Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Media Arts for the ICA Web Site

Posted by Pall Thayer | Wed Sep 26th 2007 5:58 a.m.

Sounds great, just one thing. As I was looking through the text at the
site linked to from the post, one line in particular caught my eye.

"Please note that there is no fee for the work that is accepted for
inclusion on the web site."

At first I thought, oh good, there's no submission fee. But then as I
re-read it I thought, no, they want artists to give them their work!
Is the ICA really so cheap that they can't pay artists for the work
that they exhibit? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong.

If it is the case, that they're not going to pay the artists anything,
then this line *really* tops off the insult:

"The ICA will retain an indefinite non-exclusive license to make the
work available through its website, and retain an archive of all
chosen submissions."

Pall

On 9/26/07, neme.org <nemeorg@gmail.com> wrote:
> The ICA is launching a call for submissions of web-based Media artworks to be shown on the ICA website: submissions are currently open until 24 Oct.
>
> To complement our existing Live and Media Arts programme, we are looking for work that is innovative, either in technique or ideas. The work we are looking for doesn't necessarily have to be 'interactive', but it must be work that engages with the user.
>
> Submissions are open to anyone who wants to show a piece of web-based work that they are proud of or that exemplifies their skills as an artist. It should be a relatively recent or new piece of work that hasn't yet been launched or shown on an institutional or gallery website.
>
> More info can be found on
>
> http://neme.org/main/700/media-arts-for-the-ica-web-site
> +
> -> 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
artist
http://www.this.is/pallit
*****************************
  • Joseph Gray | Wed Sep 26th 2007 2:51 p.m.
    The ICA is supposed to be so important that you should be willing to shell
    out money to them to show your work. It's a prestige thing (?!).

    Of course, most of us have our own websites and methods of sharing the
    work with the rest of the world.

    The call looked interesting at first, but then I, as you did, became
    turned off by the particular verbiage. The ICA will use the net.show as a
    way to secure more grants and such. The artists won't see a penny.
    Typical.

    The writer Pall Thayer writ:
  • Lee Wells | Wed Sep 26th 2007 3:34 p.m.
    So what is an artist to do in these hard days and steep international
    competition?

    Would you rather that the ICA just purchase one artwork making the odds next
    to impossible for many of us to be chosen or would you rather have the field
    opened up a bit, allowing for more works of importance to be included into
    an institutional collection. Look at the long history of museums and their
    acquisitions. Most of the time the works are either donated by the
    art/gallery or sold at very discounted rates in exchange for the prestige
    that it adds to an artists cv. A springboard of sorts. I'm sure a couple of
    the artists will use the opportunity to take their career to another level.

    So few new media artists are making a penny from their work. What does it
    matter. Get the work out there to be seen by a greater audience. To me it
    seems like the ICA is just trying to help the community not hurt it.
    Yes they may use the net.show to add to their fundraising activities but any
    of the artists that get selected will be able to do the same as well. In
    reference to the non-exclusive rights.....well at least they are not asking
    for exclusive rights.

    Here is a question to pose to the list. How do we create ways of bringing in
    money to support the new media community?

    Cheers,
    Lee

    > From: Joseph Gray <josephgray@grauwald.com>
    > Reply-To: Joseph Gray <josephgray@grauwald.com>
    > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Media Arts for the ICA Web Site
    >
    > The ICA is supposed to be so important that you should be willing to shell
    > out money to them to show your work. It's a prestige thing (?!).
    >
    > Of course, most of us have our own websites and methods of sharing the
    > work with the rest of the world.
    >
    > The call looked interesting at first, but then I, as you did, became
    > turned off by the particular verbiage. The ICA will use the net.show as a
    > way to secure more grants and such. The artists won't see a penny.
    > Typical.
    >
    >
    >
    > The writer Pall Thayer writ:
    >
  • Rhizomer | Wed Sep 26th 2007 4:14 p.m.
    It's great you're having this debate. Lots of new media arts
    competitions work in the same way- they call for work and don't reward
    the artists for including it in a show or festival, so I don't think
    the ICA are behaving very differently. The ICA probably feel they are
    helping artists enough by selecting and showing the work (it's a
    privelege) but it would be great if they supported artists
    financially. Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    don't the ICA do that? They can certainly afford it, with all their
    corporate sponsorship.

    On 26/09/2007, Joseph Gray <josephgray@grauwald.com> wrote:
    > The ICA is supposed to be so important that you should be willing to shell
    > out money to them to show your work. It's a prestige thing (?!).
    >
    > Of course, most of us have our own websites and methods of sharing the
    > work with the rest of the world.
    >
    > The call looked interesting at first, but then I, as you did, became
    > turned off by the particular verbiage. The ICA will use the net.show as a
    > way to secure more grants and such. The artists won't see a penny.
    > Typical.
    >
    >
    >
    > The writer Pall Thayer writ:
    >
  • Pall Thayer | Wed Sep 26th 2007 5:18 p.m.
    Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    > don't the ICA do that?

    That was my thought. I guess, in retrospect, perhaps it wasn't fair of
    me to slam them for wanting to show the work without remuneration. A
    lot of institutions do that but what's really pushing the limit is
    their, albeit non-exclusive, right to show the work as often as they
    please. Perhaps my perspective on this has been distorted after having
    spent time in Canada where they have the excellent CARFAC fee system
    requiring galleries to pay artists a fee for exhibiting their work.
    But none the less, I am still disappointed in the ICA. My art practice
    is more than a hobby and prestige doesn't feed my kids.

    Pall

    On 9/26/07, dave miller <dave.miller.uk@gmail.com> wrote:
    > It's great you're having this debate. Lots of new media arts
    > competitions work in the same way- they call for work and don't reward
    > the artists for including it in a show or festival, so I don't think
    > the ICA are behaving very differently. The ICA probably feel they are
    > helping artists enough by selecting and showing the work (it's a
    > privelege) but it would be great if they supported artists
    > financially. Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    > don't the ICA do that? They can certainly afford it, with all their
    > corporate sponsorship.
    >
    > On 26/09/2007, Joseph Gray <josephgray@grauwald.com> wrote:
    > > The ICA is supposed to be so important that you should be willing to shell
    > > out money to them to show your work. It's a prestige thing (?!).
    > >
    > > Of course, most of us have our own websites and methods of sharing the
    > > work with the rest of the world.
    > >
    > > The call looked interesting at first, but then I, as you did, became
    > > turned off by the particular verbiage. The ICA will use the net.show as a
    > > way to secure more grants and such. The artists won't see a penny.
    > > Typical.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > The writer Pall Thayer writ:
    > >
  • Martin John Callanan | Wed Sep 26th 2007 6:24 p.m.
    The ICA get points for trying; points for doing something. But it's plainly
    wrong for an organisation such as the ICA to offer no fee; even tokenistic.

    Sa, they have one new web project a month for a year, even a token 500
    pounds (3-4 days work for on average London wage) is an annual budget of
    6000. If they can't secure a grant for that amount then they simply have
    employed the wrong people. I'm sure a corporate hire for a night generates
    more income than that. There must be a corporation willing to donate 6000
    against their tax bill. It's the ICA's responsibly to secure funding to
    nurture and develop new talent and new ideas. Their aim to to support "the
    best".

    If I'm working 9-5 for the average wage [to survive]; I would not have the
    energy to conceive - then develop - something worthy of the ICA.

    Prestige works both ways if the ICA do their task correctly and pick the
    right works: "ICA is home to the best new art and culture from Britain and
    around the world." prestige flows back to them in the medium-long term. The
    artist gaining the short-term prestige.

    My only fear is destined to become something ridiculous - and ultimately
    pointless - like the saatchi-gallery website. That, my friends, is a
    shameful website in every respect.

    Sadly, certainly in the last five years, the ICA has been following trends,
    not creating / supporting the contemporary ...

    M

    On 26/9/07 21:18, "Pall Thayer" <pallthay@gmail.com> wrote:

    > Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    >> don't the ICA do that?
    >
    > That was my thought. I guess, in retrospect, perhaps it wasn't fair of
    > me to slam them for wanting to show the work without remuneration. A
    > lot of institutions do that but what's really pushing the limit is
    > their, albeit non-exclusive, right to show the work as often as they
    > please. Perhaps my perspective on this has been distorted after having
    > spent time in Canada where they have the excellent CARFAC fee system
    > requiring galleries to pay artists a fee for exhibiting their work.
    > But none the less, I am still disappointed in the ICA. My art practice
    > is more than a hobby and prestige doesn't feed my kids.
    >
    > Pall
    >
    > On 9/26/07, dave miller <dave.miller.uk@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> It's great you're having this debate. Lots of new media arts
    >> competitions work in the same way- they call for work and don't reward
    >> the artists for including it in a show or festival, so I don't think
    >> the ICA are behaving very differently. The ICA probably feel they are
    >> helping artists enough by selecting and showing the work (it's a
    >> privelege) but it would be great if they supported artists
    >> financially. Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    >> don't the ICA do that? They can certainly afford it, with all their
    >> corporate sponsorship.
    >>
    >> On 26/09/2007, Joseph Gray <josephgray@grauwald.com> wrote:
    >>> The ICA is supposed to be so important that you should be willing to shell
    >>> out money to them to show your work. It's a prestige thing (?!).
    >>>
    >>> Of course, most of us have our own websites and methods of sharing the
    >>> work with the rest of the world.
    >>>
    >>> The call looked interesting at first, but then I, as you did, became
    >>> turned off by the particular verbiage. The ICA will use the net.show as a
    >>> way to secure more grants and such. The artists won't see a penny.
    >>> Typical.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The writer Pall Thayer writ:
    >>> E Sounds great, just one thing. As I was looking through the text at the
    >>> E site linked to from the post, one line in particular caught my eye.
    >>> E
    >>> E "Please note that there is no fee for the work that is accepted for
    >>> E inclusion on the web site."
    >>> E
    >>> E At first I thought, oh good, there's no submission fee. But then as I
    >>> E re-read it I thought, no, they want artists to give them their work!
    >>> E Is the ICA really so cheap that they can't pay artists for the work
    >>> E that they exhibit? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
    >>> E
    >>> E If it is the case, that they're not going to pay the artists anything,
    >>> E then this line *really* tops off the insult:
    >>> E
    >>> E "The ICA will retain an indefinite non-exclusive license to make the
    >>> E work available through its website, and retain an archive of all
    >>> E chosen submissions."
    >>> E
    >>> E Pall
    >>> E
    >>> E On 9/26/07, neme.org <nemeorg@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> E> The ICA is launching a call for submissions of web-based Media artworks
    >>> E> to be shown on the ICA website: submissions are currently open until 24
    >>> E> Oct.
    >>> E>
    >>> E> To complement our existing Live and Media Arts programme, we are looking
    >>> E> for work that is innovative, either in technique or ideas. The work we
    >>> E> are looking for doesn't necessarily have to be 'interactive', but it
    >>> E> must be work that engages with the user.
    >>> E>
    >>> E> Submissions are open to anyone who wants to show a piece of web-based
    >>> E> work that they are proud of or that exemplifies their skills as an
    >>> E> artist. It should be a relatively recent or new piece of work that
    >>> E> hasn't yet been launched or shown on an institutional or gallery
    >>> E> website.
    >>> E>
    >>> E> More info can be found on
    >>> E>
    >>> E> http://neme.org/main/700/media-arts-for-the-ica-web-site
    >>> E> +
    >>> E> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> E> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> E> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>> E> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> E> +
    >>> E> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>> E> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>> E>
    >>> E
    >>> E
    >>> E --
    >>> E *****************************
    >>> E Pall Thayer
    >>> E artist
    >>> E http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>> E *****************************
    >>> E +
    >>> E -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> E -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> E -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>> E -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> E +
    >>> E Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>> E Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>> E
    >>>
    >>> +
    >>> -> 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
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Portfolio: http://davemiller.manme.org.uk
    >> Blog: http://davemiller.manme.org.uk/davemiller_art_blog/
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> 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
    >>
    >

    Martin John Callanan
    http://greyisgood.eu

    http://okay.greyisgood.eu
    http://location.greyisgood.eu

    Location of I will be part of this year's Velocity Festival
    http://velocity.greyisgood.eu
  • Lee Wells | Wed Sep 26th 2007 6:55 p.m.
    > From: Martin John Callanan <m@greyisgood.eu>
    > Reply-To: Martin John Callanan <m@greyisgood.eu>
    > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:24:01 +0100
    > To: Pall Thayer <pallthay@gmail.com>, rhizome raw <list@rhizome.org>
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Media Arts for the ICA Web Site
    >
    > The ICA get points for trying; points for doing something. But it's plainly
    > wrong for an organisation such as the ICA to offer no fee; even tokenistic.
    >
    > Sa, they have one new web project a month for a year, even a token 500
    > pounds (3-4 days work for on average London wage) is an annual budget of
    > 6000. If they can't secure a grant for that amount then they simply have
    > employed the wrong people. I'm sure a corporate hire for a night generates
    > more income than that. There must be a corporation willing to donate 6000
    > against their tax bill. It's the ICA's responsibly to secure funding to
    > nurture and develop new talent and new ideas. Their aim to to support "the
    > best".
    >
    > If I'm working 9-5 for the average wage [to survive]; I would not have the
    > energy to conceive - then develop - something worthy of the ICA.
    >
    > Prestige works both ways if the ICA do their task correctly and pick the
    > right works: "ICA is home to the best new art and culture from Britain and
    > around the world." prestige flows back to them in the medium-long term. The
    > artist gaining the short-term prestige.
    >
    >
    >
    > My only fear is destined to become something ridiculous - and ultimately
    > pointless - like the saatchi-gallery website. That, my friends, is a
    > shameful website in every respect.
    >
    > Sadly, certainly in the last five years, the ICA has been following trends,
    > not creating / supporting the contemporary ...
    >
    >
    > M
    >
    >
    >
    > On 26/9/07 21:18, "Pall Thayer" <pallthay@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    >>> don't the ICA do that?
    >>
    >> That was my thought. I guess, in retrospect, perhaps it wasn't fair of
    >> me to slam them for wanting to show the work without remuneration. A
    >> lot of institutions do that but what's really pushing the limit is
    >> their, albeit non-exclusive, right to show the work as often as they
    >> please. Perhaps my perspective on this has been distorted after having
    >> spent time in Canada where they have the excellent CARFAC fee system
    >> requiring galleries to pay artists a fee for exhibiting their work.
    >> But none the less, I am still disappointed in the ICA. My art practice
    >> is more than a hobby and prestige doesn't feed my kids.
    >>
    >> Pall
    >>
    >> On 9/26/07, dave miller <dave.miller.uk@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> It's great you're having this debate. Lots of new media arts
    >>> competitions work in the same way- they call for work and don't reward
    >>> the artists for including it in a show or festival, so I don't think
    >>> the ICA are behaving very differently. The ICA probably feel they are
    >>> helping artists enough by selecting and showing the work (it's a
    >>> privelege) but it would be great if they supported artists
    >>> financially. Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    >>> don't the ICA do that? They can certainly afford it, with all their
    >>> corporate sponsorship.
    >>>
    >>> On 26/09/2007, Joseph Gray <josephgray@grauwald.com> wrote:
    >>>> The ICA is supposed to be so important that you should be willing to shell
    >>>> out money to them to show your work. It's a prestige thing (?!).
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course, most of us have our own websites and methods of sharing the
    >>>> work with the rest of the world.
    >>>>
    >>>> The call looked interesting at first, but then I, as you did, became
    >>>> turned off by the particular verbiage. The ICA will use the net.show as a
    >>>> way to secure more grants and such. The artists won't see a penny.
    >>>> Typical.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The writer Pall Thayer writ:
    >>>> E Sounds great, just one thing. As I was looking through the text at the
    >>>> E site linked to from the post, one line in particular caught my eye.
    >>>> E
    >>>> E "Please note that there is no fee for the work that is accepted for
    >>>> E inclusion on the web site."
    >>>> E
    >>>> E At first I thought, oh good, there's no submission fee. But then as I
    >>>> E re-read it I thought, no, they want artists to give them their work!
    >>>> E Is the ICA really so cheap that they can't pay artists for the work
    >>>> E that they exhibit? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
    >>>> E
    >>>> E If it is the case, that they're not going to pay the artists anything,
    >>>> E then this line *really* tops off the insult:
    >>>> E
    >>>> E "The ICA will retain an indefinite non-exclusive license to make the
    >>>> E work available through its website, and retain an archive of all
    >>>> E chosen submissions."
    >>>> E
    >>>> E Pall
    >>>> E
    >>>> E On 9/26/07, neme.org <nemeorg@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>> E> The ICA is launching a call for submissions of web-based Media artworks
    >>>> E> to be shown on the ICA website: submissions are currently open until 24
    >>>> E> Oct.
    >>>> E>
    >>>> E> To complement our existing Live and Media Arts programme, we are looking
    >>>> E> for work that is innovative, either in technique or ideas. The work we
    >>>> E> are looking for doesn't necessarily have to be 'interactive', but it
    >>>> E> must be work that engages with the user.
    >>>> E>
    >>>> E> Submissions are open to anyone who wants to show a piece of web-based
    >>>> E> work that they are proud of or that exemplifies their skills as an
    >>>> E> artist. It should be a relatively recent or new piece of work that
    >>>> E> hasn't yet been launched or shown on an institutional or gallery
    >>>> E> website.
    >>>> E>
    >>>> E> More info can be found on
    >>>> E>
    >>>> E> http://neme.org/main/700/media-arts-for-the-ica-web-site
    >>>> E> +
    >>>> E> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>>> E> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>>> E> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>>> E> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>>> E> +
    >>>> E> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>>> E> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>> E>
    >>>> E
    >>>> E
    >>>> E --
    >>>> E *****************************
    >>>> E Pall Thayer
    >>>> E artist
    >>>> E http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>>> E *****************************
    >>>> E +
    >>>> E -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>>> E -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>>> E -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>>> E -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>>> E +
    >>>> E Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>>> E Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>> E
    >>>>
    >>>> +
    >>>> -> 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
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Portfolio: http://davemiller.manme.org.uk
    >>> Blog: http://davemiller.manme.org.uk/davemiller_art_blog/
    >>>
    >>> +
    >>> -> 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
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Martin John Callanan
    > http://greyisgood.eu
    >
    > http://okay.greyisgood.eu
    > http://location.greyisgood.eu
    >
    > Location of I will be part of this year's Velocity Festival
    > http://velocity.greyisgood.eu
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> 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 | Wed Sep 26th 2007 7:07 p.m.
    Even if they were to get that much together that only allows for 12 artists
    to receive the award.

    In reference to your energy to conceive and develop something worthy....well
    I don't think you are the person they are looking for. They are after those
    that have already created something with their blood sweat and tears and now
    just need the recognition. 500 pounds would be great but again its only 3-5
    days wage any way so what does it really matter to receive the token payout.

    > From: Martin John Callanan <m@greyisgood.eu>
    > Reply-To: Martin John Callanan <m@greyisgood.eu>
    > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:24:01 +0100
    > To: Pall Thayer <pallthay@gmail.com>, rhizome raw <list@rhizome.org>
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Media Arts for the ICA Web Site
    >
    > The ICA get points for trying; points for doing something. But it's plainly
    > wrong for an organisation such as the ICA to offer no fee; even tokenistic.
    >
    > Sa, they have one new web project a month for a year, even a token 500
    > pounds (3-4 days work for on average London wage) is an annual budget of
    > 6000. If they can't secure a grant for that amount then they simply have
    > employed the wrong people. I'm sure a corporate hire for a night generates
    > more income than that. There must be a corporation willing to donate 6000
    > against their tax bill. It's the ICA's responsibly to secure funding to
    > nurture and develop new talent and new ideas. Their aim to to support "the
    > best".
    >
    > If I'm working 9-5 for the average wage [to survive]; I would not have the
    > energy to conceive - then develop - something worthy of the ICA.
    >
    > Prestige works both ways if the ICA do their task correctly and pick the
    > right works: "ICA is home to the best new art and culture from Britain and
    > around the world." prestige flows back to them in the medium-long term. The
    > artist gaining the short-term prestige.
    >
    >
    >
    > My only fear is destined to become something ridiculous - and ultimately
    > pointless - like the saatchi-gallery website. That, my friends, is a
    > shameful website in every respect.
    >
    > Sadly, certainly in the last five years, the ICA has been following trends,
    > not creating / supporting the contemporary ...
    >
    >
    > M
    >
    >
    >
    > On 26/9/07 21:18, "Pall Thayer" <pallthay@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    >>> don't the ICA do that?
    >>
    >> That was my thought. I guess, in retrospect, perhaps it wasn't fair of
    >> me to slam them for wanting to show the work without remuneration. A
    >> lot of institutions do that but what's really pushing the limit is
    >> their, albeit non-exclusive, right to show the work as often as they
    >> please. Perhaps my perspective on this has been distorted after having
    >> spent time in Canada where they have the excellent CARFAC fee system
    >> requiring galleries to pay artists a fee for exhibiting their work.
    >> But none the less, I am still disappointed in the ICA. My art practice
    >> is more than a hobby and prestige doesn't feed my kids.
    >>
    >> Pall
    >>
    >> On 9/26/07, dave miller <dave.miller.uk@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>> It's great you're having this debate. Lots of new media arts
    >>> competitions work in the same way- they call for work and don't reward
    >>> the artists for including it in a show or festival, so I don't think
    >>> the ICA are behaving very differently. The ICA probably feel they are
    >>> helping artists enough by selecting and showing the work (it's a
    >>> privelege) but it would be great if they supported artists
    >>> financially. Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    >>> don't the ICA do that? They can certainly afford it, with all their
    >>> corporate sponsorship.
    >>>
    >>> On 26/09/2007, Joseph Gray <josephgray@grauwald.com> wrote:
    >>>> The ICA is supposed to be so important that you should be willing to shell
    >>>> out money to them to show your work. It's a prestige thing (?!).
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course, most of us have our own websites and methods of sharing the
    >>>> work with the rest of the world.
    >>>>
    >>>> The call looked interesting at first, but then I, as you did, became
    >>>> turned off by the particular verbiage. The ICA will use the net.show as a
    >>>> way to secure more grants and such. The artists won't see a penny.
    >>>> Typical.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The writer Pall Thayer writ:
    >>>> E Sounds great, just one thing. As I was looking through the text at the
    >>>> E site linked to from the post, one line in particular caught my eye.
    >>>> E
    >>>> E "Please note that there is no fee for the work that is accepted for
    >>>> E inclusion on the web site."
    >>>> E
    >>>> E At first I thought, oh good, there's no submission fee. But then as I
    >>>> E re-read it I thought, no, they want artists to give them their work!
    >>>> E Is the ICA really so cheap that they can't pay artists for the work
    >>>> E that they exhibit? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
    >>>> E
    >>>> E If it is the case, that they're not going to pay the artists anything,
    >>>> E then this line *really* tops off the insult:
    >>>> E
    >>>> E "The ICA will retain an indefinite non-exclusive license to make the
    >>>> E work available through its website, and retain an archive of all
    >>>> E chosen submissions."
    >>>> E
    >>>> E Pall
    >>>> E
    >>>> E On 9/26/07, neme.org <nemeorg@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>> E> The ICA is launching a call for submissions of web-based Media artworks
    >>>> E> to be shown on the ICA website: submissions are currently open until 24
    >>>> E> Oct.
    >>>> E>
    >>>> E> To complement our existing Live and Media Arts programme, we are looking
    >>>> E> for work that is innovative, either in technique or ideas. The work we
    >>>> E> are looking for doesn't necessarily have to be 'interactive', but it
    >>>> E> must be work that engages with the user.
    >>>> E>
    >>>> E> Submissions are open to anyone who wants to show a piece of web-based
    >>>> E> work that they are proud of or that exemplifies their skills as an
    >>>> E> artist. It should be a relatively recent or new piece of work that
    >>>> E> hasn't yet been launched or shown on an institutional or gallery
    >>>> E> website.
    >>>> E>
    >>>> E> More info can be found on
    >>>> E>
    >>>> E> http://neme.org/main/700/media-arts-for-the-ica-web-site
    >>>> E> +
    >>>> E> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>>> E> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>>> E> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>>> E> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>>> E> +
    >>>> E> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>>> E> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>> E>
    >>>> E
    >>>> E
    >>>> E --
    >>>> E *****************************
    >>>> E Pall Thayer
    >>>> E artist
    >>>> E http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>>> E *****************************
    >>>> E +
    >>>> E -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>>> E -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>>> E -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>>> E -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>>> E +
    >>>> E Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>>> E Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>> E
    >>>>
    >>>> +
    >>>> -> 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
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Portfolio: http://davemiller.manme.org.uk
    >>> Blog: http://davemiller.manme.org.uk/davemiller_art_blog/
    >>>
    >>> +
    >>> -> 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
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Martin John Callanan
    > http://greyisgood.eu
    >
    > http://okay.greyisgood.eu
    > http://location.greyisgood.eu
    >
    > Location of I will be part of this year's Velocity Festival
    > http://velocity.greyisgood.eu
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
  • Martin John Callanan | Wed Sep 26th 2007 7:43 p.m.
    You missed the key points I was trying to make though fictional - arbitrary
    - examples.

    If the ICA was engaged in supporting and promoting open-source work or CC
    licensed work, my arguments would be a bit different. But this discussion
    was originally started because the are not doing so.

    If they support everyone, open to all, no quality control, you end up with a
    useless mess: http://saatchi-gallery.co.uk/

    You have to be selective to promote quality. Selections being made by those
    with the knowledge to. You have to be selective to promote an idea or a
    message. Publish everything and what you have is value-less and meaningless.

    Recognition; I suggest you meant endorsement. A endorsement that what has
    been created is better than others; that it adds to contemporary discussion
    more so than most...

    A token payment because in a consumerist society everything has a value and
    requires money. A token payment allows survival/ resources for the
    development of more ideas. (or enough to treat friends who let you sleep on
    their sofas).

    An organisation, such as the ICA, should wish to help [financially] support
    an individual as an investment - and sign of belief /faith - in the reasons
    for having originally chose to endorse them. If the artist's work develops
    more, then the orgisation's prestige increases in the future, having
    supported the artist early on. So the token amount can be seen as an
    investment. It also helps develop the future, which the ICA claims as it's
    role: "A belief in the new. An enduring faith in the creativity of
    tomorrow."

    Positively supporting an artist opens the door for the organisation to work
    with that individual more in the future. Otherwise, they will favour an
    organisation that did.

    Ultimately, it's up to an individual to chose to submit work to the ICA; or
    not. My suggestion is that the way they have chosen to do this, undermines
    their own aims of spotting and supporting the best. The best isn't going to
    be submitted in the first place.

    On 26/9/07 23:07, "Lee Wells" <lee@leewells.org> wrote:

    > Even if they were to get that much together that only allows for 12 artists
    > to receive the award.
    >
    > In reference to your energy to conceive and develop something worthy....well
    > I don't think you are the person they are looking for. They are after those
    > that have already created something with their blood sweat and tears and now
    > just need the recognition. 500 pounds would be great but again its only 3-5
    > days wage any way so what does it really matter to receive the token payout.
    >
    >
    >> From: Martin John Callanan <m@greyisgood.eu>
    >> Reply-To: Martin John Callanan <m@greyisgood.eu>
    >> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:24:01 +0100
    >> To: Pall Thayer <pallthay@gmail.com>, rhizome raw <list@rhizome.org>
    >> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Media Arts for the ICA Web Site
    >>
    >> The ICA get points for trying; points for doing something. But it's plainly
    >> wrong for an organisation such as the ICA to offer no fee; even tokenistic.
    >>
    >> Sa, they have one new web project a month for a year, even a token 500
    >> pounds (3-4 days work for on average London wage) is an annual budget of
    >> 6000. If they can't secure a grant for that amount then they simply have
    >> employed the wrong people. I'm sure a corporate hire for a night generates
    >> more income than that. There must be a corporation willing to donate 6000
    >> against their tax bill. It's the ICA's responsibly to secure funding to
    >> nurture and develop new talent and new ideas. Their aim to to support "the
    >> best".
    >>
    >> If I'm working 9-5 for the average wage [to survive]; I would not have the
    >> energy to conceive - then develop - something worthy of the ICA.
    >>
    >> Prestige works both ways if the ICA do their task correctly and pick the
    >> right works: "ICA is home to the best new art and culture from Britain and
    >> around the world." prestige flows back to them in the medium-long term. The
    >> artist gaining the short-term prestige.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> My only fear is destined to become something ridiculous - and ultimately
    >> pointless - like the saatchi-gallery website. That, my friends, is a
    >> shameful website in every respect.
    >>
    >> Sadly, certainly in the last five years, the ICA has been following trends,
    >> not creating / supporting the contemporary ...
    >>
    >>
    >> M
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 26/9/07 21:18, "Pall Thayer" <pallthay@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    >>>> don't the ICA do that?
    >>>
    >>> That was my thought. I guess, in retrospect, perhaps it wasn't fair of
    >>> me to slam them for wanting to show the work without remuneration. A
    >>> lot of institutions do that but what's really pushing the limit is
    >>> their, albeit non-exclusive, right to show the work as often as they
    >>> please. Perhaps my perspective on this has been distorted after having
    >>> spent time in Canada where they have the excellent CARFAC fee system
    >>> requiring galleries to pay artists a fee for exhibiting their work.
    >>> But none the less, I am still disappointed in the ICA. My art practice
    >>> is more than a hobby and prestige doesn't feed my kids.
    >>>
    >>> Pall
    >>>
    >>> On 9/26/07, dave miller <dave.miller.uk@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>> It's great you're having this debate. Lots of new media arts
    >>>> competitions work in the same way- they call for work and don't reward
    >>>> the artists for including it in a show or festival, so I don't think
    >>>> the ICA are behaving very differently. The ICA probably feel they are
    >>>> helping artists enough by selecting and showing the work (it's a
    >>>> privelege) but it would be great if they supported artists
    >>>> financially. Actually lots of competitions do have prize money - why
    >>>> don't the ICA do that? They can certainly afford it, with all their
    >>>> corporate sponsorship.
    >>>>
    >>>> On 26/09/2007, Joseph Gray <josephgray@grauwald.com> wrote:
    >>>>> The ICA is supposed to be so important that you should be willing to shell
    >>>>> out money to them to show your work. It's a prestige thing (?!).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Of course, most of us have our own websites and methods of sharing the
    >>>>> work with the rest of the world.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The call looked interesting at first, but then I, as you did, became
    >>>>> turned off by the particular verbiage. The ICA will use the net.show as a
    >>>>> way to secure more grants and such. The artists won't see a penny.
    >>>>> Typical.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The writer Pall Thayer writ:
    >>>>> E Sounds great, just one thing. As I was looking through the text at the
    >>>>> E site linked to from the post, one line in particular caught my eye.
    >>>>> E
    >>>>> E "Please note that there is no fee for the work that is accepted for
    >>>>> E inclusion on the web site."
    >>>>> E
    >>>>> E At first I thought, oh good, there's no submission fee. But then as I
    >>>>> E re-read it I thought, no, they want artists to give them their work!
    >>>>> E Is the ICA really so cheap that they can't pay artists for the work
    >>>>> E that they exhibit? Someone please tell me I'm reading this wrong.
    >>>>> E
    >>>>> E If it is the case, that they're not going to pay the artists anything,
    >>>>> E then this line *really* tops off the insult:
    >>>>> E
    >>>>> E "The ICA will retain an indefinite non-exclusive license to make the
    >>>>> E work available through its website, and retain an archive of all
    >>>>> E chosen submissions."
    >>>>> E
    >>>>> E Pall
    >>>>> E
    >>>>> E On 9/26/07, neme.org <nemeorg@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>> E> The ICA is launching a call for submissions of web-based Media artworks
    >>>>> E> to be shown on the ICA website: submissions are currently open until 24
    >>>>> E> Oct.
    >>>>> E>
    >>>>> E> To complement our existing Live and Media Arts programme, we are
    >>>>> looking
    >>>>> E> for work that is innovative, either in technique or ideas. The work we
    >>>>> E> are looking for doesn't necessarily have to be 'interactive', but it
    >>>>> E> must be work that engages with the user.
    >>>>> E>
    >>>>> E> Submissions are open to anyone who wants to show a piece of web-based
    >>>>> E> work that they are proud of or that exemplifies their skills as an
    >>>>> E> artist. It should be a relatively recent or new piece of work that
    >>>>> E> hasn't yet been launched or shown on an institutional or gallery
    >>>>> E> website.
    >>>>> E>
    >>>>> E> More info can be found on
    >>>>> E>
    >>>>> E> http://neme.org/main/700/media-arts-for-the-ica-web-site
    >>>>> E> +
    >>>>> E> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>>>> E> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>>>> E> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>>>> E> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>>>> E> +
    >>>>> E> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>>>> E> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>>> E>
    >>>>> E
    >>>>> E
    >>>>> E --
    >>>>> E *****************************
    >>>>> E Pall Thayer
    >>>>> E artist
    >>>>> E http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>>>> E *****************************
    >>>>>
  • Joseph Gray | Wed Sep 26th 2007 7:56 p.m.
    The corporate sponsorship thing does seem to be "the rub" here. If it was
    some kids working in a basement in Ohio making a net.show I wouldn't think
    twice about the situation.

    Supposedly the ICA is giving these artists an opportunity to act as a
    "springboard" true, but the work put in by those artists could just as
    well be spent promoting their work in other, most likely more effective,
    methods. For instance sending it on to Rhizome.

    Odd to discover in myself that Rhizomes membership fee doesn't bother me
    in contrast (though I have not paid in, as of yet). I seem to have a
    belief that their services are more valuable to the newer medium artists.
    Giving back as much, if not more, than what they are taking in.

    As we all do; we give and give and give in terms of making new art happen,
    with little compensation in return. At some point you might wonder, why
    give to these large orgs with sure footings?

  • Emma Quinn | Thu Sep 27th 2007 1:22 p.m.
    As the curator responsible for this call for submissions, I felt I had to respond to this thread, to try to clarify a few points and raise a couple of questions.

    The open call for submissions is a new idea and is an experiment.
    I wanted to be able to promote new artists who use digital technology as a medium for their art work and who have not been able to show their work on a public gallery space.

    The call was for artists to submit work that they have already created or are close to completing. It’s not a request for artists to create something from scratch specifically for the ICA.

    We are happy for the artists to show their work elsewhere after it has been promoted on the ICA web site and indeed for them to show it on their own web site while it is on the ICA web site. All we are asking is that the work submitted hasn’t been shown on a public gallery web site before.

    We want to be able to keep a copy of the work so that we can keep an archive of the work we have shown on the ICA web site. As much for our records as anything else. What, if anything, is the alternative to this?
    As a point of interest, I have had artists complain when their work or evidence of an exhibition is no longer available on our web site as they use it as part of their CV or Resume - evidence that they have shown work in a public gallery.

    This call for submissions is an initiative that runs in parallel with commissioned work both online and in the gallery space at the ICA. Commissioned work does have a fee attached.

    A fee for artists for this open call is unaffordable at this time. However we are offering support in terms of marketing the artist and their work via the ICA web site and usual ICA marketing channels. I had hoped that this would be seen as an opportunity by up and coming artists to further their career.

    We do not ask artists to pay a fee to submit their work. Would asking for a fee to submit work in order to offer a nominal prize be more acceptable to artists?

    Your feedback is much appreciated.

    Kind regards
    Emma Quinn,
    Director of Live and Media Arts, ICA
  • Lee Wells | Thu Sep 27th 2007 2:20 p.m.
    Hi Emma:

    I think what you are doing is great. Not enough institutions are getting
    behind cutting edge work in this way. Most artists don't understand the
    importance of marketing and the attention that it will draw, if only even
    internally at ICA.

    Funding in the arts is an issue, especially here in the US.
    I wish we had the lottery here as well.
    Keep up the good work.

    Cheers,
    Lee

    --
    Lee Wells

    http://www.leewells.org
    http://www.ifac-arts.org
    http://www.perpetualartmachine.com

    Brooklyn 11222
    917 723 2524

    > From: Emma Quinn <emmaq@ica.org.uk>
    > Reply-To: Emma Quinn <emmaq@ica.org.uk>
    > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:22:39 -0400
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Subject: Re: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Media Arts for the ICA Web Site
    >
    > As the curator responsible for this call for submissions, I felt I had to
    > respond to this thread, to try to clarify a few points and raise a couple of
    > questions.
    >
    > The open call for submissions is a new idea and is an experiment.
    > I wanted to be able to promote new artists who use digital technology as a
    > medium for their art work and who have not been able to show their work on a
    > public gallery space.
    >
    > The call was for artists to submit work that they have already created or are
    > close to completing. It
  • Pall Thayer | Thu Sep 27th 2007 2:48 p.m.
    Hi Emma,
    Thanks for responding to this thread. This is kind of a tricky subject
    and as I mentioned in an earlier post, perhaps I was a bit hasty in my
    original criticism. The thing is that what the ICA is offering with
    this call is an opportunity to show your Internet art in the way that
    it was intended to be shown. Showing the work on a website isn't a
    "secondary" or slightly lower form of exhibition than showing it in
    the gallery. I don't know what the norm is for the ICA, do artists who
    show their work in the gallery, bands who play, filmmakers who get the
    work shown receive some kind of remuneration? If so, then I feel it
    would be proper to offer artists showing Internet art on the ICA
    website the same. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the ICA doesn't normally
    pay artists for in-gallery exhibitions. As I also mentioned in the
    earlier post, I've just moved home after living in Canada for the past
    couple of years. The way I understood it, in Canada they have a system
    that requires all galleries and art related institutions that receive
    any government funding to pay the artist for the exhibition of all
    work as per what's known as the CARFAC fee scale. Perhaps this has
    distorted my perspective on such matters. It's hard to sell this kind
    of work as one might more traditional artwork. I know that in my own
    practice a lot of time and money has gone into its development and it
    would be nice to get some of that back if it shows itself to meet some
    standards of the artworld. In other words, we're not getting paid to
    create the work and it feels a bit unfair when institutions that are
    receiving funding want to show it without paying us for it as well.

    You are correct though that getting the ICA's "stamp of approval" is
    worth something even though it has no direct impact on an artist's
    deficit. But only accepting the work with free license to show it
    again and again goes a bit far. The artist is then essentially
    "donating" a copy of the work to the ICA just as if a photographer or
    printmaker were to donate a piece of theirs to them.

    As far as suggesting alternatives, the only thing I can come up with
    is to offer a fee or award.

    best regards,
    Pall Thayer

    On 9/27/07, Emma Quinn <emmaq@ica.org.uk> wrote:
    > As the curator responsible for this call for submissions, I felt I had to respond to this thread, to try to clarify a few points and raise a couple of questions.
    >
    > The open call for submissions is a new idea and is an experiment.
    > I wanted to be able to promote new artists who use digital technology as a medium for their art work and who have not been able to show their work on a public gallery space.
    >
    > The call was for artists to submit work that they have already created or are close to completing. It's not a request for artists to create something from scratch specifically for the ICA.
    >
    > We are happy for the artists to show their work elsewhere after it has been promoted on the ICA web site and indeed for them to show it on their own web site while it is on the ICA web site. All we are asking is that the work submitted hasn't been shown on a public gallery web site before.
    >
    > We want to be able to keep a copy of the work so that we can keep an archive of the work we have shown on the ICA web site. As much for our records as anything else. What, if anything, is the alternative to this?
    > As a point of interest, I have had artists complain when their work or evidence of an exhibition is no longer available on our web site as they use it as part of their CV or Resume
  • Martin John Callanan | Thu Sep 27th 2007 2:56 p.m.
    The lottery has been raped:
    http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/story/0,,2157927,00.html

    At least this highlights a previous over dependence.

    Sustainability and knowledge are more important than vaporous marketing.
  • Joseph Gray | Thu Sep 27th 2007 5:11 p.m.
    Emma, thanks for having the bravery to respond to all this. I know that
    personally I tend to over-react (I'm still a punk at heart), and sort of
    hopped on the band-wagon here as well. I, personally, appreciate the
    effort to provide internet artists with opportunities, but with certain
    caveats.

    Certainly the ICA's high-profile could be a benefit to lesser-known
    artists. However, after 10+ years as a lesser-known artist working in new
    mediums it's easy to feel a bit sensitive about yet another call for art
    with no compensation other than self-promotion. I've not been one to seek
    out fame, simple acknowledgment from my peers is enough, but if someone is
    making money from my labor I would like to see some of it. One can only
    be generous in the capacity they have available to them. I donate my time
    and expertise intentionally to under-funded projects and organizations.

    Asking a submission fee to create a pool of money that will go only to
    selected recipients is a tough one to accept from the well-established
    ICA. Ultimately, as was suggested earlier in this thread, a small portion
    of money (
  • marc garrett | Fri Sep 28th 2007 7:02 a.m.
    Hi Lee, Emma & all,

    I see the issue is coming from a different level. Emma could expand her
    resources and collaborate experience beyond, outside the
    complex/building of the ICA and ask for support by others who are
    already themselves engaged in the practice, curating, making it, writing
    about etc...

    For instance, furtherfield.org are only 4 miles down the road - and we
    could advise on various matters regarding such things. We are not still
    around for 10 years still surviving for nothing, or just because we look
    cute (although I would settle for the latter;-)

    marc

    > Hi Emma:
    >
    > I think what you are doing is great. Not enough institutions are getting
    > behind cutting edge work in this way. Most artists don't understand the
    > importance of marketing and the attention that it will draw, if only even
    > internally at ICA.
    >
    > Funding in the arts is an issue, especially here in the US.
    > I wish we had the lottery here as well.
    > Keep up the good work.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Lee
    >
    >
  • x-arn | Fri Sep 28th 2007 8:24 a.m.
    marc garrett a ecrit :
    > Hi Lee, Emma & all,
    >
    > I see the issue is coming from a different level. Emma could expand her
    > resources and collaborate experience beyond, outside the
    > complex/building of the ICA and ask for support by others who are
    > already themselves engaged in the practice, curating, making it, writing
    > about etc...
    >
    > For instance, furtherfield.org are only 4 miles down the road - and we
    > could advise on various matters regarding such things. We are not still
    > around for 10 years still surviving for nothing, or just because we look
    > cute (although I would settle for the latter;-)
    >
    > marc

    Really good idea ! I'm just about to send a proposition in reply to the
    ICA call for works. I'll also send it to you in CC.

    ++
    --y

    >> Hi Emma:
    >>
    >> I think what you are doing is great. Not enough institutions are getting
    >> behind cutting edge work in this way. Most artists don't understand the
    >> importance of marketing and the attention that it will draw, if only even
    >> internally at ICA.
    >>
    >> Funding in the arts is an issue, especially here in the US.
    >> I wish we had the lottery here as well.
    >> Keep up the good work.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> Lee
    >>
    >>
    >
    > +
    > -> 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 Gray | Sat Oct 11th 2008 1:47 p.m.
    a relevant follow-up to a long-ago thread:

    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_J U A N A L O N SO S T U D I O\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
    Grand Central Arcade - 214 1st Ave S. Suite B15, Seattle, WA 98104
    www.juan-alonso.blogspot.com

    October 10, 2008

    To Whom It May Concern,

    I feel lucky and blessed to be an artist and have the opportunity to
    create for a living. It is part of my philosophy as an artist to give
    back to my community, from local to global. In the last18 months I
    have sold some and donated over 30 works of art to organizations (some
    art related, some not) and fundraisers, and have done so willingly.
    That is more work given than work sold. The issue is, and more so now
    with the current economic crisis, it seems every organization believes
    that artists are the first professional group of people to ask for
    donations for their fund-raiser, no matter what the cause is. It has
    gotten out of hand. I don’t know of any other business group, as a
    lot, that is automatically called when money needs to be raised.
    Perhaps there are some out there. Perhaps people raising funds don’t
    realize that artists are single-person businesses for the most part
    and that as a general rule, artists are on the lower end of the income
    levels, and that every piece given away to help a worthy cause is also
    income we are not bringing in to our business. Perhaps fund-raising
    organizations don’t realize that so far there is no tax incentive for
    artists to donate our own work. If another individual donates my work,
    they get to deduct it from their taxes. If I donate my work, the only
    thing I can deduct is the cost of my materials, which I would do
    anyway at the end of the year. Under current laws, our skill, talent
    and labor is seen as worthless and it might be a good idea for some of
    the organizations asking artists for work to start lobbying
    governmental agencies to change their policies. As far as I know,
    Artist Trust is the only one doing so. How about artists being able to
    deduct a percentage of the price for which the piece sold? How’s that
    for determining fair-market value?
    Until recently, I gladly gave and even served on acquisition
    committees for a couple of art-related organizations. At this point,
    however, I’m suspending all donations of my artwork in order to make a
    living at my job as an artist. I hope that other artists also realize
    that the “exposure” incentive or the 10\% back just doesn’t cut it
    anymore. I hope organizations start tapping other, wealthier sources
    for enriching themselves and that the IRS finally comes to realize
    that artists are assets to the community as a whole.

    Respectfully,

    Juan Alonso

    On Oct 10, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Steven Vroom wrote:

    Below is an e-mail from artist Juan Alonso. He is now refusing to
    donate art work to any charity. There is a letter attached where he
    explains why.

    Begin forwarded message:

    From: Juan Alonso <juanalonso1@yahoo.com>
    Date: October 10, 2008 10:49:22 AM PDT
    To: Juan Alonso <juanalonso1@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Artist Donations

    Attached is a letter I wrote in response to the many requests for
    art donations. It is also posted on Regina Hackett's blog http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/art/archives/151076.asp
    , my facebook page and will be posted on my blog on Monday. Public
    comments (pro or con) on any of those blogs are best. Also feel
    free to pass it along to anyone you think should read it.

    Juan Alonso
    Juan Alonso Studio
    Grand Central Arcade
    214 1st Avenue South, Suite B15
    Seattle, Washington 98104
    Ph. 206-390-4882 m
    http://www.juanalonso.info
    http://juan-alonso.blogspot.com

    <Artist Donations Letter.doc>

    Vroom Journal
    Art Radio Seattle
    -*-*--**---***-----*****--------********
    Harvard & Roy Arts Council
    list options:
    http://grauwald.com/mailman/listinfo/hrac\_grauwald.com
    -*-*--**---***-----*****--------********
    -*-*--**---***-----*****
    -*-*--**---***
    -*-*--**
    -*-*
    -*

    -*-*--**---***-----*****--------********
    Harvard & Roy Arts Council
    list options:
    http://grauwald.com/mailman/listinfo/hrac\_grauwald.com
    -*-*--**---***-----*****--------********
    -*-*--**---***-----*****
    -*-*--**---***
    -*-*--**
    -*-*
    -*
Your Reply