Posted by [disneyNASAborg] | Sat Oct 26th 2002 1 a.m.

greetings,_ny soggy sat.
The works, concepts,and artists that participate within this environment are
thought to think 'outside the box' and be early adopters for new
technologies. I suggest rhizome take a more difficult route than membership
fees.There has got to be some future forward ways to create revenue streams
to fund the engine.

The new media blenders were a success, how about 1 a month, cover at
door_,,I liked the idea of artist contributed tracks for compilation audio
disk,or better yet I propose a dvd with artist submitted video and motion
image works,,and re-distribution of content via other channels to acquire
revenue streams[i.e. content provided to magazine,tv_],and as mentioned
unique fund-raising techniques that the other long-running artist
not-for-profit spaces have implemented. Of course,we arent talking about
cyber-girl car wash or are we?Just about anything,in my mind,is better than
closing off the list to paying members_this is enlightenment for the masses
not internet pornography.These new medias are having a difficult time in
there own plight to reach some sort of mainstream art acceptance,to divide
it even farther from the reluctant viewer is not the ideal situation.

Although the RAW list has gotten a little ridiculous with the insane amount
of posts by kandinski and the likes--
the are deleted at this point without being read_always]_is there some
excitement of seeing your name in lights?inboxs?or lists?

  • D42 Kandinskij | Sat Oct 26th 2002 1 a.m.
    The membership fee route is viable and sound only on the surface.
    If rhizome as 'provided services' chooses to charge for the services it
    provides, then by all acounts if things are taken to that level,
    rhizome should also pay all artists involved at least in the database--
    ie go the full route.
Your Reply