The scope of the ArtBase was expanded in March of 2002 to include forms of
new media art (including software art, computer games, and documentation of
new media performance and installation), which had previously been excluded
from the archive.
This new policy was adopted in order to allow room for work of potential
historical significance which at one time may not have met our selection
criteria because it was not networked--even though this work was in most
cases as sophisticated as the networked projects in the archive.
Joe Zane's recent submissions were accepted into the ArtBase as new media
art, with the information provided on his website serving to document the
> Jon Davey wrote:
>> So even if someone sets up some monitors with nice
>> coulors on them in a gallery space and posts an mpeg
>> of that instillation to their web space it's a solution....
>> of sorts....maybe....
> It's his solution, but is it his art? IMHO, a web site that contains
> only pictures and videos can certainly be considered net-based art. In
> the case of the Joe Zane work, however, the web pages in question appear
> to present themselves explicitly as *documentation* of works of art, not
> as works of art in themselves.
> Plenty of art is documentation of other art, of course. But with the
> works in question, it doesn't seem like that is his intention. He
> doesn't seem to want us to consider these web sites to be art works in
> themselves. Even the Rhizome artbase pages describe the actual
> sculptures, not the sites-about-the-sculptures. If he *does* intend
> these little pop-up windows and quicktime movies (which by the way crash
> my browser) to be stand-alone art objects, then to me they are a bit
> disappointing. The sculptures are much more interesting, but I don't see
> how they could/should fit into Rhizome's domain, which I thought was
> about net-based art. Even under a broad definition of net-based art,
> sculptures that don't have network connections clearly do not belong.
> Note that this is not in any way perjorative to Joe Zane's work!! Gary
> Hill and Bill Viola don't belong in Rhizome either, but I love their
> tehnology-based installations. A good deal of the technology-based
> sculptural works of John Simon, the McCoys, Perry Hoberman, Keith Tyson,
> Julia Scher, etc (people who work on both net.art and realworld.art)
> also don't belong in Rhizome. Rhizome needs to focus on it's net.art
> mission if the collection is to be meaningful, useful, and/or
> historically important.
> [christopher eli fahey]
> art: http://www.graphpaper.com
> sci: http://www.askrom.com
> biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
> -> questions: email@example.com
> -> 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