Re: One Day Left

Posted by meta am | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.

At 2:48 PM -0500 1/14/03, info@rhizome.org wrote:
>Hi Meta:
>
>This is a reminder that our new membership policy takes effect tomorrow,
>Wednesday, January 15. We value your membership and hope that you will
>renew your membership by making a contribution of $5 or more today.

i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :

1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.

2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.

3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website are compensated as well.

my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.

this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or not.

it is most unfair that you are being paid,
while those who generate your content are not.

//m
127.0.0.1

http://meta.am/
216.71.65.73
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    Here is my dillemma. It's not about money- the five dollars is nothing.

    On the one hand:

    1. I have already used Rhizome to promote my own work to a large audience.
    2. The majority of my "publicity" for new works seems to descend from
    announcing it on rhizome.

    On the other hand:

    1. I have never been paid [or even offerred to be paid] for my numerous
    contributions to Rhizome, which have included interviews and essays
    which have gone on to be published elsewhere [my interview with michael
    daines, or my "zen and the art of ascii" essay] even though that I know
    others have been "commissioned" to write pieces for rhizome. Since I
    feel like a major contributor (and I have been told by some that I am a
    major reason that they are on rhizome to begin with) I often wonder what
    it is exactly that I get out of rhizome- but also what it is that
    rhizome gets out of me, and whether my own inclusion is worth five
    dollars to rhizome.

    As of late, I've been posting my better texts to other lists instead of
    this one- syndicate, empyre, and thingist- to gauge a response to them,
    and the end result has been similar- there is more discussion of new
    media on syndicate than there is on rhizome, which has turned into the
    navel-gazing cafeteria for defensive psycholanalysis- and it's not just
    Karei, it's the entire list- recently there has been an upsurge in meaty
    dialogue, but I don't have a lot of faith in it staying that way.

    2. I have problems with what I see as a hypocritical personal
    detatchment towards the list from the administration, who has long held
    the view that the list is only a small part of the community whereas the
    website is the greatest asset. What I don't understand is how they are
    seperate, since everything on the website originates on the mailing list
    to begin with- which is also why the aforementioned slide into defensive
    psychoanalysis is worrisome. There's also a sense of populism vs
    academic credibility that comes through, and this comes back to the
    commissioned texts and artworks coming out of rhizome. While it veers
    towards an alledged pop sensibility [Mark Tribe's recent statements
    against exclusivity to the artbase, for example] it is also decidedly
    exclusive as far as who gets paid and who gets promoted. A major factor
    in this was the rhizome grants, which were awarded by people with little
    to no actual interest or particpation in the rhizome community. I found
    the response to my complaints on this matter patronizing and ripe with
    weasel words with no real steps taken towards opening up the selection
    process, which I am afraid to say, I find to be the case more and more
    when dealing with the rhizome admins one on one. Whether this is a
    private issue or a widespread one remains to be seen, I suppose.

    3. I have had issues as former superuser which included chastisements
    for inactivity based on the "work" involved in maintaining a superuser
    who doesn't "contribute" [I didn't publish texts to the webpage because
    I had a browser compatibility issue with rhizome's interface.] There's
    an opportunity for streamlined efficiency, I would guess, in allowing an
    inactive user's status to remain the same, as opposed to the unneccesary
    housekeeping of user removal- particularly when a user is an active
    contributor in other areas. What seemed to happen is: I was asked why I
    didn't publish anything, I complained about a very real user bug in the
    interface, and I was asked to leave my position as a superuser, as
    opposed to having the compatibility issue worked out. Since it is a
    voluntary position, I don't see how quotas can be imposed on any given
    interested user who shows a refined judgement in what gets published and
    what doesn't.

    4. I find the mandate of rhizome to be extraordinarily muddy. I don't
    know what Rhizome stands for, or why it stands for it. It has an
    identity crisis: Is it a resource? Then what are the resources? Is it a
    community? Then why the inattention to the community, who makes up that
    community, and if it is a rhizomatic community, then why are some
    members more valued for thier status than others? Is it an archive for
    new media? Then why is the site not designed around that purpose in the
    first place? If the mandate of rhizome is to provide a resource for
    understanding new media, how did the website get so segmented to begin
    with? Shouldn't it have naturally evolved into something in which cross
    referencing texts with art would be easy and neccesary? The answer seems
    to have been "We don't have the money now" but what about in 1997, 98,
    99, 00, 01? What is rhizome? What is it that I am paying for? I don't
    really know the answer to that. I don't know what the vision for rhizome
    is, or if it even has a vision- Mark Tribe is talking in interviews
    about getting away from rhizome anyway. Alex has already left. Whose
    vision is rhizome, and where is it going? Who else is seeing it?

    5. Do I really want to support a community that can't even hack up a
    "best of/trends seen" discussion at the end of any given year?

    These are my concerns. The reason I don't just give the five dollars is
    because I have asked myself honestly if it matters to me if Rhizome is
    here in five years. The answer is that I don't know if it matters. Would
    something more interesting spring up in its place? If rhizome was gone,
    would it make for a more interesting time? What would replace it? Is it
    time to just let rhizome die, and make way for something new? I think
    maybe it is.

    I'd love it if something came up that, as I said in previous posts,
    actually endeavored to bring net.art to a wide audience, instead of the
    circle of usual suspects that rhizome caters to. In this sense I think
    rhizome has shot itself in the foot and is stuck in a rut of academia,
    ignoring a huge section of net.art that academia usually ignores [but
    actually makes up a majority of the net.art scene] and refusing to speak
    the language of accessibility. On the other hand, it makes up for this
    by accepting everything remotely resembling html or flash to be
    preserved for "historical significance" in the artbase [and if you
    imagine for a moment that the seperation between these pieces and the
    discussion of these pieces is intentional, you have the interesting
    question of why. Why would a web site, after 6 years of touting itself
    as an "online resource," still not have the infrastructure for
    connecting art to the theory of the art? And furthermore, why can't that
    be done in a way that makes it exciting? Is rhizome afraid to look excited?]

    People may want to CC this for me to respond, as I may not be on the
    list when it starts rejecting the non-contributors...Maybe I'll end up
    on the other side eventually.

    Cheers,
    -e.

    m e t a wrote:

    >At 2:48 PM -0500 1/14/03, info@rhizome.org wrote:
    >
    >>Hi Meta:
    >>
    >>This is a reminder that our new membership policy takes effect tomorrow,
    >>Wednesday, January 15. We value your membership and hope that you will
    >>renew your membership by making a contribution of $5 or more today.
    >>
    >
    >i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
    >
    >1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.
    >
    >2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.
    >
    >3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website are compensated as well.
    >
    >
    >my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
    >it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
    >or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.
    >
    >this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
    >regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or not.
    >
    >it is most unfair that you are being paid,
    >while those who generate your content are not.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >//m
    >127.0.0.1
    >
    >http://meta.am/
    >216.71.65.73
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    >-> 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
    >
  • Miguel Leal | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    That
  • Miguel Leal | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    >Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:49:14 +0000
    >To: list@rhizome.org
    >From: miguel leal <ml@virose.pt>
    >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left
    >Cc:
    >Bcc:
    >X-Attachments:
    >
    >
    >That
  • Rachel Greene | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    >
    >
    > 3. I have had issues as former superuser which included chastisements for
    > inactivity based on the "work" involved in maintaining a superuser who do=
    esn't
    > "contribute" [I didn't publish texts to the webpage because I had a brows=
    er
    > compatibility issue with rhizome's interface.] There's an opportunity for
    > streamlined efficiency, I would guess, in allowing an inactive user's sta=
    tus
    > to remain the same, as opposed to the unneccesary housekeeping of user
    > removal- particularly when a user is an active contributor in other areas.
    > What seemed to happen is: I was asked why I didn't publish anything, I
    > complained about a very real user bug in the interface, and I was asked to
    > leave my position as a superuser, as opposed to having the compatibility =
    issue
    > worked out. Since it is a voluntary position, I don't see how quotas can =
    be
    > imposed on any given interested user who shows a refined judgement in what
    > gets published and what doesn't.
    >
    >
    > eryk
  • Mark Tribe | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    At 10:34 PM 1/14/2003 -0800, m e t a wrote:
    >At 2:48 PM -0500 1/14/03, info@rhizome.org wrote:
    > >Hi Meta:
    > >
    > >This is a reminder that our new membership policy takes effect tomorrow,
    > >Wednesday, January 15. We value your membership and hope that you will
    > >renew your membership by making a contribution of $5 or more today.
    >
    >i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
    >
    >1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.
    >
    >2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the
    >weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.
    >
    >3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website
    >are compensated as well.

    if we paid for artbase submissions, texts, etc. we would have to be much
    more selective.

    >my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
    >it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
    >or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.

    when we were figuring out the new membership policy, we considered giving
    free memberships to people who contribute to artbase, digest, etc. my take
    on it was that people get as much value from posting as they do from
    accessing the content. unlike print, net-based platforms like rhizome are
    all about many-to-many communication. we have many more contributors than
    say a book or a print journal, so giving away free memberships to those who
    post would reduce our paid membership significantly. i also didn't like the
    idea of dividing the community into people who post and get free membership
    and those who don't post and have to pay. but maybe it makes sense.

    these are, to say the least, very difficult decisions. $5 per year is
    really very low for most people. less than the cost of a print magazine,
    for example.

    >this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
    >regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or not.

    this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a nonprofit
    organization. nobody is getting rich.

    that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should* offer free
    memberships to those whose work is included in the artbase, in digest, etc.

    i'd be curious to hear from others on this. feel free to email me directly
    if your membership gets suspended.
  • Kanarinka | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    >>>
    i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :

    1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a
    commission.2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included
    in the weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.3. those whose works,
    writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website are compensated as
    well.
    >>>

    Give me a break. Rhizome is a platform for viewing, discussing and
    communicating about net.art, not a profit-making machine. I am happy to
    support such a service both through financial and other forms of
    participation. I consider rhizome to be an invaluable **service**
    provided to the net.art community. Indeed rhizome is a key reason why
    there is any kind of community at all.

    I doubt they are going to be making a profit off your measly $5
    contribution, but if you feel that strongly about it I have nothing
    against rhizome taking your work out of the art base, removing you from
    their list, and never mentioning your work ever again on the site.

    best,
    kanarinka

    -----Original Message-----
    From: nettime-l-request@bbs.thing.net
    [mailto:nettime-l-request@bbs.thing.net] On Behalf Of m e t a
    Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:34 AM
    To: rhizome
    Subject: <nettime> Re: One Day Left

    At 2:48 PM -0500 1/14/03, info@rhizome.org wrote:

    >Hi Meta:
    >
    >This is a reminder that our new membership policy takes effect
    tomorrow,
    >Wednesday, January 15. We value your membership and hope that you will
    >renew your membership by making a contribution of $5 or more today.

    i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :

    1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.

    2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the
    weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.

    3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome
    website are compensated as well.

    my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
    it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
    or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.

    this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
    regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or
    not.

    it is most unfair that you are being paid,
    while those who generate your content are not.

    //m
    127.0.0.1

    http://meta.am/
    216.71.65.73

    # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
    # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
    # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
    # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg
    body
    # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
  • patrick lichty | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    Two matters;

    Membership
    In respose to Mark's idea about having considered free memberships for
    various individuals for their participation, I understand this but agree
    with the fact that much of the net.art community has been running on the
    gift economy, and we're running out of steam in many places. That's why
    I've given to many, albeit small as my consulting firm seems to be going out
    of business again. The interesting thing is that I have a problem with the
    'something for nothing' mentality, although I certainly practice it. WHat
    tends to happen is that you get swamped in worthless gomi that you don't
    need anyway. How many CD's of Napster music did I make that collect dust
    now? Useless gomi, not even good for occasional enjoyment. I'm becoming a
    big believer in streamlining.

    But $5 is fine, and I think it will help to deal with the latter issue. The
    people not willing to pony up for Rhizome don't value it enough to do so.
    Because of my finances, I only gave around $10, but I want a backpack
    sometime.

    Acceptable use
    Actually I think Tim has a good idea, but an AUP is the reason why my
    Polyhydra.com site has little more on it than pictures ofme in a Klingon
    uniform. (oh yes, you should see THAT.) Many ISP's now disallow streaming
    media, media of any polemic, etc. Pretty ridiculous. However, I think that
    there have been clear and substantial abuses of the list that could be
    eliminated by a very loose AUP without endangering free speech whatsoever.
    The argument about free speech is so horribly flawed that I am always
    shocked to see it taken for granted.

    For example, first, a listserv is not a public commons. If sufficiently
    provoked, Rhizome's provider could yank it if, for some odd reason, a big
    enough fish woudl take exception with it. This is extremely unlikely, but
    the dowchemical.com case proves my point, not in the terms of listservs, but
    in the explication of ISPs not as public servants, but as private entities
    that exercise their own policies, and do not honor matters like the 1st
    Amendment if it goes against their company policies.

    Secondly, many abuses take the form of endless repetition, swamping, etc.
    Perhaps by saying in an AUP that multiple replies over 3-4 a day should be
    in single postings, and that repeat offenses will be asked to consolidate or
    be suspended for a given period of time does not discourage content.
    Problemm is, most of the people who would protest any limitation are ones
    who I would argue generate anything resembling 'content' anyway. But then
    after making that point, it's Daffy and Bugs arguing about Rabbit or Duck
    Season. I refuse to engage in that argument.

    I think there's a difference between exclusiveness and social
    responsibility.
  • MTAA | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    At 9:08 -0600 1/15/03, Patrick Lichty wrote:
    >Two matters;

    >
    >Acceptable use
    >Actually I think Tim has a good idea, but an AUP is the reason why my
    >Polyhydra.com site has little more on it than pictures ofme in a Klingon
    >uniform. (oh yes, you should see THAT.) Many ISP's now disallow streaming
    >media, media of any polemic, etc. Pretty ridiculous. However, I think that
    >there have been clear and substantial abuses of the list that could be
    >eliminated by a very loose AUP without endangering free speech whatsoever.
    >The argument about free speech is so horribly flawed that I am always
    >shocked to see it taken for granted.
    >

    AUPs can certainly be abused as in what's happening to the THING
    presently. but RAW's could be voted on by a majority of RAW members
    and be reviewed periodically. i'm sure we could come up with
    something that allows free discussion, mail art, interventions etc
    but keeps disrespectful and abusive shenanigans to a minimum.
    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • dgs | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    > if we paid for artbase submissions, texts, etc. we
    > would have to be much
    > more selective.

    lizen rhizomerz or you are historical zelected around
    50% shitty zozial maleable or you are not get it.
    fired rhizome! it's a nuizible parazit wiz not any
    value exzept to zpeculate on global imbezility.
    you said "artbase exist" curatorial not
    what did you hope till ?
    lizten i was fired from rhizome just befor rhizome
    understand 'free' speech iz at this time a necezezar
    condition to grow -only- i repeat -only-
    exactly as to display peanutz to ape get it
    rhizome just confiscate zozial zcale benefit
    & now do a tax membership, did you only imagine zome
    would pay for yeeling ? no, not even a penny
    far wellknown in politic az 'mode censitaire'
    but itz banal az itz so banal tribe say banal zingz
    & zome ov you juzt hope to have part of the zozial
    plundering, shame on zoz who remain h!r, to the fifth
    generazion, be damned for having break the aeternel
    law of art, pharizee ! shity zepulcr !

    and now my next post would cure the haemorage but do
    you even imagine i will touch you anymore, no,
    multiplexed heretikz you are, i will only cure my ownz

    ___________________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en francais !
    Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
  • dgs | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    > but keeps disrespectful and abusive shenanigans to
    a
    > minimum.

    ta gueule !

    ___________________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en francais !
    Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    Rachel Greene wrote:

    >
    > eryk -- not only I would say "chastisements" is a
    > mischaracterization of our dialogue about your activities as a
    > superuser, but your narrative suggests you were asked to leave
    > being a superuser after you pointed out a bug -- another
    > characterization I find misleading.
    >

    Allow me to clarify: I did not publish texts because I had a problem
    with the rhizome interface. I was asked why I did not post, I responded
    that I was having a problem with the rhizome interface (the problem: A
    complete lack of interesting content, making it so that when something
    finally came around that was noteworthy, other superusers raced to
    publish the text. I had tried on several occasions, but the pages took
    upwards of fifteen to twenty minutes to load up the screen with the text
    I would want to publish, at which point, someone else had already done
    it.) I was told that no one else had this problem. I responded that I,
    in fact, actually had the problem, which eventually led to being
    dismissed as a superuser due to inactivity (...due to a problem that I
    had with the rhizome interface,)

    > first, I doubt there was much official communication about
    > superusing that didn't acknowledge that you were volunteering your
    > time, and that we were grateful for it.
    >

    Most if the emails were courteous in the same way that the above
    sentence is courteous. The standard "thanks for being here" through a
    blanket of obvious annoyance. I would not call this gratitude, instead I
    was given the standard rhizome accusatory recording about how there is
    no one who can fix all the problems because rhizome is a non profit
    organization with a limited budget. But at no point was anyone
    discourteous, nor are the people at the desk of JC Penney's discourteous
    when I want to return pants. I felt a similar sense of gratitude in this
    situation.

    > simply, there is a minimum number of texts per month superusers
    > have to publish --
    >

    I was never told this number in any of our communications, nor when I
    signed up to be a superuser. In fact this is the very first time I had
    heard that there is a minimum number of texts per month that have to be
    published. Could you tell me that number?

    > it helps me manage who is doing what, and helps insure that the
    > rare list is channeled content, and that the textbase evolves.
    > we're working on improving the bugs you suggested -- maybe when
    > they're fixed, and you're able to publish texts (which is how we
    > define superusing), you'll want to resume being a superuser. you
    > would be welcome.
    >

    But would that not mean more database changes to reinstate me on top of
    the time spent on removing me?] It seems a more practical solution to
    have kept me as a superuser until the problem was resolved- not to
    mention that the time spent on emails I received urging me to
    "contribute" to rhizome, or else I would be removed as a superuser- with
    the reasoning that, if I did not contribute, you would all have to
    compose more emails to me about contributing, and you simply didn't have
    the time- seemed redundant in my eyes. You could have just stopped
    emailing me until the problem that we discussed was resolved, don't you
    think? The reason I am so worked up about this is because it seemed like
    everyone was acting in defense of a database problem by eliminating
    anyone who complained about it, instead of looking at the issue of
    streamlining (in all fairness, Francis agreed completely with me when I
    told him about the sluggishness of the site, and agreed that there would
    have to be work done in streamlining the archives in order to get them
    to load faster.)

    Mark Tribes recent statements that "people contribute to rhizome to
    share their ideas" is a fine one, but when coupled with the sentiment
    that this therefore renders the ideas valueless, and that rhizome owes
    nothing to people who _want_ to make rhizome a better place (as opposed
    to those who do so because they are paid- or who want to contribute
    because they themselves pay) strikes me as an inelegant solution to the
    funding problem.

    In the end, I will not pay for rhizome because I am uncomfortable with
    how it is run, I am uncomfortable over what its mandate is, and I am
    uncomfortable for paying someone else for the "opportunity" to share
    ideas, especially when sharing those ideas then become the property and
    fuel for rhizome. I do not like the logic that one should pay to share
    ideas. To say so is to change the entire reasoning behind institutions
    like rhizome. Is it here to serve us, or are we here to serve it? I can
    understand a give and take, a membership fee to support the
    infrastructure, but what if we are a major component of that
    infrastructure, and what if that role is now considered irrelevant
    because it was voluntary- and is now something that we are paying for?

    What is the role of an institution?

    -e.
  • Miguel Leal | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    >i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
    >
    >1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a
    >commission.2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included
    >in the weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.3. those whose works,
    >writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website are compensated as
    >well.

    I Would say that Meta questions are merely rethorical and not to be
    taken as they are. At least that was my point on my last post to the
    list. The problem is that we are used to "use" rhizome and other
    community based services for free, and right now we are facing
    something that I could already guess since 2001 or so: Rhizome was
    getting to dependent from external founding and any cut could put it
    on risk. Probably I'm going to pay fot it (with or without e-mail
    address or t-shirt...) only to see how the community evolves on this
    new basis. But we can also question the Rhizome project itself,
    specially on the relation between it's size (and correlated founding)
    and its significance for the community that was used to "use" it.
    Bigger is not necessarily better. But we will see the results on
    medium term basis. And how it affects other web-based communities.

    >
    >I doubt they are going to be making a profit off your measly $5
    >contribution, but if you feel that strongly about it I have nothing
    >against rhizome taking your work out of the art base, removing you from
    >their list, and never mentioning your work ever again on the site.
    >

    And that's the kind of unnecessary debate... and one of the reasons
    that make me afraid of the use it/pay it solution.

    ml

    http://www.virose.pt
    http://arch.virose.pt
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    Kanarinka wrote:

    >
    >Give me a break.
    >

    >Rhizome is a platform for viewing, discussing and
    >communicating about net.art, not a profit-making machine.
    >

    Let me ask you then: who is viewing it? Following this, who is making
    what these people are viewing? Isn't there a difference? Does it make
    sense that people should have to pay to show their work to people? Maybe
    street musicians should hand us dollar bills for being attentive
    listeners? Wouldn't it make more sense for the people who want to see
    the work, to pay for the work that they want to see?

    Secondly, discussion is based on communication. One can communicate
    something, and then other people can discuss it. I can communicate my
    ideas anywhere. Rhizome certainly offers a forum for discussion, but
    what is the line between a communication and a discussion, and are they
    of the same value? What if there was nothing to talk about? I have to
    say that rhizome has a lot of discussion but very little communication.

    >I am happy to
    >support such a service both through financial and other forms of
    >participation. I consider rhizome to be an invaluable **service**
    >provided to the net.art community.
    >

    Can you define this service? And how it is invaluable? I am curious to
    know what rhizome offers that you can't find elsewhere. The artbase
    could have been arranged through an independent organization of artists.
    The mailing list is nothing, there are plenty of these (and I expect
    more to come up when rhizome dissolves.) I see rhizome as having filled
    a very particular niche, and as having abandoned that purpose. Now it is
    an institution, like a museum, and this is unfortunate for people who
    believed in something different. It used to be ironic that this place
    was called rhizome, now it's insulting. It is a tree, pure and simple,
    with people at the top making decisions for people at the bottom, with
    very little sideways decision making. [They even now have a class
    system- user, superuser, admin.]

    >Indeed rhizome is a key reason why
    >there is any kind of community at all.
    >

    I disagree. The majority of net.artists are not on rhizome, or don't
    contribute- you will get a weird line about how all the people
    subscribed to digest are "part of the community" because they get an
    email once a week. (This was the reasoning behind having three heads of
    museums selecting the rhizome grants. I have no problem with museum
    heads, but I also felt like an actual rhizome user should have helped
    make that decision- since all of our input is so valuable.) The rhizome
    discussion list is a small portion of the net.art community, a large sum
    of that membership sharing the membership of other lists, like thingist
    or syndicate, anyway.

    >
    >
    >I doubt they are going to be making a profit off your measly $5
    >contribution, but if you feel that strongly about it I have nothing
    >against rhizome taking your work out of the art base, removing you from
    >their list, and never mentioning your work ever again on the site.
    >

    Ha. "Welcome to the new Rhizome" indeed. Maybe we should also move to
    China if we don't like this country. It would be interesting if rhizome
    removed everyone from the artbase who didn't pay them. Essentially this
    would mean that rhizome was a vanity press! For a certain amount of
    money down, rhizome will host any webpage. Also, I wonder if you would
    really be happy with only discussing the work of people who pay five
    dollars to rhizome?

    Write back if you want to: Maybe I'll be here, maybe I won't.

    Cheers,
    -e.
  • Ivan Pope | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    Cor blimey, Eryk, grow up. You sound like a whingebag. I dont think you
    should leave Rhizome. If you have a problem with some very valid issues, eg:
    'I do not like the logic that one should pay to share ideas. To say so is to
    change the entire reasoning behind institutions like rhizome. Is it here to
    serve us, or are we here to serve it?', you should stay and argue the toss.
    To me $5 is generally worth paying if only to keep my nosy nose stuck in
    places. And who knows, Rhizome might blossom ...
    My issue now is what will be left of Rhizome when all the non payers and the
    cant pay wont pay and the ideological dissenters have left? Will it die a
    natural death as we all leave when the fun stops, or will it blossom?
    cheers, Ivan

    --
    Ivan Pope
    ivan@ivanpope.com

    http://www.ivanpope.com
    http://www.tochki-inc.com

    "Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death"
    Hunter S. Thompson

    From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>

    Rachel Greene wrote:
    Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left

    eryk
  • Are | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    Re: 1/15/03 1:34, "m e t a" <meta@meta.am>:

    > i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
    >
    > 1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.
    >
    > 2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the weekly
    > digest are paid for their inclusion.
    >
    > 3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website are
    > compensated as well.
    >
    > my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
    > it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
    > or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.
    >
    > this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
    > regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or not.
    >
    > it is most unfair that you are being paid,
    > while those who generate your content are not.
    >

    One can not disagree with the above, on any share and share alike level, but
    when one is talking economy and art there is usually more than one side to
    every coin. Apart from a few similar emails and a few anonymous ecards,
    there appears to have been very little said about the current state of (the)
    rhizome, although nettime churns out proclamation after proclamation that
    effectively orate as if we are still networking like it was 1995 and that
    2001 never happened. I can't help thinking that part of the reason rhizome
    is getting so much stick, is that it bursts more than a few bubbles,
    exposing our artsy utopias of wanting idealism and collective activism to a
    capital pinprick of, dare I say, sliding exploitation.

    Some reflections, then, that do not endorse or condemn but try to reflect.
    There is no doubt that rhizome is a pyramid scheme with a limited trickle
    down effect, like *every* art org., but they are no doubt smart enough to
    realize that the word community can only be used in the paid context they
    now enter into very carefully, and that if steps 1, 2, and 3 above are not
    openly and transparently implemented, so that those seeking payment receive
    it, the rhizome crew is effectively packing their own office boxes.
    Everything they have done the last year, whether one deems it cosmetic and
    feeble or not, has sought to address this balance and people, sans artbase
    contributors, are to my outsider knowledge actually getting paid on a scale
    that obviously supports no one full/part time but the inner circle (usual
    charges of nepotism and cronyism apply, of course). To this one can only
    say, and as Coco Fusco has repeatedly pointed out here, look around you and
    throw/send the first string of ASCII.

    To actually address the issues meta very rightfully brings up, one needs to
    dig much deeper and wider. Consider first of all the widespread use of
    interns in all art contexts, and an economy where all the money stays on top
    thanks to FREE labor on the bottom is abundantly clear. Further, as studies
    have shown, the *surplus* of free labor in any field undermines the
    possibility of any sustainable employment down the food chain. And on the
    topic of artsy economies and pyramid schemes, the pinnacle must surely be
    academia, where, as I gather, more than a few nettimers are buttering their
    bread. Especially in the new media art field, where new courses are popping
    up by the minute (arguably years too late), students pay big bucks to enter
    a field that is extremely limited, and that has virtually no economy to
    secure a return on their investment and fee. Sadly faculty can barely be
    bothered to roll down the window on their new SUV to address this sham, but
    swear off rhizome after they had the *audacity* to ask for five bucks. (Yep,
    I've heard it.)

    So, that said, rhizome does not remotely fit my bill of idealism either, my
    utopia for the net, my dreams of a community where we are all equal and
    benefit equally, my D&G theories. It is what it is, Tribe's rather
    embarrassing social sculpture or not. But I can say that, as someone outside
    the university, I acted out of selfishness and not principle when I finally
    paid up last night. I just wanted to easily access a portal that gathers
    what some, and only some, people do with computer media/code that differs
    from the three columns with a menu on either side and ads top and bottom
    that comprise much of the WWW. There are no doubt worse and better things to
    spend money on, but bottom line is that I find rhizome, as a whole, far more
    interesting than another pontificating essay about the new media scam or
    another ideological and uninformed confusion of open source with libre.

    $0.02 to more than one day left,

    -af
  • Francis Hwang | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day LeftThink of it like a bar. When you and some =
    friends go to a bar and buy drinks, you're not really going for the drinks.=
    You pay much more for the drinks than you would if you just bought a six-p=
    ack and stayed home with your friends. And most of the value of your experi=
    ence actually comes from the other people, who are also paying for their dr=
    inks. You go to a bar to be out in public, to meet up with friends and acqu=
    aintances, maybe to meet some cute girl or guy or dance to music or just se=
    e funny random things happen. Having a drink makes up a very small part of =
    the whole experience. If you went to a bar and it was just you and the bart=
    ender and your drink, you probably wouldn't have as much fun.

    So why do people go to bars? Why do they pay more for their drinks than the=
    y should?

    Because when people get together in large groups, there's a certain amount =
    of work that needs to be done to keep everything running smoothly. This wor=
    k is dependent on a lot of things; one of them is how big those large group=
    s are. If you want to get together in a group of 40 people you already know=
    , probably somebody can host a party at their apartment. If you're in the m=
    ood to be around 150 people, some of who you know and some of whom are stra=
    ngers, you probably have to go to a bar. So you pay more for your drinks, b=
    ecause you're not just paying for the liquor. You're also paying the rent, =
    and the cleaning costs, and the labor. Somebody has to serve drinks, and so=
    mebody has to keep the place clean, and once in a while a broken barstool h=
    as to be replaced. None of those things are free.

    To me, that's why we're asking everybody to pay. It's true that most of the=
    value doesn't come from the place; it comes from the members. Nobody comes=
    to Rhizome because Mark or I or Rachel are particularly clever people -- t=
    hey come because Rhizome offers a space for other people to come and be cle=
    ver for one another.

    I know that in some ways $5 is a lot to ask. Not that it's a lot of money t=
    o most people, but it's still a conceptual hurdle: It makes you wonder how =
    much Rhizome.org really is worth to you. But our options today aren't what =
    they were a few years ago, and we've decided that this is the best bet for =
    our survival. I hope that Rhizome, as a public space, has been useful enoug=
    h, and engaging enough, that our survival matters to you, too.

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    212-989-2363

    + + +
  • pavu.com | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    > i suppose we also should say merci patronn!
    >
    > ED
    >
    >
    >
    > Think of it like a bar. When you and some friends go to a bar and buy drinks,
    > you're not really going for the drinks. You pay much more for the drinks than
    > you would if you just bought a six-pack and stayed home with your friends. And
    > most of the value of your experience actually comes from the other people, who
    > are also paying for their drinks. You go to a bar to be out in public, to meet
    > up with friends and acquaintances, maybe to meet some cute girl or guy or
    > dance to music or just see funny random things happen. Having a drink makes up
    > a very small part of the whole experience. If you went to a bar and it was
    > just you and the bartender and your drink, you probably wouldn't have as much
    > fun.
    >
    > So why do people go to bars? Why do they pay more for their drinks than they
    > should?
    >
    > Because when people get together in large groups, there's a certain amount of
    > work that needs to be done to keep everything running smoothly. This work is
    > dependent on a lot of things; one of them is how big those large groups are.
    > If you want to get together in a group of 40 people you already know, probably
    > somebody can host a party at their apartment. If you're in the mood to be
    > around 150 people, some of who you know and some of whom are strangers, you
    > probably have to go to a bar. So you pay more for your drinks, because you're
    > not just paying for the liquor. You're also paying the rent, and the cleaning
    > costs, and the labor. Somebody has to serve drinks, and somebody has to keep
    > the place clean, and once in a while a broken barstool has to be replaced.
    > None of those things are free.
    >
    > To me, that's why we're asking everybody to pay. It's true that most of the
    > value doesn't come from the place; it comes from the members. Nobody comes to
    > Rhizome because Mark or I or Rachel are particularly clever people -- they
    > come because Rhizome offers a space for other people to come and be clever for
    > one another.
    >
    > I know that in some ways $5 is a lot to ask. Not that it's a lot of money to
    > most people, but it's still a conceptual hurdle: It makes you wonder how much
    > Rhizome.org really is worth to you. But our options today aren't what they
    > were a few years ago, and we've decided that this is the best bet for our
    > survival. I hope that Rhizome, as a public space, has been useful enough, and
    > engaging enough, that our survival matters to you, too.
    >
    > Francis Hwang
    > Director of Technology
    > Rhizome.org
    > 212-989-2363
    >
    > + + +
    >
    >
  • Vijay Pattisapu | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    Dear Meta, Mark, et al--

    I pretty much never go to Rhizome.org at all...all the discussions and poetry in the RAW list is sufficient for me (or I should say...takes up all my time), and communicating with those smarter/wiser than I has been rewarding, to say the least. Most of the net.art I see is whatever is hyperlinked in these mails, which is sometimes on Rhizome...I bet there are many more Rhizomers that are rather list-oriented, too.

    Rhizome isn't some sort of 'art show,' where the 'artists' make it their day job to compose net.art pieces for us to pay to see, and 'critics' doing the same. It's more community-oriented than that. You're not an 'artist' in the traditional sense, and I'm not an 'audience' in that way either, nor should I be paid for my 'brilliant analysis' of your piece. These names don't really have meaning here, as most of us have a little of each of those roles. At least I feel that way.

    And US$5.00 is reasonable enough for most countries....definitely for US and Europe...the real bargain is the huge archive of art and text stuff from the past we get access to, not necessarily the current 'cloned art objects.'

    If you're in art to make money, Rhizome don't look so good for you...

    ..and yeah, I know art-types gotta eat, too..
    --Vijay
    +please comment
    +sorry if mult posts

    >Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:32:05 -0500
    > Mark Tribe <mt@rhizome.org> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left m e t a <meta@meta.am>, rhizome <list@rhizome.org>Reply-To: Mark Tribe <mt@rhizome.org>
    >
    >At 10:34 PM 1/14/2003 -0800, m e t a wrote:
    >>At 2:48 PM -0500 1/14/03, info@rhizome.org wrote:
    >> >Hi Meta:
    >> >
    >> >This is a reminder that our new membership policy takes effect tomorrow,
    >> >Wednesday, January 15. We value your membership and hope that you will
    >> >renew your membership by making a contribution of $5 or more today.
    >>
    >>i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
    >>
    >>1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.
    >>
    >>2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the
    >>weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.
    >>
    >>3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website
    >>are compensated as well.
    >
    >if we paid for artbase submissions, texts, etc. we would have to be much
    >more selective.
    >
    >>my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
    >>it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
    >>or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.
    >
    >when we were figuring out the new membership policy, we considered giving
    >free memberships to people who contribute to artbase, digest, etc. my take
    >on it was that people get as much value from posting as they do from
    >accessing the content. unlike print, net-based platforms like rhizome are
    >all about many-to-many communication. we have many more contributors than
    >say a book or a print journal, so giving away free memberships to those who
    >post would reduce our paid membership significantly. i also didn't like the
    >idea of dividing the community into people who post and get free membership
    >and those who don't post and have to pay. but maybe it makes sense.
    >
    >these are, to say the least, very difficult decisions. $5 per year is
    >really very low for most people. less than the cost of a print magazine,
    >for example.
    >
    >>this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
    >>regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or not.
    >
    >this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a nonprofit
    >organization. nobody is getting rich.
    >
    >that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should* offer free
    >memberships to those whose work is included in the artbase, in digest, etc.
    >
    >i'd be curious to hear from others on this. feel free to email me directly
    >if your membership gets suspended.
    >
    >+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    >-> 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

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
    Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
    Hundreds of choices. It's free!
    http://www.bigmailbox.com
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Michael Szpakowski | Wed Jan 15th 2003 1 a.m.
    <I hope that Rhizome, as a public space,
    has been useful enough, and engaging enough, that
    our survival matters to you, too.>
    Absolutely. Certainly to me it does - I think it's a
    tremendous resource & whenever I feel a bit aggravated
    with some or other aspect of it I think to myself
    "would I like to do any of the organisational work
    associated with it?" & the answer is a big fat no.

    The argument is not about $5 is it? Clearly anyone who
    lives in the US and the majority of Europe who really
    can't afford $5 a *year*(=less than one and a half
    cents a day) is not thinking about new media art but
    where their next mouthful is coming from.

    Lastly the question of community: it's one of those
    rather touchy feely words that I as a rather awkward
    Brit have never that felt comfortable with..but..
    I have to say that participating in the list and
    looking at the site has been a real education for me
    ,I've met some very nice and some very interesting
    people (and some who are both) and I've been
    stimulated by what is in fact quite a large amount of
    constructive debate .. and what does warm the cockles
    of my cynical old heart is that when the discussion is
    good it's very good indeed ..and that sometimes you
    can see an almost palpable decision by a number of
    contributors to start discussing something
    constructive..examples being the thread Mark River
    started recnetly and going back further, Eryk's 'Six
    rules..' thing , which idea in particular has been a
    really fertile and important one for me and my work.
    It's when those moments happen that I feel I can mouth
    the word community without blushing.
    I read everything that Eryk posts, everything that
    Curt, T.Whid, M.River, Ivan Pope post, most of what
    Marc Garret, Jess and Max ( come back Max) post (most
    of only because they're so damn prolific) plus I read
    lots more.
    I'm glad I read it and I learn a good deal from it.
    I'd be extremely sorry to lose any of those
    distinctive and fascinating voices and I really hope
    that people will calm down, pay their $5 and stay and
    apply themselves once more to a collective effort to
    keep the list constructive and interesting ( which
    doesn't mean of course conflict free).
    If you find a particular contributor to be a pain in
    the arse then block him/her then follow up by sending
    something interesting to the list.
    Oh and the Artbase ..OK maybe there are ( are there?)
    people who don't have a life and work beyond the
    Artbase and feel cheated that so many are getting in
    and robbing them of their exclusivity but I think the
    policy is about right- we simply don't know now who is
    our Cezanne, our Picasso.
    I suspect in 50 years the Artbase will be an
    *extraordinarily* important historical document with a
    fighting chance of containing included said net
    Picasso, Cezanne.
    that's my two pennyworth.
    best
    michael

    =====
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

    __________________________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
    http://mailplus.yahoo.com
  • Kanarinka | Thu Jan 16th 2003 1 a.m.
    >>>
    >>>
    Wouldn't it make more sense for the people who want to see
    the work, to pay for the work that they want to see?
    >>>

    Then I suggest a paypal authentication system for each one of your
    net.art works that you want to charge people to see. I do not personally
    want to charge anyone to see my work. Nobody looks at net.art anyways.

    >>>
    I have to
    say that rhizome has a lot of discussion but very little communication.
    >>>
    I agree. But I really like the digest and Net Art News. There are also
    occasionally truly interesting threads and opportunities.

    >>>
    The artbase
    could have been arranged through an independent organization of artists.
    >>>
    Yeah, but it wasn't.

    >>>
    The rhizome discussion list is a small portion of the net.art community,
    a large sum of that membership sharing the membership of other lists,
    like thingist or syndicate, anyway.
    >>>
    Agreed, but, like all lists, those lists are meaningless and boring in
    their own special ways.

    >>>
    Maybe we should also move to China if we don't like this country.
    >>>
    It's much more expensive to move to China than to stop going to
    rhizome's website.

    Anyways, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding all this uproar.
    People who are professionals often pay to be members of professional
    associations where they can network, go to events, have discussions,
    show their work etc. People who are in the arts often support (via money
    or attending their events) the organizations that provide them with
    services. For example, our organization iKatun has whatever money we can
    fundraise ($600 last year) and any personal money we all put into it.
    But we gave $50 to the Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts association. We
    gave $25 to rhizome. Often when I go to a non-profit gallery for an
    event they ask for donations at the door and I give what they request.
    Running an organization, even if it is non-profit, takes money! I admire
    people who run things because I think it is way more interesting and fun
    to make art than to run a real non-profit organization.

    It seems to me to be exceedingly selfish to wah-wah about donating $5 or
    to conspiracy-theorize about how rhizome is really making some huge
    profit on all our stuff in their art base. (yah, right)

    Hope you don't leave even though I disagree with you.
    Love,
    kanarinka

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Eryk Salvaggio [mailto:eryk@maine.rr.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:58 PM
    To: Kanarinka; list@rhizome.org
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: RE: <nettime> Re: One Day Left

    Kanarinka wrote:

    >
    >Give me a break.
    >

    >Rhizome is a platform for viewing, discussing and
    >communicating about net.art, not a profit-making machine.
    >

    Let me ask you then: who is viewing it? Following this, who is making
    what these people are viewing? Isn't there a difference? Does it make
    sense that people should have to pay to show their work to people? Maybe

    street musicians should hand us dollar bills for being attentive
    listeners? Wouldn't it make more sense for the people who want to see
    the work, to pay for the work that they want to see?

    Secondly, discussion is based on communication. One can communicate
    something, and then other people can discuss it. I can communicate my
    ideas anywhere. Rhizome certainly offers a forum for discussion, but
    what is the line between a communication and a discussion, and are they
    of the same value? What if there was nothing to talk about? I have to
    say that rhizome has a lot of discussion but very little communication.

    >I am happy to
    >support such a service both through financial and other forms of
    >participation. I consider rhizome to be an invaluable **service**
    >provided to the net.art community.
    >

    Can you define this service? And how it is invaluable? I am curious to
    know what rhizome offers that you can't find elsewhere. The artbase
    could have been arranged through an independent organization of artists.

    The mailing list is nothing, there are plenty of these (and I expect
    more to come up when rhizome dissolves.) I see rhizome as having filled
    a very particular niche, and as having abandoned that purpose. Now it is

    an institution, like a museum, and this is unfortunate for people who
    believed in something different. It used to be ironic that this place
    was called rhizome, now it's insulting. It is a tree, pure and simple,
    with people at the top making decisions for people at the bottom, with
    very little sideways decision making. [They even now have a class
    system- user, superuser, admin.]

    >Indeed rhizome is a key reason why
    >there is any kind of community at all.
    >

    I disagree. The majority of net.artists are not on rhizome, or don't
    contribute- you will get a weird line about how all the people
    subscribed to digest are "part of the community" because they get an
    email once a week. (This was the reasoning behind having three heads of
    museums selecting the rhizome grants. I have no problem with museum
    heads, but I also felt like an actual rhizome user should have helped
    make that decision- since all of our input is so valuable.) The rhizome
    discussion list is a small portion of the net.art community, a large sum

    of that membership sharing the membership of other lists, like thingist
    or syndicate, anyway.

    >
    >
    >I doubt they are going to be making a profit off your measly $5
    >contribution, but if you feel that strongly about it I have nothing
    >against rhizome taking your work out of the art base, removing you from
    >their list, and never mentioning your work ever again on the site.
    >

    Ha. "Welcome to the new Rhizome" indeed. Maybe we should also move to
    China if we don't like this country. It would be interesting if rhizome
    removed everyone from the artbase who didn't pay them. Essentially this
    would mean that rhizome was a vanity press! For a certain amount of
    money down, rhizome will host any webpage. Also, I wonder if you would
    really be happy with only discussing the work of people who pay five
    dollars to rhizome?

    Write back if you want to: Maybe I'll be here, maybe I won't.

    Cheers,
    -e.
  • meta am | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    At 9:32 AM -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:

    >
    >this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a nonprofit organization. nobody is getting rich.

    'survival' & 'rich' are relative terms.

    you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000

    alex galloway was paid $36,692 - and he is listed as a part-time employee.

    http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf

    i could live more than comfortably off of your salary, mark.

    >that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should* offer free memberships to those whose work is included in the artbase, in digest, etc.

    sorry - you *need* to offer much more than that.

    everyone who is actively producing the very material whereby you pay yourself $47,260 a year needs to be receiving a share of the wealth.

    this includes the regional editors, those who write reviews of festivals and shows and artworks, those whose writings are included in the digest...

    and here's a novel concept :

    perhaps even the artists - the ones actually producing the stuff that the entire rhizome community supposedly revolves around - could actually see some of that money.

    perhaps the money collected from the community
    could actually be put back into the community itself
    in the form of direct financial support for the artists.

    perhaps one modest commission a month,
    or a fee for inclusion in the artbase.

    ... instead of :

    rhizomes office space, - $10,176
    rhizomes travel expenses, - $8,049
    rhizomes office expense, - $8,175
    rhizomes legal fees, - $25,444
    etc.

    your .org has become bloated.

    you have a number of things generating considerable expense
    that are providing little or no benefit to the majority of the list members.

    in addition - you are asking for us to pay for them
    while providing no financial support for those generating the very content
    that IS of benefit to the majority of the list members.

    that is not survival, it is exploitation.

    sorry - before you receive a dime from me,
    i need to know that my money is going to be spent much more wisely
    and distributed much more fairly.

    >i'd be curious to hear from others on this. feel free to email me directly if your membership gets suspended.

    cute.

    //m
    127.0.0.1

    http://meta.am/
    216.71.65.73
  • D42 Kandinskij | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

    > As of late, I've been posting my better texts to other lists instead of
    > this one- syndicate, empyre, and thingist- to gauge a response to them,
    > and the end result has been similar- there is more discussion of new
    > media on syndicate than there is on rhizome, which has turned into the
    > navel-gazing cafeteria for defensive psycholanalysis- and it's not just
    > Karei, it's the entire list- recently there has been an upsurge in meaty

    Actually Eryk, there are no 'defensive psychoanalysts' here besides you.
    Do us a favor and avoid slapping your own myopic prejudices onto
    things you dont understand. We know it's tough.
    It's far easier to slapstick label in a dictatorial fashion,
    and when the other side doesn't play along to claim defensiveness.
    Your level of intelligence is that observed in a kindergarten
    sandbox, particularly if not allowed to throw sand in other kids
    eyes, you will engage bully behavior.

    Unimpressive one bit.

    > dialogue, but I don't have a lot of faith in it staying that way.

    As if. The 'judge' of new media 'dialogue'.
    One never gives up the careerism, does one.
    A primary interest.

    `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
  • FF00FF | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    >you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    --
    $
    http://tonk.org
  • MTAA | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    At 0:30 -0800 1/17/03, m e t a wrote:
    >At 9:32 AM -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a
    >>nonprofit organization. nobody is getting rich.
    >
    >'survival' & 'rich' are relative terms.
    >
    >you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000
    >
    >alex galloway was paid $36,692 - and he is listed as a part-time employee.
    >
    >http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf

    that doesn't sound like an unreasonable salary to me. rhizome is in
    nyc after all, the cost of living is much higher than other parts of
    the USA.

    >
    >
    >>that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should*
    >>offer free memberships to those whose work is included in the
    >>artbase, in digest, etc.
    >
    >sorry - you *need* to offer much more than that.
    >
    >everyone who is actively producing the very material whereby you pay
    >yourself $47,260 a year needs to be receiving a share of the wealth.

    up until 2 days ago Mark raised all the money himself thru donations
    and voluntary contributions. there is also a board that oversees the
    compensation of full time employees.

    i think you are really barking up the wrong tree. if you don't want
    to share your work and thoughts on rhizome, then don't. of course you
    can attempt to persuade others on this list, but i think your
    argument is fairly flaccid myself.

    a my proposal to the main problem which is lack of true community.

    !!!the members of rhizome should elect the board.!!!
    this would really make the members feel like they have a real say in
    how the org is run.

    of course this may not even be legal by the laws governing
    non-profits in the usa i have no idea.

    >
    >this includes the regional editors, those who write reviews of
    >festivals and shows and artworks, those whose writings are included
    >in the digest...
    >
    >and here's a novel concept :
    >
    >perhaps even the artists - the ones actually producing the stuff
    >that the entire rhizome community supposedly revolves around - could
    >actually see some of that money.
    >
    >perhaps the money collected from the community
    >could actually be put back into the community itself
    >in the form of direct financial support for the artists.

    >
    >perhaps one modest commission a month,
    >or a fee for inclusion in the artbase.
    >
    >... instead of :
    >
    >rhizomes office space, - $10,176
    >rhizomes travel expenses, - $8,049
    >rhizomes office expense, - $8,175
    >rhizomes legal fees, - $25,444
    >etc.
    >
    >
    >your .org has become bloated.

    and what yer proposing leads to more bloat imo, more admin fees, more
    paperwork etc. and with 415 entries to the artbase last year, what
    sort of fee could rhizome pay? lets say they could cut the office
    lease out all together and applied it to the artbase contributions,
    that would be a measly $24.50 per contribution. so to make this fee
    mean anything we would have to cut down on the number of
    contributions by at least 3/4 and get the fee to around 100 bucks.
    then instead of accusing exploitation, you'd accuse elitism.

    if they could somehow reduce the fees above to 0, then we could have
    a $125 fee per artbase submission. i'm sure some of those fees could
    be reduced and are being reduced but to think they could be cut to 0
    is naive.

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Francis Hwang | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    m e t a wrote:

    > you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000
    >
    > alex galloway was paid $36,692 - and he is listed as a part-time employee.
    >
    > http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf
    >
    >
    > i could live more than comfortably off of your salary, mark.

    Not to get personal, m e t a, but where do you live? $47k isn't a
    poverty-level wage, but by NYC standards, it's quite paltry. Especially
    considering the hours Mark has to put in and the overall stress of being the
    executive director of a non-profit. Even with the depressed dot-com economy,
    I know people in this city who are five years younger than Mark and make
    twice as much money. (Hell, I used to be one of them.)

    Francis Hwang
    Director of Technology
    Rhizome.org
    212-989-2363

    + + +
  • Dyske Suematsu | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    I don't mind paying for Rhizome, and in fact I did. But there are obvious
    (at least to me) questions that have never been answered.

    What's wrong with corporate sponsorship?

    Whitney does it, BAM does it, Guggenheim does it. And it works well for
    them. Would I be correct in guessing that Rhizome has a predominantly
    anti-big-business spirit?

    What about the distribution of labor?

    It seems ironic that the organization that endorses digital technology isn't
    taking advantage of one of the greatest aspects of the Internet technology:
    de-centralization of labor. Why couldn't Rhizome be run like the way
    K10K.net is? Their site is just as ambitious as Rhizime is, and no one is
    getting paid for their contributions there, and the site is free for
    everyone. They got Adobe to pay for software and hardware. They got Media
    Temple to provide them free hosting. Beyond that, all the labor is
    voluntary. Everyone has a job. They have no office space or travel expense.
    This is possible because the labor is distributed wide enough that each
    person does not have to do much. This is one of the greatest things about
    the net. Why do you need to have one person dedicated to reviewing all the
    artwork? Why do you need to have one person dedicated to anything for that
    matter. Why couldn't you distribute?

    I'm not exactly sure what part of the site is going to be members-only, but
    depending on it, I have a feeling that the fee could potentially be fatal
    for Rhizome. It's not the amount. It is the friction of the payment
    processing that the majority of people will not go through. I always thought
    Rhizome to be a great resource for anyone who wants to learn about digital
    art, but the membership strategy will limit the audience to the insiders
    only. Rhizome, therefore, will stop functioning as a force to disseminate
    and proliferate the messages of the digital art. This will be very
    unfortunate.

    -Dyske

    --
    Dyske Suematsu
    http://www.dyske.com
    Where Nothing Is Everything
  • clement Thomas | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    as always,
    paying the artists is the last thing to be thought of,
    as always,
    artists are lucky to have such a good promotional vitrine,

    ... et c'est tant mieux ?

    --
    OG

    --+ Whit, Goog, + museums pay the artists they show. +--

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dyske Suematsu" <dyske@dyske.com>
    To: "Francis Hwang" <francis@rhizome.org>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 4:33 PM
    Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: One Day Left

    > I don't mind paying for Rhizome, and in fact I did. But there are obvious
    > (at least to me) questions that have never been answered.
    >
    > What's wrong with corporate sponsorship?
    >
    > Whitney does it, BAM does it, Guggenheim does it. And it works well for
    > them. Would I be correct in guessing that Rhizome has a predominantly
    > anti-big-business spirit?
    >
    > What about the distribution of labor?
    >
    > It seems ironic that the organization that endorses digital technology
    isn't
    > taking advantage of one of the greatest aspects of the Internet
    technology:
    > de-centralization of labor. Why couldn't Rhizome be run like the way
    > K10K.net is? Their site is just as ambitious as Rhizime is, and no one is
    > getting paid for their contributions there, and the site is free for
    > everyone. They got Adobe to pay for software and hardware. They got Media
    > Temple to provide them free hosting. Beyond that, all the labor is
    > voluntary. Everyone has a job. They have no office space or travel
    expense.
    > This is possible because the labor is distributed wide enough that each
    > person does not have to do much. This is one of the greatest things about
    > the net. Why do you need to have one person dedicated to reviewing all the
    > artwork? Why do you need to have one person dedicated to anything for that
    > matter. Why couldn't you distribute?
    >
    > I'm not exactly sure what part of the site is going to be members-only,
    but
    > depending on it, I have a feeling that the fee could potentially be fatal
    > for Rhizome. It's not the amount. It is the friction of the payment
    > processing that the majority of people will not go through. I always
    thought
    > Rhizome to be a great resource for anyone who wants to learn about digital
    > art, but the membership strategy will limit the audience to the insiders
    > only. Rhizome, therefore, will stop functioning as a force to disseminate
    > and proliferate the messages of the digital art. This will be very
    > unfortunate.
    >
    > -Dyske
    >
    > --
    > Dyske Suematsu
    > http://www.dyske.com
    > Where Nothing Is Everything
    >
    >
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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
    >
  • MTAA | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    At 10:33 -0500 1/17/03, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
    >I don't mind paying for Rhizome, and in fact I did. But there are obvious
    >(at least to me) questions that have never been answered.
    >
    >What's wrong with corporate sponsorship?
    >
    >Whitney does it, BAM does it, Guggenheim does it. And it works well for
    >them. Would I be correct in guessing that Rhizome has a predominantly
    >anti-big-business spirit?
    >
    >What about the distribution of labor?

    dyske is right. there could be a much more wider distribution of the
    labor. i think rhizome may be afraid that if they go in this
    distributed route that it might wipe out the institutional grants and
    funding they've been receiving. many sites are run this way (all
    slash code sites are, k5, etc) and i think rhizome is moving this way
    but it's not happening fast enough imo.

    also, rhizome wants to be more than a web hub for new media art. they
    have their commissions, they sponsor events, and generally act as the
    face of new media to the art world at large.

    >
    >It seems ironic that the organization that endorses digital technology isn't
    >taking advantage of one of the greatest aspects of the Internet technology:
    >de-centralization of labor. Why couldn't Rhizome be run like the way
    >K10K.net is? Their site is just as ambitious as Rhizime is, and no one is
    >getting paid for their contributions there, and the site is free for
    >everyone. They got Adobe to pay for software and hardware. They got Media
    >Temple to provide them free hosting. Beyond that, all the labor is
    >voluntary. Everyone has a job. They have no office space or travel expense.
    >This is possible because the labor is distributed wide enough that each
    >person does not have to do much. This is one of the greatest things about
    >the net. Why do you need to have one person dedicated to reviewing all the
    >artwork? Why do you need to have one person dedicated to anything for that
    >matter. Why couldn't you distribute?
    >
    >I'm not exactly sure what part of the site is going to be members-only, but
    >depending on it, I have a feeling that the fee could potentially be fatal
    >for Rhizome. It's not the amount. It is the friction of the payment
    >processing that the majority of people will not go through. I always thought
    >Rhizome to be a great resource for anyone who wants to learn about digital
    >art, but the membership strategy will limit the audience to the insiders
    >only. Rhizome, therefore, will stop functioning as a force to disseminate
    >and proliferate the messages of the digital art. This will be very
    >unfortunate.
    >
    >-Dyske
    >
    >--
    >Dyske Suematsu
    >http://www.dyske.com
    >Where Nothing Is Everything

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • marc garrett | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    Hi Meta & Mark,

    'Hark I hear a cheap swipe...woe is me when one tries to kill thy father'.

    People are so mean about other people who are bothering to do things that
    are kool. Why is that?

    I worked for an organization in the East End of London with Ruth Catlow.
    In that time we managed to get more studios built, studio rents as the
    lowest
    in London for over 80 artists. We sorted out a
  • Ivan Pope | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: t.whid <twhid@mteww.com>
    >
    > a my proposal to the main problem which is lack of true community.
    >
    > !!!the members of rhizome should elect the board.!!!
    > this would really make the members feel like they have a real say in
    > how the org is run.

    Now that I like!
    Ivan
  • marie eric | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "clement Thomas" <ctgr@free.fr>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:14 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: One Day Left

    > as always,
    > paying the artists is the last thing to be thought of,
    > as always,
    > artists are lucky to have such a good promotional vitrine,
    >
    > ... et c'est tant mieux ?

    ==> mouarf
  • meta am | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    to restate :

    i am not against mark or alex or other rhizome staff being paid,

    i am not against paying $5,
    (the amount is trivial.
    i personally would charge & be comfortable paying 3 times that amount.)

    what i am objecting to, is a pattern
    that is unfortunately quite common :

    the administrative & executive staff are being paid
    while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.

    as long as this basic inequity exists,
    i will not be paying anything for rhizome.

    the situation is unfair.

    //m
    127.0.0.1

    http://meta.am/
    216.71.65.73
  • marc garrett | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    mmmm...

    Now you're talking...

    marc

    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: t.whid <twhid@mteww.com>
    > >
    > > a my proposal to the main problem which is lack of true community.
    > >
    > > !!!the members of rhizome should elect the board.!!!
    > > this would really make the members feel like they have a real say in
    > > how the org is run.
    >
    > Now that I like!
    > Ivan
    >
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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
    >
  • Ivan Pope | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    > From: m e t a <meta@meta.am>

    > what i am objecting to, is a pattern
    > that is unfortunately quite common :
    >
    > the administrative & executive staff are being paid
    > while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.

    You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we all want to change the
    world.

    Which of these are true:
    a) the Rhizome staff could raise enough money to pay all the artists, but
    they wont because they are lazy
    b) the Rhizome staff did raise enough money to pay all the artists, but they
    stashed it in Bermuda because they are rapacious con merchants
    c) the Rhizome staff would love to raise enough money to commission all the
    artists at the same time, but they are old enough to know this is unlikely
    d) the Rhizome staff do count their blessings that for the last few years
    they have been able to earn a crust from a project that is both hard work
    and hugely satisfying and they will find it hard to go back to slaving for
    some capitalist pigs if it all goes down the drain

    If the world wasnt a strange unfair place there would be nothing for artists
    to do. If things like Rhizome could pay the creatives, what a fat arsed art
    world it would be.

    Cheers, Ivan

    --
    Ivan Pope
    ivan@ivanpope.com

    http://www.ivanpope.com
    http://www.tochki-inc.com

    "Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death"
    Hunter S. Thompson
  • marc garrett | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    OK

    > the administrative & executive staff are being paid
    > while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.

    So what kind of system do you think should be put in place to pay artists
    featured or cloned (their work that is not them) , say if the Lawyers fees
    were scrapped?

    marc

    >
    >
    > to restate :
    >
    > i am not against mark or alex or other rhizome staff being paid,
    >
    > i am not against paying $5,
    > (the amount is trivial.
    > i personally would charge & be comfortable paying 3 times that amount.)
    >
    > what i am objecting to, is a pattern
    > that is unfortunately quite common :
    >
    > the administrative & executive staff are being paid
    > while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.
    >
    >
    > as long as this basic inequity exists,
    > i will not be paying anything for rhizome.
    >
    > the situation is unfair.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > //m
    > 127.0.0.1
    >
    > http://meta.am/
    > 216.71.65.73
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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 | Fri Jan 17th 2003 1 a.m.
    Ivan Pope wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >c) the Rhizome staff would love to raise enough money to commission all the
    >artists at the same time, but they are old enough to know this is unlikely
    >
    >

    A piss poor excuse. I want idealistic institutions.

    -e.

    >
    >
  • Mark Tribe | Sat Jan 18th 2003 1 a.m.
    Hi Dyske:

    You raise some good points and ask some excellent questions. Forgive me if
    my responses go on a bit.

    At 10:33 AM 1/17/2003 -0500, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
    >I don't mind paying for Rhizome, and in fact I did. But there are obvious
    >(at least to me) questions that have never been answered.
    >
    >What's wrong with corporate sponsorship?
    >
    >Whitney does it, BAM does it, Guggenheim does it. And it works well for
    >them. Would I be correct in guessing that Rhizome has a predominantly
    >anti-big-business spirit?

    I suppose I have a somewhat anti-big-business spirit, and that many if not
    most Rhizome members have a similar attitude. But I don't think this
    attitude has much to do with our lack of corporate support. We received
    some corporate support in 1999 and 2000 from Absolut and Altoids. But those
    were exceptional: the Absolut money came through a competition--Absolut
    Angel--and functioned more like a grant. The Altoids sponsorship happened
    when we were doing events at The Kitchen in NYC and had a lot to do with
    the venue.

    Other than Absolut and Altoids, our attempts to attract corporate sponsors
    have been unsuccessful. I'm not sure how much of this has to do with the
    slow economy and how much of it has to do with the fact that corporations
    have a hard time seeing the value in sponsoring an organization like
    Rhizome whose programs are mostly online. I think they would see it as a
    form of online advertizing, and that market is still pretty depressed.
    Corporations seem to be more interested in sponsoring established museums
    (where they can put their name on the wall) and performing arts
    organizations (where they can put their name in the program). They also
    seem to be most comfortable with either established art forms or
    established organizations. A new organization that supports a new art form
    is a pretty hard sell. Because we've had more success with Foundations,
    government agencies and individuals, that's where we've focused our
    energies. Perhaps it is time for us to try again with corporate sponsors.

    >What about the distribution of labor?
    >
    >It seems ironic that the organization that endorses digital technology isn't
    >taking advantage of one of the greatest aspects of the Internet technology:
    >de-centralization of labor. Why couldn't Rhizome be run like the way
    >K10K.net is? Their site is just as ambitious as Rhizime is, and no one is
    >getting paid for their contributions there, and the site is free for
    >everyone. They got Adobe to pay for software and hardware. They got Media
    >Temple to provide them free hosting. Beyond that, all the labor is
    >voluntary. Everyone has a job. They have no office space or travel expense.
    >This is possible because the labor is distributed wide enough that each
    >person does not have to do much. This is one of the greatest things about
    >the net. Why do you need to have one person dedicated to reviewing all the
    >artwork? Why do you need to have one person dedicated to anything for that
    >matter. Why couldn't you distribute?

    I love K10K.net. But Rhizome.org and K10K.net are very different creatures.
    K10K is a design zine, more-or-less. They are based in Denmark, I think. As
    a Denmark-based web design zine, their ability to get corporate sponsorship
    is pretty different from ours (both because they are about design, not art,
    and because they are in Denmark). In my experience, European and
    Scandinavian corporations, and even European and Scandinavian subsidiaries
    of American corporations, are much more open to sponsoring new media and
    online projects. Look, for example, at Ars Electronica.

    I'm not going to argue that the Rhizome.org web site is more or less
    ambitious than K10K. K10K is amazing. It has great content, kewl design and
    a dilirously funny FAQ. But Rhizome.org has a very different range of
    programs, including:

    + Four email lists (Raw, Rare, Digest and Net Art News) and their web-based
    equivalents.

    + Archives of texts (TextBase) and new media art works (ArtBase) that have
    been methodically indexed with keywords and other metadata--I think these
    may be the largest archives of their kind in existence today. Hopefully we
    will have a better search engine soon so these archive will be more
    accessible. We also participate actively in CIAO, the Variable Media
    Network, and other consortia and inititatives concerned with the archiving
    and preservation of new media art, and are actively involved in helping to
    set standards for the archiving and preservation of new media art (see our
    recently published report at http://rhizome.org/artbase/report.htm). We see
    this kind of advocacy, as well as a committment to preserving the work in
    our archives for the long term, as important aspects of our service to the
    field.

    + A new media art commissioning program in which we give money to artists
    to make new work.

    + The Calendar, Opportunity Listings and Community Directory: these don't
    take much effort to run now that they are set up, but we hope to improve them.

    + Face-to-face events at various venues (museums, clubs, bars, schools)
    around the world.

    + Web Hosting and Online Education (both through partnerships, but these
    still take time to manage).

    We also have several other new programs in the works, including Grok, a
    traveling arcade-style game console that will make new media art accessible
    to disadvantaged youth and others at non-traditional venues around the US,
    and Rhizome Latino, a Spanish-language version of Rhizome.org.

    The question of operating in a more distributed manner came up during the
    initial discussion around membership fees back in November. The short
    answer is that I don't think it would work for us. Or rather that it could
    work, but it would mean radically scalaing back both our current programs
    and our ambitions for the future. We (meaning the staff and board)
    seriously considered shutting down the office, laying off the staff and
    going into a kind of hibernation mode in which we would keep most of the
    web site going but terminated all the other programs and activities. But we
    decided instead to try to keep Rhizome going in its current form so we can
    continue to grow and build on what we have thus far accomplished. A
    physical office and a small core staff are necessary in order to function
    as a nonprofit organization supported primarily by grants and individuals,
    in order to sustain a high level of professionalism in our programs and
    activities, in order to serve as advocates for new media art, etc. If our
    current gambit to achieve financial stability through member contributions
    fails, we could always fall back to a more distributed approach.

    >I'm not exactly sure what part of the site is going to be members-only, but
    >depending on it, I have a feeling that the fee could potentially be fatal
    >for Rhizome. It's not the amount. It is the friction of the payment
    >processing that the majority of people will not go through.

    Good point about the hassle factor vs. the amount.

    >I always thought
    >Rhizome to be a great resource for anyone who wants to learn about digital
    >art, but the membership strategy will limit the audience to the insiders
    >only. Rhizome, therefore, will stop functioning as a force to disseminate
    >and proliferate the messages of the digital art. This will be very
    >unfortunate.

    Well, the home page will continue to be free, as will Net Art News. And the
    whole thing will be free on Fridays.

    Best,

    Mark
  • Mark Tribe | Sat Jan 18th 2003 1 a.m.
    At 12:30 AM 1/17/2003 -0800, m e t a wrote:
    >At 9:32 AM -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a nonprofit
    > organization. nobody is getting rich.
    >
    >'survival' & 'rich' are relative terms.

    agreed. but when i talk about survival, i mean rhizome's survival, not my own.

    >you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000
    >
    >alex galloway was paid $36,692 - and he is listed as a part-time employee.
    >
    >http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf
    >
    >
    >i could live more than comfortably off of your salary, mark.

    i realize that these salaries could seem high, especially to people from
    places where wages and costs of living are lower. but our salaries are
    actually about average for nonprofit arts organization of our size in new
    york city. we could move to a cheaper location, of course, but our access
    to government and foundation funding is much better in new york than it
    would be elsewhere. and there are other benefits to being in new york as
    well, so all in all i think it makes sense for us to stay.

    > >that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should* offer
    > free memberships to those whose work is included in the artbase, in
    > digest, etc.
    >
    >sorry - you *need* to offer much more than that.
    >
    >everyone who is actively producing the very material whereby you pay
    >yourself $47,260 a year needs to be receiving a share of the wealth.
    >
    >this includes the regional editors, those who write reviews of festivals
    >and shows and artworks, those whose writings are included in the digest...
    >
    >and here's a novel concept :
    >
    >perhaps even the artists - the ones actually producing the stuff that the
    >entire rhizome community supposedly revolves around - could actually see
    >some of that money.

    they do, through our commissioning program.

    >perhaps the money collected from the community
    >could actually be put back into the community itself
    >in the form of direct financial support for the artists.

    last year, we gave $20,000 to five artists through our commissioning
    program. this year, we hope to give more (depends on funding).

    >perhaps one modest commission a month,
    >or a fee for inclusion in the artbase.
    >
    >... instead of :
    >
    >rhizomes office space, - $10,176
    >rhizomes travel expenses, - $8,049
    >rhizomes office expense, - $8,175
    >rhizomes legal fees, - $25,444
    >etc.
    >
    >your .org has become bloated.

    as others on this list can attest, our operating expenses are in fact
    rather low for a nonprofit arts organization based in new york or similar city.

    >you have a number of things generating considerable expense
    >that are providing little or no benefit to the majority of the list members.

    perhaps. you seem to have some pretty clear ideas about how an organization
    like rhizome should be run. maybe you should start one yourself!

    >in addition - you are asking for us to pay for them
    >while providing no financial support for those generating the very content
    >that IS of benefit to the majority of the list members.
    >
    >that is not survival, it is exploitation.
    >sorry - before you receive a dime from me,
    >i need to know that my money is going to be spent much more wisely
    >and distributed much more fairly.

    i think your expectations and assumptions are unrealistic.

    > >i'd be curious to hear from others on this. feel free to email me
    > directly if your membership gets suspended.
    >
    >cute.
    >
    >
    >
    >//m
    >127.0.0.1
    >
    >http://meta.am/
    >216.71.65.73
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    >-> 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
  • Mark Tribe | Sat Jan 18th 2003 1 a.m.
    At 09:48 AM 1/17/2003 -0500, t.whid wrote:
    >my proposal to the main problem which is lack of true community.
    >
    >!!!the members of rhizome should elect the board.!!!

    i agree that the members should have at least one elected representative on
    the board.

    >this would really make the members feel like they have a real say in how
    >the org is run.

    agreed.

    >of course this may not even be legal by the laws governing non-profits in
    >the usa i have no idea.

    i'm not sure how it would work legally, but i'm sure it could be done. i'll
    bring this up with the board at the next meeting.
  • Mark Tribe | Sat Jan 18th 2003 1 a.m.
    At 11:27 PM 1/17/2003 +0000, marc.garrett wrote:
    >OK
    >
    > > the administrative & executive staff are being paid
    > > while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.
    >
    >So what kind of system do you think should be put in place to pay artists
    >featured or cloned (their work that is not them) , say if the Lawyers fees
    >were scrapped?

    by the way, all of our legal fees are provided *pro bono* as in-kind
    support, i.e. for free. we record them as expenses on our financial
    statements in accordance with standard nonprofit accounting procedures. our
    volunteer lawyers are sean o'connor, a professor at the university of
    washington school of law, and jeffrey cunard, a partner at the law firm of
    debevoise and plimpton. they are both on the rhizome board of directors.

    >marc
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > to restate :
    > >
    > > i am not against mark or alex or other rhizome staff being paid,
    > >
    > > i am not against paying $5,
    > > (the amount is trivial.
    > > i personally would charge & be comfortable paying 3 times that amount.)
    > >
    > > what i am objecting to, is a pattern
    > > that is unfortunately quite common :
    > >
    > > the administrative & executive staff are being paid
    > > while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.
    > >
    > >
    > > as long as this basic inequity exists,
    > > i will not be paying anything for rhizome.
    > >
    > > the situation is unfair.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > //m
    > > 127.0.0.1
    > >
    > > http://meta.am/
    > > 216.71.65.73
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > > -> 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
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    >-> 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
Your Reply