I found this mail really quite mean and depressing.
There is always the problem of active, vibrant and timely activity, evolving institutions which then become focussed on the preservations of their own systems and key
players, rather than the relevance and usefullness of their activities. Look at many of our established institutions. From what I've read, it seems that Rhizome may be
approaching this point, but let's give it a chance and some encouragement to evolve in the direction that benefits its members. It may be time for a change of approach
but what is to be accomplished by attacking the people that got it this far? It's not as though our lives depend on it after all.
From my perspective, the fact that Mark and Alex have paid themselves a living wage (so that they can 'live comfortably') is absolutely fair enough. Would you prefer that
they were being paid huge amounts of money by corporate companies to do something socially destructive. The other running cost figures that you quoted, represent to me
evidence of reasonable and efficient organisation. I know that various educational institutions in the UK spend this kind of money on angle poise lamps and paper clips.
At $5 a year, Rhizome, with all its problems, is fantastically good value for money and I don't believe that that anyone who has had access Rhizome through the
internet, either from home, workplace or college is unable to afford the price of 2 pints of beer, once a year.
Of all the things to expend energy complaining about.......!.......!
mean, mean, mean
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.
> 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
> 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.
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: email@example.com
> -> questions: firstname.lastname@example.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