org wrote:

    > Are there rules set up to qualify the quality of net.art?
    > How are those judgements made?
    >
    > Quoting Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>:
    >
    > Inclusion should depend on
    >> the quality of the art.
    >>
    >> Pall
    >
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Sal Randolph | Tue Apr 4th 2006 8:09 a.m.
    On Apr 3, 2006, at 1:03 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What I see as the main likely objections:

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

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

    I think both of these are easily solvable.

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

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

    Think of it as open-source curating.

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

    Sal
  • Nad | Tue Apr 4th 2006 1:38 p.m.
    Hi Sal & all

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

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

    nad
  • Pall Thayer | Tue Apr 4th 2006 2:03 p.m.
    Hi Sal,
    I don't agree. I don't think the Artbase should be opened up any more
    than it is. I'm sure there already exist such open systems where
    anyone can upload whatever they want but the Artbase is not just a
    vehicle for sharing. The original idea behind the Artbase was to
    create an archive, which means that you have to be selective. It's
    impossible to archive everything. Anyone is free to submit work.

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

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

    Pall

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

    >
    > On Apr 3, 2006, at 1:03 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:
    >
    >> A short explanation and reasoning follow but the suggestion is for
    >> a repository of open-sourced code by artists.
    >
    >
    > Pall, I think this is a great idea -- I believe you're right that
    > some form of this could be implemented pretty easily, and with
    > great benefits.
    >
    > And since we're talking about ideas for the ArtBase, I'd like to
    > propose one myself, which I've been thinking about for a while.
    >
    > Why not make the ArtBase open? Meaning anyone could be a part of it.
    >
    > Some reasons why I think this would be a good thing:
    >
    > 1) Open systems are more in the spirit of internet art. I think
    > this is actually the best reason.
    >
    > 2) If the ArtBase is primarily used for research, it should
    > represent the widest possible ideas of what internet art might be -
    > the best people to determine the outer boundaries of this may not
    > be curators (no matter how fabulous and well intentioned) --
    > especially a small number of curators -- things on the edge are
    > likely to be less well understood, and seem less "good" -- artists
    > who feel they are a part of this community could curate themselves
    > into the ArtBase. This would leave a richer and more interesting
    > historical record for future researchers.
    >
    > 3) The ArtBase is pretty big anyway - do we really gain so much by
    > excluding some projects from it? Obviously this exclusion also
    > creates frustration, bad feeling, and the loss of some participants
    > in the community.
    >
    > What I see as the main likely objections:
    >
    > 1) Artists in the ArtBase benefit from it being a curated space --
    > it gives them a kind of seal of approval & looks good on cv's etc.
    >
    > 2) People wanting to learn about internet art benefit from it being
    > a curated space -- they are less likely to encounter 'bad' art.
    >
    > I think both of these are easily solvable.
    >
    > 1) The existing ArtBase curators could easily give a kind of
    > Rhizome Seal of Approval, or Gold Star (obviously with a less silly
    > name) to as many or as few projects as they liked, picking out the
    > very best work (from their point of view, of course). This would
    > help people new to internet art find iconic pieces & offer a kind
    > of award or status to those artists. The curators do this kind of
    > thing anyway by putting some pieces into shows and on rhizome news,
    > etc.
    >
    > 2) But more interesting, I think, a user-based tagging system could
    > be integrated into the ArtBase. Any Rhizome member could add tags
    > to all the ArtBase works, and this would allow for a potentially
    > rather wonderful multi-curated space with all kinds of vectors of
    > meaning and interest. There's a little of this possibility now
    > with the member curated ArtBase 'shows', but it could go much much
    > farther. With tags, you can fairly easily have rss feeds for any
    > tag, and this offers another way for members and others to track
    > what's flowing in and what's being looked at. A collaborative tag/
    > feed system would offer much better filtering of the rather
    > gigantic ArtBase than the current curation-plus-keywords system,
    > and it would have the potential to scale up much better as the
    > ArtBase grows.
    >
    > Think of it as open-source curating.
    >
    > I'd be curious to know anyone's thoughts on this.
    >
    > Sal
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Sal Randolph | Tue Apr 4th 2006 2:20 p.m.
    Respectfully, I would disagree about your distinction between a
    sharing system and an archive. I don't think selectitivity is an
    essential aspect of 'archiveness.' The Internet Archive, for example,
    is an open system. The only thing required for it to be an archive
    is a commitment on the part of the hosting organization to keep the
    work (in some way) over the long term (this brings us back to the
    preservation discussion as well). There is a resource question, but
    I don't actually think the universe of internet art is so absolutely
    gigantic that Rhizome's database couldn't handle it. To be a useful
    archive (which is something else altogether, I realize) requires some
    way for users to find what they are trying to find - but I think that
    tagging/open curating would offer that.

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

    Sal

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

    > Hi Sal,
    > I don't agree. I don't think the Artbase should be opened up any
    > more than it is. I'm sure there already exist such open systems
    > where anyone can upload whatever they want but the Artbase is not
    > just a vehicle for sharing. The original idea behind the Artbase
    > was to create an archive, which means that you have to be
    > selective. It's impossible to archive everything. Anyone is free to
    > submit work.
    >
    > On a more democratic selection process. Perhaps we could try asking
    > the Rhizome community if they would be willing to take the time to
    > review Artbase submissions and vote on them. I personally don't
    > really see this as working in the long-term.
    >
    > But what it comes down to is this, open systems such as Flickr,
    > Vimeo, Blogger, MySpace, etc. are more about sharing content than
    > preserving it. The Artbase is more about archiving content.
    >
    > Pall
  • Pall Thayer | Tue Apr 4th 2006 4:04 p.m.
    Hi Sal,
    With all due respect, I can see that we have very different views and
    will continue to disagree. But that doesn't matter. The important
    thing is that the issue be discussed if enough people feel strongly
    about it. I, personally, value the fact that the Artbase is selective
    and doubt that I would submit to it if it weren't (in my opinion they
    could even be a bit *more* selective). Whereas other researchers
    submit their findings to journals for peer review, I see the Rhizome
    Artbase as a "journal" for the peer review of findings in the field
    of digital arts.

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

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

    Pall

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

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

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Rob Myers | Tue Apr 4th 2006 4:31 p.m.
    On 4 Apr 2006, at 21:03, Pall Thayer wrote:

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

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

    - Rob.
  • Pall Thayer | Tue Apr 4th 2006 8:18 p.m.
    That's a nice way of putting it. My sentiments exactly.

    Pall

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

    > On 4 Apr 2006, at 21:03, Pall Thayer wrote:
    >
    >> I don't agree. I don't think the Artbase should be opened up any
    >> more than it is.
    >
    > I also think the Artbase should retain curatorial (and quality)
    > control. To riff on Groucho Marx, I wouldn't submit my work to
    > anywhere I thought I might not be turned down. :-)
    >
    > - Rob.
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Lee Wells | Tue Apr 4th 2006 10:54 p.m.
    I think both sides should be considered.

    On 4/4/06 3:38 PM, "Nad" <nad@daytar.de> wrote:

    > Hi Sal & all
    >
    > Yes I was also thinking often that
    > a more "democratic" curating
    > system would be good for Rhizome, like e.g. with tagging
    > or voting. I am glad you bring this up.
    > Its good to have official curators but
    > yes i could imagine that some interesting
    > stuff is "slipping through the system".
    > Everybody has another focus. Tagging
    > may allow to shift something into
    > general focus. But I have no idea
    > how "democratic" a tagging system would be
    > in reality - i.e.
    > this depends also on the frequency
    > of "tagging visits" of rhizome members etc.
    > Who has the time to browse daily?
    >
    > But if one sets this up then it would also be
    > interesting to have
    > the discussion about a work linked directly
    > to the work itself. This would enable people
    > to learn and to make themselves understandable.
    > However I have no idea how fair or good this works
    > and its a lot of work to set this up.....
    >
    > nad
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    --
    Lee Wells
    Brooklyn, NY 11222

    http://www.leewells.org
    http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
    917 723 2524
  • Lee Wells | Tue Apr 4th 2006 11:16 p.m.
    The interesting thing about both Rhizome and the other new media community
    sites is that its already a filtered group. We thought we might run into
    that problem with the PAM select calls for artists. We found out that
    through word of mouth and pre-filtered lists like this one, the work we
    received was exceptional.

    I don
  • Corey Eiseman | Wed Apr 5th 2006 4:49 a.m.
    I can respect both sides of this discussion. On the one hand I
    completely understand the need and the desire to have quality control
    for something like the ArtBase, or put another way, some mechanism to
    keep the whole system from being dragged down by the lowest common
    denominator. However, at the same time I really can't understand why
    individuals pursuing careers as professional artists should necessarily
    be an important factor when considering the quality of an individual
    work. It seems to me at that point it becomes very insular and
    potentially closed to new things.

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

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

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

    Best regards,

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

    Lee Wells wrote:
    > The interesting thing about both Rhizome and the other new media community
    > sites is that its already a filtered group. We thought we might run into
    > that problem with the PAM select calls for artists. We found out that
    > through word of mouth and pre-filtered lists like this one, the work we
    > received was exceptional.
    >
    > I don
  • Pall Thayer | Wed Apr 5th 2006 6:48 a.m.
    I would have to say that if people are submitting work to the Artbase
    and receiving no response at all, that is unprofessional and
    unacceptable. Even work that is rejected should get a response. Is
    this an isolated incident? Does anyone at Rhizome have an explanation
    for this?

    Pall

    On 5.4.2006, at 06:48, toegristle wrote:

    > I can respect both sides of this discussion. On the one hand I
    > completely understand the need and the desire to have quality
    > control for something like the ArtBase, or put another way, some
    > mechanism to keep the whole system from being dragged down by the
    > lowest common denominator. However, at the same time I really can't
    > understand why individuals pursuing careers as professional artists
    > should necessarily be an important factor when considering the
    > quality of an individual work. It seems to me at that point it
    > becomes very insular and potentially closed to new things.
    >
    > I'm speaking as someone who, for various reasons, made a conscious
    > decision while I was still in art school that I wasn't going to
    > pursue the path of what I assume you mean by a professional artist,
    > i.e. having a CV, getting my work in galleries and exhibitions,
    > etc. I have confidence in my talent and I know I could have had
    > some modicum of success had I taken that path, but for better or
    > worse I simply had zero interest in it, and still don't. I know
    > very well that this does cut me off from certain opportunities and
    > also tends to make my more professional contemporaries
    > automatically lump me in the category of amateur or hobbyist or
    > whatever, but I've never really regretted my decision. A huge part
    > of what attracted me to the web as an artist and to the net art
    > scene was that I could do my own thing and have fun doing it,
    > without having to "commodify" my work or live in a metropolitan
    > area with a big gallery scene, or really have to deal with the art
    > world in any way. I don't need any of it to validate myself as an
    > artist, and if that means I won't be awarded any historical
    > significance by the powers that be, then so be it.
    >
    > All that being said, I do value community very much. I had taken a
    > pretty long hiatus from Rhizome until a few months ago. Part of the
    > reason I shelled out my $25 and became a member was because I liked
    > what I saw on the new website and because the organization /
    > community had moved in what I perceived to be a positive direction
    > since I had last visited. I have since submitted to the ArtBase
    > twice and in both cases I can only assume my work was rejected
    > because I basically received no response one way or the other. My
    > submissions just disappeared into the ether. This doesn't really
    > bother me for the same reasons I stated above, but I did find it
    > interesting. I can't help but wonder if the work would be given any
    > more consideration if I wasn't an outsider, if I already had my
    > foot in the door, so to speak. I feel like given the chance in a
    > debate, I could make a pretty good case for the historical
    > significance of both of the works I submitted meeting the stated
    > criteria. I wonder how much of the lack of response is due to the
    > fact that I didn't really include much explanation text to support
    > my case in the first place. I've never been one to delve into
    > theory or provide a lot of background explanation or historical
    > context. Hell, my artists statement at my BFA show was simply: "Art
    > is fun."
    >
    > In the end I know I'm a small fish and I don't pretend to deserve
    > much say in what the ArtBase should be. Like I said, I do
    > understand the need for some quality control, but I also tend to
    > think something is lost if it becomes just another extension of the
    > elite art world, a bouncer guarding the gates of the museum.
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    > Corey Eiseman
    > http://toegristle.com/
    > Who are *you* to deny it?!?
    >
    >
    > Lee Wells wrote:
    >> The interesting thing about both Rhizome and the other new media
    >> community
    >> sites is that its already a filtered group. We thought we might
    >> run into
    >> that problem with the PAM select calls for artists. We found out that
    >> through word of mouth and pre-filtered lists like this one, the
    >> work we
    >> received was exceptional.
    >>
    >> I don
  • Alexis Turner | Wed Apr 5th 2006 9:13 a.m.
    There is already a non-filtered, non-curated archive for storing artworks. It's
    called the Internet.

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

    -Alexis
  • Lauren Cornell | Wed Apr 5th 2006 10:12 a.m.
    Hi Pall, Hi Corey

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you, and all best,
    Lauren

    On 4/5/06 8:48 AM, "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

    > I would have to say that if people are submitting work to the Artbase
    > and receiving no response at all, that is unprofessional and
    > unacceptable. Even work that is rejected should get a response. Is
    > this an isolated incident? Does anyone at Rhizome have an explanation
    > for this?
    >
    > Pall
    >
    > On 5.4.2006, at 06:48, toegristle wrote:
    >
    >> I can respect both sides of this discussion. On the one hand I
    >> completely understand the need and the desire to have quality
    >> control for something like the ArtBase, or put another way, some
    >> mechanism to keep the whole system from being dragged down by the
    >> lowest common denominator. However, at the same time I really can't
    >> understand why individuals pursuing careers as professional artists
    >> should necessarily be an important factor when considering the
    >> quality of an individual work. It seems to me at that point it
    >> becomes very insular and potentially closed to new things.
    >>
    >> I'm speaking as someone who, for various reasons, made a conscious
    >> decision while I was still in art school that I wasn't going to
    >> pursue the path of what I assume you mean by a professional artist,
    >> i.e. having a CV, getting my work in galleries and exhibitions,
    >> etc. I have confidence in my talent and I know I could have had
    >> some modicum of success had I taken that path, but for better or
    >> worse I simply had zero interest in it, and still don't. I know
    >> very well that this does cut me off from certain opportunities and
    >> also tends to make my more professional contemporaries
    >> automatically lump me in the category of amateur or hobbyist or
    >> whatever, but I've never really regretted my decision. A huge part
    >> of what attracted me to the web as an artist and to the net art
    >> scene was that I could do my own thing and have fun doing it,
    >> without having to "commodify" my work or live in a metropolitan
    >> area with a big gallery scene, or really have to deal with the art
    >> world in any way. I don't need any of it to validate myself as an
    >> artist, and if that means I won't be awarded any historical
    >> significance by the powers that be, then so be it.
    >>
    >> All that being said, I do value community very much. I had taken a
    >> pretty long hiatus from Rhizome until a few months ago. Part of the
    >> reason I shelled out my $25 and became a member was because I liked
    >> what I saw on the new website and because the organization /
    >> community had moved in what I perceived to be a positive direction
    >> since I had last visited. I have since submitted to the ArtBase
    >> twice and in both cases I can only assume my work was rejected
    >> because I basically received no response one way or the other. My
    >> submissions just disappeared into the ether. This doesn't really
    >> bother me for the same reasons I stated above, but I did find it
    >> interesting. I can't help but wonder if the work would be given any
    >> more consideration if I wasn't an outsider, if I already had my
    >> foot in the door, so to speak. I feel like given the chance in a
    >> debate, I could make a pretty good case for the historical
    >> significance of both of the works I submitted meeting the stated
    >> criteria. I wonder how much of the lack of response is due to the
    >> fact that I didn't really include much explanation text to support
    >> my case in the first place. I've never been one to delve into
    >> theory or provide a lot of background explanation or historical
    >> context. Hell, my artists statement at my BFA show was simply: "Art
    >> is fun."
    >>
    >> In the end I know I'm a small fish and I don't pretend to deserve
    >> much say in what the ArtBase should be. Like I said, I do
    >> understand the need for some quality control, but I also tend to
    >> think something is lost if it becomes just another extension of the
    >> elite art world, a bouncer guarding the gates of the museum.
    >>
    >> Best regards,
    >>
    >> Corey Eiseman
    >> http://toegristle.com/
    >> Who are *you* to deny it?!?
    >>
    >>
    >> Lee Wells wrote:
    >>> The interesting thing about both Rhizome and the other new media
    >>> community
    >>> sites is that its already a filtered group. We thought we might
    >>> run into
    >>> that problem with the PAM select calls for artists. We found out that
    >>> through word of mouth and pre-filtered lists like this one, the
    >>> work we
    >>> received was exceptional.
    >>>
    >>> I don
  • Sal Randolph | Wed Apr 5th 2006 11:58 a.m.
    On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Alexis Turner wrote:

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

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

    S
  • Zev Robinson | Wed Apr 5th 2006 11:59 a.m.
    is there any selectivity on Rhizome? can't anyone join, post, etc? does one
    have to be a professional artist (and what does that mean, exactly)? if one
    would have to be a professional artist, would a good programmer who may not
    be an artist at all, but may have something to add, be excluded?

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

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

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

    Zev

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

    > People come to Rhizome out of all those other possibilities to get to
    > something
    > specific, special, or "more." By definition, that means selectivity.
    >
    > -Alexis
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Marisa Olson | Wed Apr 5th 2006 12:50 p.m.
    Hi, all.

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

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

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

    All the best,
    Marisa
Your Reply