Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking

Posted by Patrick May | Fri May 5th 2006 2:48 p.m.

Hello,

The finalists for the Rhizome Commissions have now been chosen. Once
again, we had a 3 way tie for 25th place, giving us 27 finalists for
the second year in a row. You can see the full list of finalists here:

http://rhizome.org/commissions/all_finalists.rhiz

You can submit your votes for the final stage here:

http://rhizome.org/commissions/voting/ranking/

In this final stage, the top voted proposal will be awarded one of
the commissions; the other awards will be decided by our jury. This
second stage of voting will last until Wednesday, May 31, 2006. More
information about the voting process is available here:

http://rhizome.org/commissions/voting/

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick May
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
AIM: cyclochew
+ + +
  • Eric Dymond | Fri May 5th 2006 8:10 p.m.
    This is kind of like a protracted pregnancy, and I've been through 3.
    Maybe next year the poor applicants will be subjected to less abuse.
    Sorry, but this process has the hallmarks of reality TV, and it leaves me feeling pretty cold and worried.

    Eric
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Sat May 6th 2006 12:30 a.m.
    As a finalist, I have to say I am kind of concerned as to why it was narrowed down to 27 if only 1 can get it- why not narrow it down to one, and give it? I ask in earnestness. A two step process seems to burden artists (the anticipation!) and
    viewers alike (why vote twice for the same piece?)

    Just my two cents. Still, it is pretty sweet to get into the finals.

    -er.

    Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Friday, May 05, 2006 at 10:10 PM -0500 wrote:
    >This is kind of like a protracted pregnancy, and I've been through 3.
    >Maybe next year the poor applicants will be subjected to less abuse.
    >Sorry, but this process has the hallmarks of reality TV, and it leaves me feeling pretty cold and worried.
    >
    >
    >Eric
    >+
    >-> 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 | Sat May 6th 2006 4:50 a.m.
    why vote at all?

    marc

    >As a finalist, I have to say I am kind of concerned as to why it was narrowed down to 27 if only 1 can get it- why not narrow it down to one, and give it? I ask in earnestness. A two step process seems to burden artists (the anticipation!) and
    >viewers alike (why vote twice for the same piece?)
    >
    >Just my two cents. Still, it is pretty sweet to get into the finals.
    >
    >-er.
    >
    >
    >Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Friday, May 05, 2006 at 10:10 PM -0500 wrote:
    >
    >
    >>This is kind of like a protracted pregnancy, and I've been through 3.
    >>Maybe next year the poor applicants will be subjected to less abuse.
    >>Sorry, but this process has the hallmarks of reality TV, and it leaves me feeling pretty cold and worried.
    >>
    >>
    >>Eric
    >>+
    >>-> 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Jim Andrews | Sat May 6th 2006 7:15 a.m.
    Well, I didn't make the finalists list, but I gotta say I think the
    rhizome.org project of getting funding to commission work and then building
    good software to support a member voting process on proposals is really
    great.

    Also, those who submitted proposals and voted, whether they were successful
    or not in their proposal, I'm sure will take a special interest in seeing
    how the winning proposals pan out. It's a really great way of involving the
    membership in the process from start to finish.

    So all best wishes to the finalists and I hope the projects that get
    commissioned are terrific.

    I didn't have this done for the rhizome proposal process, but here's a 6:21
    Quicktime video I've finished since then that I will be using in future
    proposals on the project I proposed; I'll be going ahead on this project
    anyway; it's been in the works for a long time and may yet be a long time
    before completion, but it's happening slowly but surely:
    http://vispo.com/bc/Sorenson3-4/Sorenson3-4.html . This is the second time
    I've had a proposal on this project turned down, but I'm going to keep at
    it. I suck at proposals. But I plan to get better at it.

    And here are the Shockwave demos the video refers to:
    http://vispo.com/bc/a
    http://vispo.com/bc/b
    http://vispo.com/dbcinema

    ja
  • Patrick May | Sat May 6th 2006 9:15 a.m.
    Eric,

    On May 5, 2006, at 10:10 PM, Eric Dymond wrote:

    > This is kind of like a protracted pregnancy, and I've been through 3.
    > Maybe next year the poor applicants will be subjected to less abuse.
    > Sorry, but this process has the hallmarks of reality TV, and it
    > leaves me feeling pretty cold and worried.

    Actually, the two-day delay in the second round was to test our
    system and make sure no abuse would occur.

    Cheers,

    Patrick

    --
    Patrick May
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
    AIM: cyclochew
    + + +
  • Rob Myers | Sat May 6th 2006 12:45 p.m.
    On 6 May 2006, at 14:15, Jim Andrews wrote:

    > Well, I didn't make the finalists list, but I gotta say I think the
    > rhizome.org project of getting funding to commission work and then
    > building
    > good software to support a member voting process on proposals is
    > really
    > great.

    Ditto, and I agree. Thank you to everyone at Rhizome who has worked
    on this.

    Good luck to the finalists.

    - Rob.
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Sat May 6th 2006 12:46 p.m.
    I've been long advocating that rhizome integrate the community into any process it can; so voting seems like a very good idea to me. Anonymity in the process might have been good (nameless proposals) and it also would have been interesting if we,
    the community, chose some works to talk about online...

    The reality is that we're in an open system, it's not rhizome's fault if none of us are sure how to react to it. We'll get used to it eventually. There's some kinks in the process but overall I think it's a pretty nice effort of getting away from
    dry curational expertise in the grant process.

    So, bravo for that.

    -er.

    marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> on Saturday, May 06, 2006 at 6:53 AM -0500 wrote:
    >why vote at all?
    >
    >marc
    >
    >
  • Rhizomer | Sat May 6th 2006 1:45 p.m.
    i thing if you chose one of these 27 finalists, the other will be hurted.
    i had'nt applied for commision, you can choose me if you want
    i busy with the family, been very low on spare time lately, kids requiring attention, troubles at work .
    i'm not going to get stressed to get anything done, so take it easy,
    i'll accept it

    u

    Eryk Salvaggio <Eryk_Salvaggio@umit.maine.edu> wrote:

    I've been long advocating that rhizome integrate the community into any process it can; so voting seems like a very good idea to me. Anonymity in the process might have been good (nameless proposals) and it also would have been interesting if we,
    the community, chose some works to talk about online...

    The reality is that we're in an open system, it's not rhizome's fault if none of us are sure how to react to it. We'll get used to it eventually. There's some kinks in the process but overall I think it's a pretty nice effort of getting away from
    dry curational expertise in the grant process.

    So, bravo for that.

    -er.

    marc on Saturday, May 06, 2006 at 6:53 AM -0500 wrote:
    >why vote at all?
    >
    >marc
    >
    >

    +
    -> 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

    Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
  • Eric Dymond | Sat May 6th 2006 7:29 p.m.
    Patrick, I'm not blaming anyone, just stating that the process should be
    streamlined and the extra layer of semi-finalists should be dropped.
    I'm not convinced that allocating one commision via the membershiop voting
    process is valid (the jury system by the Rhizome staff is a better
    solution). It looks like entertainment from the outside.
    Eric
  • ryan griffis | Sun May 7th 2006 5:05 p.m.
    Me three. Thanks RHZ folks.
    ryan

    On May 6, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Rob Myers wrote:

    > On 6 May 2006, at 14:15, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >
    >> Well, I didn't make the finalists list, but I gotta say I think the
    >> rhizome.org project of getting funding to commission work and then
    >> building
    >> good software to support a member voting process on proposals is
    >> really
    >> great.
    >
    > Ditto, and I agree. Thank you to everyone at Rhizome who has worked
    > on this.
    >
    > Good luck to the finalists.
    >
    > - Rob.
  • marc garrett | Mon May 8th 2006 4:40 a.m.
    Hi Eryk,

    Sorry for my 'abstract interjection'.

    I definately agree with what you have mentioned below - my question is
    coming more from a place of people re-evaluating the effects of voting
    and what the real effects in respect social context, what does voting
    really do for its communities, what it really means psychologically,
    politically and culturally?

    The process being used now, I see more as a pragmatic approach (period
    before another perhaps) in getting something happening, which is
    positive in its own right, so that people's works is seen, respected and
    considered - and appropriated accordingly to the creativevalue of a
    connected, networked arena at large.

    Yet - Is there an argument or even a need for setting up a (this could
    be a seperate working environment) forum, place for dialogues, where
    those who are interested in moving beyond a traditional set of 'system
    of competitive led', mannerist frameworks? Where a group can explore
    other options, and test also them out?

    marc

    >I've been long advocating that rhizome integrate the community into any process it can; so voting seems like a very good idea to me. Anonymity in the process might have been good (nameless proposals) and it also would have been interesting if we,
    >the community, chose some works to talk about online...
    >
    >The reality is that we're in an open system, it's not rhizome's fault if none of us are sure how to react to it. We'll get used to it eventually. There's some kinks in the process but overall I think it's a pretty nice effort of getting away from
    >dry curational expertise in the grant process.
    >
    >So, bravo for that.
    >
    >-er.
    >
    >marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> on Saturday, May 06, 2006 at 6:53 AM -0500 wrote:
    >
    >
    >>why vote at all?
    >>
    >>marc
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >+
    >-> 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Jim Andrews | Mon May 8th 2006 6:09 a.m.
    I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.

    I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over the next
    few days.

    Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that got
    voted for?

    One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a community,
    but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am more
    interested in what voting supports as art.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • marc garrett | Mon May 8th 2006 6:54 a.m.
    Hi Jim,

    >One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a
    community, but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in
    art, am more interested in what voting supports as art.

    Yes- I understand and of course agree with your leaning to being more
    interested in the art itself. I am extremely interested in the art as
    well, as I know you know ;-)

    Although, because I am involved with art myself on various levels, not
    just as an artist, but also from a www.furtherfield.org,
    http://www.http.uk.net & http://www.nodel.org/ perspective, paradigms
    tend to become more apparant.

    There is an awful lot to chew on, may be not necessarily for every one
    here, or elsewhere for that matter - but it certainly interests me, and
    perhaps some others (hopefully).

    marc

    >I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
    >
    >I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over the next
    >few days.
    >
    >Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that got
    >voted for?
    >
    >One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a community,
    >but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am more
    >interested in what voting supports as art.
    >
    >ja
    >http://vispo.com
    >
    >
    >
    >+
    >-> 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 May 8th 2006 8:59 a.m.
    thank you :)

    > Me three. Thanks RHZ folks.
    > ryan
    >
    > On May 6, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
    >
    >> On 6 May 2006, at 14:15, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >>
    >>> Well, I didn't make the finalists list, but I gotta say I think the
    >>> rhizome.org project of getting funding to commission work and then
    >>> building
    >>> good software to support a member voting process on proposals is
    >>> really
    >>> great.
    >>
    >> Ditto, and I agree. Thank you to everyone at Rhizome who has worked
    >> on this.
    >>
    >> Good luck to the finalists.
    >>
    >> - 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
    >
  • curt cloninger | Mon May 8th 2006 10:22 a.m.
    Hi Jim,

    Reduction necessarily involves oversimplification. Having said that, here goes. Of the 27 --

    tactical media about maps and travel:
    5

    physical/virtual body translation:
    5

    diaritic, exhibitionistic text-based work:
    4

    new media recontextualizations of old media art forms:
    4

    collaborative audio and video:
    3

    text to motion interpretation:
    3

    network protocol (email, bit torrent) visualization:
    2

    http://www.learningtoloveyoumore.com 2.0:
    1

    ++++++

    No pretty web visuals like http://oculart.com
    No funky reactive softwares like http://www.re-move.org
    No absurd non-linear narratives like http://www.superbad.com

    What would the "project description" of superbad be? "It's this place that links kind of like a labyrinth and there's a story about bees and turkey necks and Captain America and... nevermind." What would the "project description" of oculart be? "It feels kind of like Lautrec on absinthe-soaked mushrooms and... nevermind."

    The structure of the call for proposals acts as a major filter, which is unavoidable and perhaps desirable. I'm just foregrounding the kind of work that gets filtered.

    best,
    curt

    Jim Andrews wrote:

    > I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
    >
    > I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over
    > the next
    > few days.
    >
    > Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that
    > got
    > voted for?
    >
    > One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a
    > community,
    > but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am
    > more
    > interested in what voting supports as art.
    >
    > ja
    > http://vispo.com
    >
    >
    >
  • MTAA | Mon May 8th 2006 11:17 a.m.
    Hi,

    Some notes below:

    On 5/8/06, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > ++++++
    >
    > No pretty web visuals like http://oculart.com

    IMHO pretty should never be funded, beautiful, yes; handsome, perhaps;
    pretty, no.

    No funky reactive softwares like http://www.re-move.org

    funky? I'm unsure if it should be funded, but probably.

    No absurd non-linear narratives like http://www.superbad.com

    absurd should, of course, always be funded.

    What would the "project description" of superbad be? "It's this place that
    > links kind of like a labyrinth and there's a story about bees and turkey
    > necks and Captain America and... nevermind." What would the "project
    > description" of oculart be? "It feels kind of like Lautrec on
    > absinthe-soaked mushrooms and... nevermind."
    >
    > The structure of the call for proposals acts as a major filter, which is
    > unavoidable and perhaps desirable. I'm just foregrounding the kind of wo=
    rk
    > that gets filtered.

    I really can't agree with this. If someone wanted to do a superbad-ish site
    I think it could be easily described with visuals/examples/etc backing up
    the bits that are difficult/impossible to describe.

    Quick one sentence:

    +++

    An exploration of visual design, animation and non-linear interaction within
    the web browser with an eclectic and sometimes absurd subject matter culled
    from the vagaries of the artist's interest in pop cultural flotsom, the news
    of the day and niche science.

    +++

    I'm no writer. Is it so hard?

    best,
    > curt
    >
    >
    >
    > Jim Andrews wrote:
    >
    > > I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
    > >
    > > I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over
    > > the next
    > > few days.
    > >
    > > Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that
    > > got
    > > voted for?
    > >
    > > One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a
    > > community,
    > > but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am
    > > more
    > > interested in what voting supports as art.
    > >
    > > ja
    > > http://vispo.com
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > +
    > -> 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
    >

    --
    <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • curt cloninger | Mon May 8th 2006 11:54 a.m.
    t.whid wrote:
    > An exploration of visual design, animation and non-linear interaction
    > within
    > the web browser with an eclectic and sometimes absurd subject matter
    > culled
    > from the vagaries of the artist's interest in pop cultural flotsom,
    > the news
    > of the day and niche science.

    "Niche science" is good because I don't know what it means. Sounds like it might have something to do with folksonomies, so I'm in. Still, you sure you can't throw in some podcasting, blog culture, or at least a couple of surveilance cameras to sweeten the deal?

    I challenge MTAA to make the uber-net.art project -- a single net artwork simultaneously about all of the following topics:
    http://deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/

    your affectionate uncle,
    screwtape
  • MTAA | Mon May 8th 2006 1:05 p.m.
    I'm not sure I understand your reponse. I was actually being serious with
    that little sentence. d'oh!

    We'd like to make an uber-net.art project (just because we like the word:
    "uber") but we're lazy and drink too much.

    blech,
    t

    On 5/8/06, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
    >
    > t.whid wrote:
    > > An exploration of visual design, animation and non-linear interaction
    > > within
    > > the web browser with an eclectic and sometimes absurd subject matter
    > > culled
    > > from the vagaries of the artist's interest in pop cultural flotsom,
    > > the news
    > > of the day and niche science.
    >
    > "Niche science" is good because I don't know what it means. Sounds like
    > it might have something to do with folksonomies, so I'm in. Still, you s=
    ure
    > you can't throw in some podcasting, blog culture, or at least a couple of
    > surveilance cameras to sweeten the deal?
    >
    > I challenge MTAA to make the uber-net.art project -- a single net artwork
    > simultaneously about all of the following topics:
    > http://deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/
    >
    > your affectionate uncle,
    > screwtape
    > +
    > -> 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
    >

    --
    <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • Pall Thayer | Mon May 8th 2006 1:20 p.m.
    >
    > I challenge MTAA to make the uber-net.art project -- a single net
    > artwork simultaneously about all of the following topics:
    > http://deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/

    I've already made that artwork. It was my proposal for the
    commissions. It's about those and much much more. It's about
    Everything. Though I didn't make on as a finalist, the rejection gave
    me a spurt of energy and the work is now finished at http://
    pallit.lhi.is/on_everything

    Pall

    >
    > your affectionate uncle,
    > screwtape
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>www.mteww.com </twhid>

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Rob Myers | Mon May 8th 2006 2:02 p.m.
    On 8 May 2006, at 20:05, T.Whid wrote:

    > we're lazy and drink too much.

    I'd vote for that. Is there any way you can make it a community project?

    - Rob.
  • curt cloninger | Mon May 8th 2006 2:50 p.m.
    t.whid wrote:

    > I'm not sure I understand your reponse. I was actually being serious
    > with
    > that little sentence. d'oh!

    I figured you were. The "art" of superbad is done little justice by your sentence (although your sentence is well written and technically accurate). The more an artwork traffics in the visceral, a-lingual, and dys-conceptual, the less reducible its "art" is to words, the more banal it sounds when described by words, the less chance it stands of getting a grant like this. And that's fine. As Ryan Griffis points out, the commodity gallery market and entertainment industry financially support their fair share of "spectacular" (his derogatory term) work. I'm just pointing out the skew.
  • Steve OR Steven Read | Mon May 8th 2006 2:51 p.m.
    Its curious to me that my proposal page only got 10 page hits from jurors. The jury process includes making these pages which show more depth, work samples, examples, resumes, and so forth. Mine in particular had working prototypes in flash of what was to be built, which were in my opinion quite useful for an understanding of the project. For mine to be juried, in my opinion the page needed to be visited and the prototypes examined. Only 10 people viewed it. Fair or unfair? Not to waste time being sore that I lost - boo hoo everybody get out their violins, but I feel it wasn't really juried. Or maybe my writeup just sucked so much that it enticed very few people to click the proposal page. But a hell of alot of work was put into the proposal page and the prototypes in particular.

    This brings up something "funny" that happened last year at a big museum biennial competition I was in. Over 750 applicants with a 'hot guest curator'. Everyone paid their $25 or $40 or whatever it was to be juried by said curator. I happened to know the days that the curator was in town for it. Since my particular entry was a piece of "Internet Art" - this gave me the power to quantitate their process. For the first time in this particular museum's history I think, an entrant had such invisible power. Looking at my logs and running some shell commands (as done here with the rhizome commissions), I could see that it wasn't even juried once.

    Here again, I really didn't care that I lost, but I knew and had proof the process wasn't all that fair as the entry form implied. What should I then do with such information? Being curious, I asked around and eventually found out that most entries were 'pre-screened' out before jurying really took place with the big international curator. That part of the process was not advertised, and most people who paid their $40 got screwed. If you add that up, that's over $15,000 - $20,000 that was earned by the museum unfairly. I'm not saying that art should or should not be fair, I just found it interesting that my web server logs exposed the often nasty nature of large art institutions.

    curt cloninger wrote:

    > t.whid wrote:
    >
    > > I'm not sure I understand your reponse. I was actually being serious
    > > with
    > > that little sentence. d'oh!
    >
    > I figured you were. The "art" of superbad is done little justice by
    > your sentence (although your sentence is well written and technically
    > accurate). The more an artwork traffics in the visceral, a-lingual,
    > and dys-conceptual, the less reducible its "art" is to words, the more
    > banal it sounds when described by words, the less chance it stands of
    > getting a grant like this. And that's fine. As Ryan Griffis points
    > out, the commodity gallery market and entertainment industry
    > financially support their fair share of "spectacular" (his derogatory
    > term) work. I'm just pointing out the skew.
  • curt cloninger | Mon May 8th 2006 3:07 p.m.
    Hi Pall,

    Not so fast! You're assumption is that Suzy Photo/Text Blogger will eventually address all those academically-approved net.art topics. In reality, percentage-wise, your piece (which I like) will mostly be "about" pets and ex-boyfriends.

    cf:
    http://www.turbulence.org/Works/dynamo/

    http://www.solaas.com.ar/dreamlines/p5/

    peace,
    curt

    Pall Thayer wrote:

    > >
    > > I challenge MTAA to make the uber-net.art project -- a single net
    > > artwork simultaneously about all of the following topics:
    > > http://deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/
    >
    > I've already made that artwork. It was my proposal for the
    > commissions. It's about those and much much more. It's about
    > Everything. Though I didn't make on as a finalist, the rejection gave
    >
    > me a spurt of energy and the work is now finished at http://
    > pallit.lhi.is/on_everything
    >
    > Pall
    >
    > >
    > > your affectionate uncle,
    > > screwtape
    > > +
    > > -> 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
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > <twhid>www.mteww.com </twhid>
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Pall Thayer
    > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Pall Thayer | Mon May 8th 2006 3:21 p.m.
    But your missing the point of combining the images with the text
    (that are in no way related). The combination is what addresses all
    of the "in-betweens".

    Thanks for liking it.

    Pall

    On 8.5.2006, at 17:07, curt cloninger wrote:

    > Hi Pall,
    >
    > Not so fast! You're assumption is that Suzy Photo/Text Blogger
    > will eventually address all those academically-approved net.art
    > topics. In reality, percentage-wise, your piece (which I like)
    > will mostly be "about" pets and ex-boyfriends.
    >
    > cf:
    > http://www.turbulence.org/Works/dynamo/
    >
    > http://www.solaas.com.ar/dreamlines/p5/
    >
    > peace,
    > curt
    >
    > Pall Thayer wrote:
    >
    >>>
    >>> I challenge MTAA to make the uber-net.art project -- a single net
    >>> artwork simultaneously about all of the following topics:
    >>> http://deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/
    >>
    >> I've already made that artwork. It was my proposal for the
    >> commissions. It's about those and much much more. It's about
    >> Everything. Though I didn't make on as a finalist, the rejection gave
    >>
    >> me a spurt of energy and the work is now finished at http://
    >> pallit.lhi.is/on_everything
    >>
    >> Pall
    >>
    >>>
    >>> your affectionate uncle,
    >>> screwtape
    >>> +
    >>> -> 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
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> <twhid>www.mteww.com </twhid>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> 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
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • curt cloninger | Mon May 8th 2006 3:37 p.m.
    At 5:21 PM -0400 5/8/06, Pall Thayer wrote:
    >But your missing the point of combining the images with the text
    >(that are in no way related). The combination is what addresses all
    >of the "in-betweens".

    You know, there is a strange dadaist anti-logic to that. Vector
    collage of cats n' dogs PLUS cut-up audio commentary of
    ex-boyfriend's shortcomings EQUALS critique of panoptical
    surveillance. By gum, I like it!
  • Lee Wells | Mon May 8th 2006 3:37 p.m.
    http://digilander.libero.it/Daisychain/gatti/images/catfight.jpg

    On 5/8/06 4:50 PM, "curt cloninger" <curt@lab404.com> wrote:

    > t.whid wrote:
    >
    >> I'm not sure I understand your reponse. I was actually being serious
    >> with
    >> that little sentence. d'oh!
    >
    > I figured you were. The "art" of superbad is done little justice by your
    > sentence (although your sentence is well written and technically accurate).
    > The more an artwork traffics in the visceral, a-lingual, and dys-conceptual,
    > the less reducible its "art" is to words, the more banal it sounds when
    > described by words, the less chance it stands of getting a grant like this.
    > And that's fine. As Ryan Griffis points out, the commodity gallery market and
    > entertainment industry financially support their fair share of "spectacular"
    > (his derogatory term) work. I'm just pointing out the skew.
    > +
    > -> 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
  • Alexis Turner | Mon May 8th 2006 4:33 p.m.
    Why does this conversation sound suspiciously like the ones everyone used to
    have in high school, as they tried desperately to figure out what the teacher
    "wants?"
    -Alexis

    On Mon, 8 May 2006, T.Whid wrote:

    ::Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:11:52 -0400
    ::From: T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com>
    ::To: list@rhizome.org
    ::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
    ::
    ::Hi,
    ::
    ::Some notes below:
    ::
    ::On 5/8/06, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
    ::>
    ::>
    ::>
    ::> ++++++
    ::>
    ::> No pretty web visuals like http://oculart.com
    ::
    ::
    ::IMHO pretty should never be funded, beautiful, yes; handsome, perhaps;
    ::pretty, no.
    ::
    ::No funky reactive softwares like http://www.re-move.org
    ::
    ::
    ::funky? I'm unsure if it should be funded, but probably.
    ::
    ::No absurd non-linear narratives like http://www.superbad.com
    ::
    ::
    ::absurd should, of course, always be funded.
    ::
    ::What would the "project description" of superbad be? "It's this place that
    ::> links kind of like a labyrinth and there's a story about bees and turkey
    ::> necks and Captain America and... nevermind." What would the "project
    ::> description" of oculart be? "It feels kind of like Lautrec on
    ::> absinthe-soaked mushrooms and... nevermind."
    ::>
    ::> The structure of the call for proposals acts as a major filter, which is
    ::> unavoidable and perhaps desirable. I'm just foregrounding the kind of work
    ::> that gets filtered.
    ::
    ::
    ::I really can't agree with this. If someone wanted to do a superbad-ish site
    ::I think it could be easily described with visuals/examples/etc backing up
    ::the bits that are difficult/impossible to describe.
    ::
    ::Quick one sentence:
    ::
    ::+++
    ::
    ::An exploration of visual design, animation and non-linear interaction within
    ::the web browser with an eclectic and sometimes absurd subject matter culled
    ::from the vagaries of the artist's interest in pop cultural flotsom, the news
    ::of the day and niche science.
    ::
    ::+++
    ::
    ::I'm no writer. Is it so hard?
    ::
    ::best,
    ::> curt
    ::>
    ::>
    ::>
    ::> Jim Andrews wrote:
    ::>
    ::> > I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
    ::> >
    ::> > I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over
    ::> > the next
    ::> > few days.
    ::> >
    ::> > Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that
    ::> > got
    ::> > voted for?
    ::> >
    ::> > One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a
    ::> > community,
    ::> > but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am
    ::> > more
    ::> > interested in what voting supports as art.
    ::> >
    ::> > ja
    ::> > http://vispo.com
  • Lee Wells | Mon May 8th 2006 5:14 p.m.
    http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/001_300/286.gif

    On 5/8/06 6:33 PM, "Alexis Turner" <subbies@redheadedstepchild.org> wrote:

    > Why does this conversation sound suspiciously like the ones everyone used to
    > have in high school, as they tried desperately to figure out what the teacher
    > "wants?"
    > -Alexis
    >
    >
    > On Mon, 8 May 2006, T.Whid wrote:
    >
    > ::Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:11:52 -0400
    > ::From: T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com>
    > ::To: list@rhizome.org
    > ::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
    > ::
    > ::Hi,
    > ::
    > ::Some notes below:
    > ::
    > ::On 5/8/06, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
    > ::>
    > ::>
    > ::>
    > ::> ++++++
    > ::>
    > ::> No pretty web visuals like http://oculart.com
    > ::
    > ::
    > ::IMHO pretty should never be funded, beautiful, yes; handsome, perhaps;
    > ::pretty, no.
    > ::
    > ::No funky reactive softwares like http://www.re-move.org
    > ::
    > ::
    > ::funky? I'm unsure if it should be funded, but probably.
    > ::
    > ::No absurd non-linear narratives like http://www.superbad.com
    > ::
    > ::
    > ::absurd should, of course, always be funded.
    > ::
    > ::What would the "project description" of superbad be? "It's this place that
    > ::> links kind of like a labyrinth and there's a story about bees and turkey
    > ::> necks and Captain America and... nevermind." What would the "project
    > ::> description" of oculart be? "It feels kind of like Lautrec on
    > ::> absinthe-soaked mushrooms and... nevermind."
    > ::>
    > ::> The structure of the call for proposals acts as a major filter, which is
    > ::> unavoidable and perhaps desirable. I'm just foregrounding the kind of
    > work
    > ::> that gets filtered.
    > ::
    > ::
    > ::I really can't agree with this. If someone wanted to do a superbad-ish site
    > ::I think it could be easily described with visuals/examples/etc backing up
    > ::the bits that are difficult/impossible to describe.
    > ::
    > ::Quick one sentence:
    > ::
    > ::+++
    > ::
    > ::An exploration of visual design, animation and non-linear interaction within
    > ::the web browser with an eclectic and sometimes absurd subject matter culled
    > ::from the vagaries of the artist's interest in pop cultural flotsom, the news
    > ::of the day and niche science.
    > ::
    > ::+++
    > ::
    > ::I'm no writer. Is it so hard?
    > ::
    > ::best,
    > ::> curt
    > ::>
    > ::>
    > ::>
    > ::> Jim Andrews wrote:
    > ::>
    > ::> > I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
    > ::> >
    > ::> > I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over
    > ::> > the next
    > ::> > few days.
    > ::> >
    > ::> > Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that
    > ::> > got
    > ::> > voted for?
    > ::> >
    > ::> > One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a
    > ::> > community,
    > ::> > but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am
    > ::> > more
    > ::> > interested in what voting supports as art.
    > ::> >
    > ::> > ja
    > ::> > http://vispo.com
    > +
    > -> 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
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Mon May 8th 2006 5:43 p.m.
    Rhizome, unfortunately, has to straddle a care for community and a care for art, as does any institution trying to develop in a new media context. It's interesting to think about what voting does for a community or for art. Voting is not the only
    democratic method; but it can be hard to expect rhizome to balance a community and art politic while coming up with an innovation in democracy. That's probably our job.

    If we wanted to make things really fun, someone could have proposed an open source rhizome grant where the entire process was discussed and designed, coded, and implemented on list by community members on a consensus basis, with occasional votes for
    the more controversial maneuvers. Grant money gets donated to charity or something.

    That would have been pretty awesome. And it may have been a community model that stood outside of competition and more in line with collaboration, ie, it would have been a more "new media" model.

    -er.

    "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com> on Monday, May 08, 2006 at 8:09 AM -0500 wrote:
    >I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
    >
    >I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over the next
    >few days.
    >
    >Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that got
    >voted for?
    >
    >One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a community,
    >but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am more
    >interested in what voting supports as art.
    >
    >ja
    >http://vispo.com
    >
    >
    >
    >+
    >-> 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 May 8th 2006 5:49 p.m.
    Curt,

    I couldn't agree more. If anything, net art should adopt a retroactive grant system, like the genius grants, where existing work is evaluated and rewarded. This is ideal because it reflects the grassroots nature of new media art, it gets rid of that
    weird dynamic where the only work rewarded is work that judges/evaluators are able to envision or defend (usually meaning it must reflect some element of theory or science) and also because it's a good opportunity to invent a new funding model for a
    new media.

    The problem is, no one gives new media art any money, anyway. So, let's all play the lottery.

    -er.
  • Lee Wells | Mon May 8th 2006 7:26 p.m.
    That sound like fun.

    On 5/8/06 7:42 PM, "Eryk Salvaggio" <Eryk_Salvaggio@umit.maine.edu> wrote:

    > Rhizome, unfortunately, has to straddle a care for community and a care for
    > art, as does any institution trying to develop in a new media context. It's
    > interesting to think about what voting does for a community or for art. Voting
    > is not the only
    > democratic method; but it can be hard to expect rhizome to balance a community
    > and art politic while coming up with an innovation in democracy. That's
    > probably our job.
    >
    > If we wanted to make things really fun, someone could have proposed an open
    > source rhizome grant where the entire process was discussed and designed,
    > coded, and implemented on list by community members on a consensus basis, with
    > occasional votes for
    > the more controversial maneuvers. Grant money gets donated to charity or
    > something.
    >
    > That would have been pretty awesome. And it may have been a community model
    > that stood outside of competition and more in line with collaboration, ie, it
    > would have been a more "new media" model.
    >
    > -er.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com> on Monday, May 08, 2006 at 8:09 AM -0500 wrote:
    >> I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
    >>
    >> I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over the next
    >> few days.
    >>
    >> Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that got
    >> voted for?
    >>
    >> One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a community,
    >> but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am more
    >> interested in what voting supports as art.
    >>
    >> ja
    >> http://vispo.com
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> 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

    --
    Lee Wells
    Brooklyn, NY 11222

    http://www.leewells.org
    http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
    917 723 2524
  • Lee Wells | Mon May 8th 2006 7:57 p.m.
    <Eryk_Salvaggio@umit.maine.edu> wrote:
    > The problem is, no one gives new media art any money, anyway. So, let's all
    > play the lottery.

    Or lets all figure out a way as a community to raise the profile of
    interactive new media.

    http://www.gstc.org/images/subpage_cookiesAndNuts.jpg

    Maybe it all starts with a new media version of a Support the Arts
    initiative. Simple banner ad campaigns on everyone's site or blog to spread
    the word, raise funds and have fun with it. Link it to a trusted account
    with over-site through a certified non-profit like Rhizome. Throw in a
    little creative competition among the artists, galleries, etc. like they do
    with girl scout's selling cookies. Give some incentives and goals. I'm sure
    if everyone on the list put their heads together something good would come
    of it. We are talking some serious brainpower here.

    and

    What do mean nobody gives new media art money. Rhizome wouldn't be giving
    these grants if it wasn't for the support of those below. Right?

    Cheers,
    Lee

    --
    Rhizome Key Supporters
    --
    The Milton and Sally Avery Arts Foundation

    College Art Association

    The David S. Howe Foundation

    The Experimental Television Center

    The Greenwall Foundation

    The Jerome Foundation

    The Leon Levy Foundation

    The National Endowment for the Arts

    The New York City Department of Cultural Affairs

    The New York State Council on the Arts

    PubSub Concepts Inc.

    The Tin Man Fund

    We would also like to thank our individual supporters:

    Radicle ($2000 and up)
    Tillmann Bronner

    Root ($500-$2000)
    Shawn Brixey
    Leonard Clagett
    Rob Cornell
    Emily Eakin
    Jane Metcalfe
    Joseph Varet
    Katie Zorn

    Bud ($250-500)
    Nicholas Butterworth
    Bill Galbreath
    Alex Galloway

    Shoot ($150-250)
    Amanda McDonald Crowley
    Jonah Peretti
    Bob Wyman
    Nina Yankowitz & Barry Holden
    CJ Yeh

    Sprout ($50-$150)
    Anonymous
    Marketa Bankova
    Don Barth
    Chloe Brushwood Rose
    Sam Cofino
    Jeffrey Cunard
    Ron Dimon
    Marianne Eigenheer
    Jeroen Fabius
    Joy Garnett
    Wayne Giles
    Ken Goldberg
    Doron Golan
    Reesa Greenberg
    Rufus Griscom
    Andrea Helbach
    James Huckenphaler
    Fran Ilich
    Michael Lantz
    Barbara Lattanzi
    David MacWilliam
    Christina McPhee
    Marc McNulty
    Livia Monnet
    Stefanie Nagorka
    Roma Patel
    Susan Paton
    Kit Pravda
    Linda K. Ryder
    Mechthild Schmidt
    Dana Samuel
    John Sappington
    Melissa Smedley
    Andrew Stiff
    Marcia Tanner
    Laurence Tribe
    Jason Van Anden
    Templar Wales
    John Weber
    David Young
    YOUNG-HAE CHANG HEAVY INDUSTRIES
    Rachel Zimmerman

    On 5/8/06 7:49 PM, "Eryk Salvaggio" <Eryk_Salvaggio@umit.maine.edu> wrote:

    > Curt,
    >
    > I couldn't agree more. If anything, net art should adopt a retroactive grant
    > system, like the genius grants, where existing work is evaluated and rewarded.
    > This is ideal because it reflects the grassroots nature of new media art, it
    > gets rid of that
    > weird dynamic where the only work rewarded is work that judges/evaluators are
    > able to envision or defend (usually meaning it must reflect some element of
    > theory or science) and also because it's a good opportunity to invent a new
    > funding model for a
    > new media.
    >
    > The problem is, no one gives new media art any money, anyway. So, let's all
    > play the lottery.
    >
    > -er.
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
  • Edmund Goubert | Tue May 9th 2006 4:17 a.m.
    If you thought your proposal text failed to grab jurors attention, mine must of had its arse hanging in the mud with the worms. My proposal site, with a working prototype, got 3 hits!

    I'm not bitter.

    Steve OR Steven Read wrote:

    > Its curious to me that my proposal page only got 10 page hits from
    > jurors. The jury process includes making these pages which show more
    > depth, work samples, examples, resumes, and so forth. Mine in
    > particular had working prototypes in flash of what was to be built,
    > which were in my opinion quite useful for an understanding of the
    > project. For mine to be juried, in my opinion the page needed to be
    > visited and the prototypes examined. Only 10 people viewed it. Fair or
    > unfair? Not to waste time being sore that I lost - boo hoo everybody
    > get out their violins, but I feel it wasn't really juried. Or maybe my
    > writeup just sucked so much that it enticed very few people to click
    > the proposal page. But a hell of alot of work was put into the
    > proposal page and the prototypes in particular.
    >
    > This brings up something "funny" that happened last year at a big
    > museum biennial competition I was in. Over 750 applicants with a 'hot
    > guest curator'. Everyone paid their $25 or $40 or whatever it was to
    > be juried by said curator. I happened to know the days that the
    > curator was in town for it. Since my particular entry was a piece of
    > "Internet Art" - this gave me the power to quantitate their process.
    > For the first time in this particular museum's history I think, an
    > entrant had such invisible power. Looking at my logs and running some
    > shell commands (as done here with the rhizome commissions), I could
    > see that it wasn't even juried once.
    >
    > Here again, I really didn't care that I lost, but I knew and had proof
    > the process wasn't all that fair as the entry form implied. What
    > should I then do with such information? Being curious, I asked around
    > and eventually found out that most entries were 'pre-screened' out
    > before jurying really took place with the big international curator.
    > That part of the process was not advertised, and most people who paid
    > their $40 got screwed. If you add that up, that's over $15,000 -
    > $20,000 that was earned by the museum unfairly. I'm not saying that
    > art should or should not be fair, I just found it interesting that my
    > web server logs exposed the often nasty nature of large art
    > institutions.
    >
    >
    > curt cloninger wrote:
    >
    > > t.whid wrote:
    > >
    > > > I'm not sure I understand your reponse. I was actually being
    > serious
    > > > with
    > > > that little sentence. d'oh!
    > >
    > > I figured you were. The "art" of superbad is done little justice by
    > > your sentence (although your sentence is well written and
    > technically
    > > accurate). The more an artwork traffics in the visceral, a-lingual,
    > > and dys-conceptual, the less reducible its "art" is to words, the
    > more
    > > banal it sounds when described by words, the less chance it stands
    > of
    > > getting a grant like this. And that's fine. As Ryan Griffis points
    > > out, the commodity gallery market and entertainment industry
    > > financially support their fair share of "spectacular" (his
    > derogatory
    > > term) work. I'm just pointing out the skew.
  • Zev Robinson | Tue May 9th 2006 1:59 p.m.
    various things have kept me from following this thread and what is going on
    very much, but I just wanted to add something to what Marc said.
    http://www.nodel.org/ (node.london) was great because people got together,
    worked together, lots got shown/performed, people were able to see a wide
    variety of shows, and it got a lot of publicity because of it. everyone
    participated in the manner and at the level they wanted or could. No one was
    voted best, no one voted at all except by attendence and opinion, and
    everyone gained.

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

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "marc" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:57 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking

    > Hi Jim,
    >
    > >One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a
    > community, but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in
    > art, am more interested in what voting supports as art.
    >
    > Yes- I understand and of course agree with your leaning to being more
    > interested in the art itself. I am extremely interested in the art as
    > well, as I know you know ;-)
    >
    > Although, because I am involved with art myself on various levels, not
    > just as an artist, but also from a www.furtherfield.org,
    > http://www.http.uk.net & http://www.nodel.org/ perspective, paradigms tend
    > to become more apparant.
    >
    > There is an awful lot to chew on, may be not necessarily for every one
    > here, or elsewhere for that matter - but it certainly interests me, and
    > perhaps some others (hopefully).
    >
    > marc
    >
    >
    >>I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
    >>
    >>I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over the
    >>next
    >>few days.
    >>
    >>Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that got
    >>voted for?
    >>
    >>One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a community,
    >>but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am more
    >>interested in what voting supports as art.
    >>
    >>ja
    >>http://vispo.com
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>+
    >>-> 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
    >
  • patrick lichty | Tue May 9th 2006 3:08 p.m.
    A couple points to everyone:

    Just from my myopic standpoint, I think there is money out there for artists
    who can slide their work right into the media arts niche. In addition,
    artists who can give nervous curators something that will take their
    introduction to new media to their audiences just a step (like Simon,
    Villareal, etc,) can do the museum circuit.

    I think the misnomer is that the art world has to take new Media on its terms.
    Not so for our genre, or any other, really... For other avant-gardes, it has
    often taken years for the wave to enter the art world; should we be any
    different?

    My hope is that there will be artists who will bridge the gap between awe and
    accessibility in New Media. The most amazing piece of work is often
    considered an overpriced gee-gaw if it doesn't elicit a response.
  • Rob Myers | Tue May 9th 2006 3:47 p.m.
    On 9 May 2006, at 20:59, Zev Robinson wrote:

    > various things have kept me from following this thread and what is
    > going on very much, but I just wanted to add something to what Marc
    > said. http://www.nodel.org/ (node.london) was great because people
    > got together, worked together, lots got shown/performed, people
    > were able to see a wide variety of shows, and it got a lot of
    > publicity because of it. everyone participated in the manner and
    > at the level they wanted or could. No one was voted best, no one
    > voted at all except by attendence and opinion, and everyone gained.

    Node absolutely rocked. Everyone should buy the node reader (http://
    publication.nodel.org/), it has lots of important writing in it.

    I don't think it is fair to compare the Rhiz commisions to node,
    though. But if there was a way of allowing paid and unpaid
    commissions (volunteer collaboration and donated webspace/bandwidth?)
    that might create more resources for more Rhiz projects if people
    wanted that.

    So more collaborations or an open festival alongside commissions. I
    don't know if that works or not though.

    I prefer something exclusive, even though it has excluded me. It
    hopefully funds good work and it doesn't prevent me making work on
    the rest of the Internet. :-)

    - Rob.
  • Salvatore Iaconesi | Tue May 9th 2006 4:18 p.m.
    >Just from my myopic standpoint, I think there is money out there for artists

    artists are *dead*

    the guys'n girls making 2Million a piece are out of this time and live on
    fetish for art and economical exploitation.

    make your money by hacking a bank ;) ... then do your netart

    salvatore

    >-- Original Message --
    >From: Patrick Lichty <voyd@voyd.com>
    >To: Zev Robinson <zr@zrdesign.co.uk>, marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>,
    > <list@rhizome.org>
    >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
    >Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 16:08:40 -0500 (CDT)
    >Reply-To: Patrick Lichty <voyd@voyd.com>
    >
    >
    >A couple points to everyone:
    >
    >Just from my myopic standpoint, I think there is money out there for artists
    >
    >who can slide their work right into the media arts niche. In addition,

    >artists who can give nervous curators something that will take their
    >introduction to new media to their audiences just a step (like Simon,
    >Villareal, etc,) can do the museum circuit.
    >
    >I think the misnomer is that the art world has to take new Media on its
    terms.
    >
    >Not so for our genre, or any other, really... For other avant-gardes, it
    >has
    >often taken years for the wave to enter the art world; should we be any

    >different?
    >
    >My hope is that there will be artists who will bridge the gap between awe
    >and
    >accessibility in New Media. The most amazing piece of work is often
    >considered an overpriced gee-gaw if it doesn't elicit a response.
  • Edmund Goubert | Tue May 9th 2006 5:36 p.m.
    I must admit, I only stumbled on Rhizome a couple of months ago. Not having produced a sustained and disiplined body of artwork for nearly 10 years, Rhizome's commission program seemed like a great opportunity to re-engage with thinking about making work again. My angle always was and still is painting and the processes that, as an artist, one might begin to expand upon to reach a pitch of invention where planned, unplanned outcomes are the currency of making paintings. To my mind, a painting is not 'planned' it is somehow the juxtaposition of a set of 'accidental' fragments that emerge from some pseudo-formal process. The 'work' part of making paintings is the design of the 'formal' process from where final product can emerge.

    My commission proposal was just that, an attempt to design a small system to play a constituent part in the production of a series of paintings - perhaps partly or not at all, based on the outcomes of successive generations of 'playing' the software back and forth, forth and back.

    The problem is is that artists tend to talk a lot of crap about their work. I know there are some very eloquent exponents of the art of talking up their art, but on the whole, the work must stand for itself. Here lies my own confusion in having to 'brand' what I might intend to in 500 words(see, I might end up doing something completely different - would I have to pay back the money if I did that?). I found that I spent many hours designing and writing the prototype software and only a few, late hours writing the proposal text. I assumed that the prototype would speak a thousand words and convey much more successfully the essence of what I wanted to do. After all, if you're gonna call yourself a 'new media artist' then one might reasonably assume that the best medium to express an idea or demonstrate a proposal would be through creatively leveraging the 'media' to convey one's intentions without having to engage another medium to do an inferior job.

    I would have argued as others have, that a URL would've been more appropriate and satisfactory. The hits would've been higher!
  • Edmund Goubert | Tue May 9th 2006 5:44 p.m.
    Salvatore Iaconesi wrote:

    > >Just from my myopic standpoint, I think there is money out there for
    > artists
    >
    > artists are *dead*
    >
    > the guys'n girls making 2Million a piece are out of this time and live
    > on
    > fetish for art and economical exploitation.
    >
    > make your money by hacking a bank ;) ... then do your netart
    >
    > salvatore

    2 Million!? is that all! 60-100million dollars is the norm nowadays. Anyhow those guys and gals feel really really guilty about making all that money - the next emerging industry in Silicon Valley is Buddism. I've got
    their confessions on DVD ($19.99) a go. Box set planned for the summer.
  • marc garrett | Tue May 9th 2006 5:50 p.m.
    Hi Zev & all,

    Well, perhaps there can be Node.NewYork, Node.Zagreb - a Node where ever...

    At the moment there are plans for a Node.Stockholm, Node.Linz, Node.Sau
    paulo (I think it's Sau paulo). Organized by people the who live in
    those cities by consensus. Institutions, artists, galleries, techies,
    curators - all work together.

    I did a couple of postings on the list regarding Node.London, although
    I've never discussed it on here. Mainly because it seemed that no one
    was that interested on this list - which was quite surprising. Lauren &
    Marisa were cool enough to have it shown on the Rhizome site.

    I guess it's whether people really want something to happen or not. We
    need to challenge this notion that artists are owed something and build
    a way out of the trap of dependency somehow. It just takes people to
    think outside of their own micro-situations for a bit.

    We've proved that it can work, some of the more 'ahem' high culture
    types, might be a bit snotty and distant about it but, we did it and it
    was real and it worked, and it can happen elsewhere.

    We, and other Node.London people, are currently visiting various cities
    around the world giving talks on how it worked out for us. It was not
    perfect, much can be improved and it was such a big project for everyone
    involved, yet it changed the cultural future of London, for media arts
    and the United Kingdom. And it got artist's work seen by plenty of new
    audiences. On-line and off-line...

    Have a look at the site and see for yourselves...
    http://www.nodel.org/

    text excerpt (if you are interested)

    NODE.L is an experiment in structures and tools of cooperation as
    invented or adapted by artists, activists and technologists, many (but
    not all) of whom are committed to ideas of social change through their
    practice. Aside from a very able project co-coordinator who was
    appointed in July, the entire project is run by Voluntary Organisers
    (VOs). Looking back, the most fundamentally challenging pre-established
    rule was that of consensual management - no voting and no hierarchy to
    take the strain (and responsibility) of decisions. We talked till we
    agreed and in a meeting with 30 people this could take some time.

    In the last six months this decision-making process has necessarily
    evolved to incorporate additional self-assigned subgroups, with
    responsibility for various tasks such as PR, finance and partnerships.
    The public facing NODE.L wiki and forum
    <http://smal.omweb.org/modules/wakka/HomePage>[2], combined with monthly
    VO meetings, facilitates collaborative working within these groups,
    supporting an experiment in transparent organisation. This process
    throws up many hot potato issues that are beyond the scope of this text
    but which would benefit from careful evaluation after March. Jo
    Freeman’s seminal text, The Tyranny of Structurelessness
    <http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm%3Cbr%20/%3E> [3], written
    in the context of 1970’s Feminist, consciousness-raising meetings, was
    much quoted at NODE.L meetings to provide an insight into some of the
    limitations of undifferentiated lateral structures of organisation.

    Before joining NODE.L, we were not aware of how many other people in
    London were involved in creating and exhibiting media artwork, that
    deployed electronic or digital technologies, and that were exploring art
    in a socio-political context. In June, the idea of “Seed Nodes” (now
    just called Nodes)[4] was born. This idea was a cross between an earlier
    Wireless London <http://wirelesslondon.info/> [5] concept of a ‘Node in
    Every Code’ (in which London’s free wireless hot-spots could be mapped)
    and the popular annual Open House <http://www.londonopenhouse.org/>[6]
    scheme (in which people open the doors of their homes to an
    architecturally curious public).

    With very small amounts of ‘seed money’, geographically and culturally
    diverse arts venues and organisations (alternative, independent,
    publicly funded, and commercial) act as hubs (Nodes) for activities in
    their localities. Nodes connect with each other to provide opportunities
    for sharing resources such as printers and physical spaces (for events,
    presentations and exhibitions), whilst NODE.L provides technical
    expertise and the benefits of a centralised (and distributed) PR
    machine. It is intended that through this structure, Nodes promote
    ongoing connections within their local communities whilst at the same
    time developing productive links and healthy interdependencies with
    clusters of other media-arts venues and practitioners in what was
    previously a scattered and cliquey community with low visibility (often
    even to itself).

    http://www.nodel.org/

    > various things have kept me from following this thread and what is
    > going on very much, but I just wanted to add something to what Marc
    > said. http://www.nodel.org/ (node.london) was great because people got
    > together, worked together, lots got shown/performed, people were able
    > to see a wide variety of shows, and it got a lot of publicity because
    > of it. everyone participated in the manner and at the level they
    > wanted or could. No one was voted best, no one voted at all except by
    > attendence and opinion, and everyone gained.
    >
    > Zev
    > Zev Robinson
    > www.artafterscience.com
    > www.zrdesign.co.uk
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message ----- From: "marc" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:57 PM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
    >
    >
    >> Hi Jim,
    >>
    >> >One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a
    >> community, but I confess I am less interested in community than I am
    >> in art, am more interested in what voting supports as art.
    >>
    >> Yes- I understand and of course agree with your leaning to being more
    >> interested in the art itself. I am extremely interested in the art as
    >> well, as I know you know ;-)
    >>
    >> Although, because I am involved with art myself on various levels,
    >> not just as an artist, but also from a www.furtherfield.org,
    >> http://www.http.uk.net & http://www.nodel.org/ perspective, paradigms
    >> tend to become more apparant.
    >>
    >> There is an awful lot to chew on, may be not necessarily for every
    >> one here, or elsewhere for that matter - but it certainly interests
    >> me, and perhaps some others (hopefully).
    >>
    >> marc
    >>
    >>
    >>> I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
    >>>
    >>> I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over
    >>> the next
    >>> few days.
    >>>
    >>> Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things
    >>> that got
    >>> voted for?
    >>>
    >>> One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a
    >>> community,
    >>> but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am
    >>> more
    >>> interested in what voting supports as art.
    >>>
    >>> ja
    >>> http://vispo.com
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> +
    >>> -> 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
    >
    >
  • marc garrett | Tue May 9th 2006 6 p.m.
    Why not hack culture, you meet more people that way ;-)

    m.

    >>Just from my myopic standpoint, I think there is money out there for artists
    >>
    >>
    >
    >artists are *dead*
    >
    >the guys'n girls making 2Million a piece are out of this time and live on
    >fetish for art and economical exploitation.
    >
    >make your money by hacking a bank ;) ... then do your netart
    >
    >salvatore
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>-- Original Message --
    >>From: Patrick Lichty <voyd@voyd.com>
    >>To: Zev Robinson <zr@zrdesign.co.uk>, marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>,
    >> <list@rhizome.org>
    >>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
    >>Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 16:08:40 -0500 (CDT)
    >>Reply-To: Patrick Lichty <voyd@voyd.com>
    >>
    >>
    >>A couple points to everyone:
    >>
    >>Just from my myopic standpoint, I think there is money out there for artists
    >>
    >>who can slide their work right into the media arts niche. In addition,
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >>artists who can give nervous curators something that will take their
    >>introduction to new media to their audiences just a step (like Simon,
    >>Villareal, etc,) can do the museum circuit.
    >>
    >>I think the misnomer is that the art world has to take new Media on its
    >>
    >>
    >terms.
    >
    >
    >>Not so for our genre, or any other, really... For other avant-gardes, it
    >>has
    >>often taken years for the wave to enter the art world; should we be any
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >>different?
    >>
    >>My hope is that there will be artists who will bridge the gap between awe
    >>and
    >>accessibility in New Media. The most amazing piece of work is often
    >>considered an overpriced gee-gaw if it doesn't elicit a response.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >+
    >-> 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Zev Robinson | Wed May 10th 2006 2:50 a.m.
    both exclusive and broad based platforms are necessary, Rob. But little of
    the latter exists, and tho I have absolutely nothing against commissions in
    whatever (exclusive) format they come in, more money and resources could and
    imho should be put in to the latter.

    It would be great, for instance, if the Tate Modern would open its doors to
    nodel next year, and the ground floor part of it could be used for
    performances everyday for a month.

    The question for Rhizome is what is its (or is it our?) priority, would a
    nodel type festival do more for media art and for it as a
    community/organization that a few commissions? maybe *that* is something
    that could be put to a vote.

    Zev

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Rob Myers" <rob@robmyers.org>
    To: "Rhizome Raw list" <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:47 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking

    > On 9 May 2006, at 20:59, Zev Robinson wrote:
    >
    >> various things have kept me from following this thread and what is going
    >> on very much, but I just wanted to add something to what Marc said.
    >> http://www.nodel.org/ (node.london) was great because people got
    >> together, worked together, lots got shown/performed, people were able to
    >> see a wide variety of shows, and it got a lot of publicity because of
    >> it. everyone participated in the manner and at the level they wanted or
    >> could. No one was voted best, no one voted at all except by attendence
    >> and opinion, and everyone gained.
    >
    > Node absolutely rocked. Everyone should buy the node reader (http://
    > publication.nodel.org/), it has lots of important writing in it.
    >
    > I don't think it is fair to compare the Rhiz commisions to node, though.
    > But if there was a way of allowing paid and unpaid commissions (volunteer
    > collaboration and donated webspace/bandwidth?) that might create more
    > resources for more Rhiz projects if people wanted that.
    >
    > So more collaborations or an open festival alongside commissions. I don't
    > know if that works or not though.
    >
    > I prefer something exclusive, even though it has excluded me. It
    > hopefully funds good work and it doesn't prevent me making work on the
    > rest of the Internet. :-)
    >
    > - 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
    >
  • Salvatore Iaconesi | Wed May 10th 2006 3:28 p.m.
    >Why not hack culture, you meet more people that way ;-)

    :) i actually tried breaking into culture, once.. they seriously pretended
    me to work for free, making stuff that would later get their own names written
    on it.

    so i thought: i'm doing it for free? well let's at least make some laughs
    out of it, and that's where my software automas stared doing strange stuff,
    as if they were drunk.

    sometimes someone actually understands what they do, far from my self-conceived
    idea that it is instead very clear what the stuff_i_make does.

    and this, maybe, is the problem for it all: understanding. either you strike
    a precise spot, where people *knows* what you're doing, and that precise
    thing hits their colelctive imaginaries, as well, or you don't get nothing,
    apart from the appreciation and welcomed criticism of your peers. and thanks
    god_or_whoever_for_him for the existence of peers.

    in the end: i'd rather hack a bank, instead. one with nice leggy female clerks
    in it :) ... working on the fetish of it :)

    salvatore

    >-- Original Message --
    >Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 01:03:42 +0100
    >From: marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
    >To: list@rhizome.org
    >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
    >Reply-To: marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
    >
    >
    >Why not hack culture, you meet more people that way ;-)
    >
    >m.
  • Maschine Hospital | Sat May 13th 2006 9:53 p.m.
    On Mon, 8 May 2006, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

    > If we wanted to make things really fun, someone could have proposed an
    open source rhizome grant where the entire process was discussed and
    designed, coded, and implemented on list by community members on a
    consensus basis, with occasional votes for the more controversial
    maneuvers. Grant money gets donated to charity or something.

    Honey, you are asking tohave your head chopped off.
    By the unwashed masses.

    > That would have been pretty awesome. And it may have been a community
    > model that stood outside of competition and more in line with
    collaboration, ie, it would have been a more "new media" model.

    "Collaboration" is a new mode of "democracy"--just like "team-work"--
    in which we say everybody has the right to "sit on the table and eat".

    equally with kingsa nd queens

    _________________________________________
    `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
  • Lee Wells | Sun May 14th 2006 12:24 a.m.
    Well now a modern democracy is not like that.
    The problem is that most people are lazy and only a few tend the field.
    If it were not for them the community would die of starvation.

    On 5/13/06 11:53 PM, "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@punkassbitch.org>
    wrote:

    > On Mon, 8 May 2006, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
    >
    >> If we wanted to make things really fun, someone could have proposed an
    > open source rhizome grant where the entire process was discussed and
    > designed, coded, and implemented on list by community members on a
    > consensus basis, with occasional votes for the more controversial
    > maneuvers. Grant money gets donated to charity or something.
    >
    > Honey, you are asking tohave your head chopped off.
    > By the unwashed masses.
    >
    >> That would have been pretty awesome. And it may have been a community
    >> model that stood outside of competition and more in line with
    > collaboration, ie, it would have been a more "new media" model.
    >
    > "Collaboration" is a new mode of "democracy"--just like "team-work"--
    > in which we say everybody has the right to "sit on the table and eat".
    >
    > equally with kingsa nd queens
    >
    > _________________________________________
    > `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
    > +
    > -> 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 May 15th 2006 6:41 p.m.
    -IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@punkassbitch.org> on Saturday, May 13, 2006 at 11:53 PM -0500 wrote:
    >On Mon, 8 May 2006, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
    >
    >Honey, you are asking tohave your head chopped off.
    >By the unwashed masses.

    Haha, true- and probably a lot of other heads, as well. But I can't help but think there would be some benefits?

    -er.
Your Reply