Steve Dietz Out at Walker Art Center

Posted by MTAA | Thu May 8th 2003 8:56 p.m.

fwd w/out permission.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Murphy <murphy@thing.net>
>
>> Walker Art Center announced the layoffs of 5 percent of its staff
>> Wednesday
>> afternoon, becoming the latest local arts organization forced to
>> downsize in
>> difficult economic times.
>> The Minneapolis museum said it would lay off seven members of its
>> staff of 149
>> full- and part-time workers. The cuts came at all levels and included
>> Steve
>> Dietz, the center's director of New Media Initiatives. The Walker was
>> one of
>> the first art centers in the country to have a curatorial position in
>> the
>> nascent artistic field of new media.
>
> http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/entertainment/5809781.htm
>
>
>
> Part of the problem is that the article calls new media a "nascent
> artistic
> field". That's a pretty old baby -- 40, maybe 50 years old? I would
> date its
> inception from the founding of the concept of Cybernetics. Perhaps the
> real
> problem is that the Walker had invested its endowment in "new media
> stock"
> and took a bath and so took revenge. I would think with such grand
> building
> plans they would pay someone like Dietz to stick around and advise
> them on
> how to incorporate new media forms into the construction of the
> building.
>
> murph
> offshore|online
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> t h i n g i s t
> message by Murphy <murphy@thing.net>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
  • Pall Thayer | Thu May 8th 2003 9:18 p.m.
    It's the beginning of the end...

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 11:54 PM
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Steve Dietz Out at Walker Art Center

    > fwd w/out permission.
    >
    > Begin forwarded message:
    >
    > > From: Murphy <murphy@thing.net>
    > >
    > >> Walker Art Center announced the layoffs of 5 percent of its staff
    > >> Wednesday
    > >> afternoon, becoming the latest local arts organization forced to
    > >> downsize in
    > >> difficult economic times.
    > >> The Minneapolis museum said it would lay off seven members of its
    > >> staff of 149
    > >> full- and part-time workers. The cuts came at all levels and included
    > >> Steve
    > >> Dietz, the center's director of New Media Initiatives. The Walker was
    > >> one of
    > >> the first art centers in the country to have a curatorial position in
    > >> the
    > >> nascent artistic field of new media.
    > >
    > > http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/entertainment/5809781.htm
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Part of the problem is that the article calls new media a "nascent
    > > artistic
    > > field". That's a pretty old baby -- 40, maybe 50 years old? I would
    > > date its
    > > inception from the founding of the concept of Cybernetics. Perhaps the
    > > real
    > > problem is that the Walker had invested its endowment in "new media
    > > stock"
    > > and took a bath and so took revenge. I would think with such grand
    > > building
    > > plans they would pay someone like Dietz to stick around and advise
    > > them on
    > > how to incorporate new media forms into the construction of the
    > > building.
    > >
    > > murph
    > > offshore|online
    > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > t h i n g i s t
    > > message by Murphy <murphy@thing.net>
    > > archive at http://bbs.thing.net
    > > info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
    > > and write "info thingist" in the message body
    > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >
    > >
    > --
    > <t.whid>
    > www.mteww.com
    > </t.whid>
    >
    > + 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
  • Rachel Greene | Fri May 9th 2003 12:05 p.m.
    Well, I know art orgs are suffering, but Steve was doing such interesting,
    varied work -- for a long time. Totally sucks!! Steve was really one of the
    first museum curators who was a pillar of net art culture. I hope he can
    keep up some of his projects as an independent, or maybe he'll hop to
    another institution....

    > It's the beginning of the end...
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 11:54 PM
    > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Steve Dietz Out at Walker Art Center
    >
    >
    >> fwd w/out permission.
    >>
    >> Begin forwarded message:
    >>
    >>> From: Murphy <murphy@thing.net>
    >>>
    >>>> Walker Art Center announced the layoffs of 5 percent of its staff
    >>>> Wednesday
    >>>> afternoon, becoming the latest local arts organization forced to
    >>>> downsize in
    >>>> difficult economic times.
    >>>> The Minneapolis museum said it would lay off seven members of its
    >>>> staff of 149
    >>>> full- and part-time workers. The cuts came at all levels and included
    >>>> Steve
    >>>> Dietz, the center's director of New Media Initiatives. The Walker was
    >>>> one of
    >>>> the first art centers in the country to have a curatorial position in
    >>>> the
    >>>> nascent artistic field of new media.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/entertainment/5809781.htm
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Part of the problem is that the article calls new media a "nascent
    >>> artistic
    >>> field". That's a pretty old baby -- 40, maybe 50 years old? I would
    >>> date its
    >>> inception from the founding of the concept of Cybernetics. Perhaps the
    >>> real
    >>> problem is that the Walker had invested its endowment in "new media
    >>> stock"
    >>> and took a bath and so took revenge. I would think with such grand
    >>> building
    >>> plans they would pay someone like Dietz to stick around and advise
    >>> them on
    >>> how to incorporate new media forms into the construction of the
    >>> building.
    >>>
    >>> murph
    >>> offshore|online
    >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>> t h i n g i s t
    >>> message by Murphy <murphy@thing.net>
    >>> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
    >>> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
    >>> and write "info thingist" in the message body
    >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>
    >>>
    >> --
    >> <t.whid>
    >> www.mteww.com
    >> </t.whid>
    >>
    >> + 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
  • Mark Tribe | Sat May 10th 2003 1:20 p.m.
    This is a real loss for the Walker and for the field. Steve did terrific
    work. Interesting to note that Jon Ippolito (Guggenheim) and Benjamin Weil
    (SFMOMA) have both transitioned from full-time to part-time in the past
    year or so. Taken together, these three changes represent a major reduction
    in the commitment of American museums to new media art. I may be forgetting
    someone, but I think no American museum now has a full-time new media art
    curator. This comes as no surprise--during tough economic times,
    institutions focus on their core activities. It will be interesting to see
    what happens as the economy recovers.

    At 11:06 AM 5/9/2003 -0400, Rachel Greene wrote:
    >Well, I know art orgs are suffering, but Steve was doing such interesting,
    >varied work -- for a long time. Totally sucks!! Steve was really one of the
    >first museum curators who was a pillar of net art culture. I hope he can
    >keep up some of his projects as an independent, or maybe he'll hop to
    >another institution....
    >
    > > It's the beginning of the end...
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    > > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 11:54 PM
    > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Steve Dietz Out at Walker Art Center
    > >
    > >
    > >> fwd w/out permission.
    > >>
    > >> Begin forwarded message:
    > >>
    > >>> From: Murphy <murphy@thing.net>
    > >>>
    > >>>> Walker Art Center announced the layoffs of 5 percent of its staff
    > >>>> Wednesday
    > >>>> afternoon, becoming the latest local arts organization forced to
    > >>>> downsize in
    > >>>> difficult economic times.
    > >>>> The Minneapolis museum said it would lay off seven members of its
    > >>>> staff of 149
    > >>>> full- and part-time workers. The cuts came at all levels and included
    > >>>> Steve
    > >>>> Dietz, the center's director of New Media Initiatives. The Walker was
    > >>>> one of
    > >>>> the first art centers in the country to have a curatorial position in
    > >>>> the
    > >>>> nascent artistic field of new media.
    > >>>
    > >>> http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/entertainment/5809781.htm
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Part of the problem is that the article calls new media a "nascent
    > >>> artistic
    > >>> field". That's a pretty old baby -- 40, maybe 50 years old? I would
    > >>> date its
    > >>> inception from the founding of the concept of Cybernetics. Perhaps the
    > >>> real
    > >>> problem is that the Walker had invested its endowment in "new media
    > >>> stock"
    > >>> and took a bath and so took revenge. I would think with such grand
    > >>> building
    > >>> plans they would pay someone like Dietz to stick around and advise
    > >>> them on
    > >>> how to incorporate new media forms into the construction of the
    > >>> building.
    > >>>
    > >>> murph
    > >>> offshore|online
    > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >>> t h i n g i s t
    > >>> message by Murphy <murphy@thing.net>
    > >>> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
    > >>> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
    > >>> and write "info thingist" in the message body
    > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >> --
    > >> <t.whid>
    > >> www.mteww.com
    > >> </t.whid>
    > >>
    > >> + 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
    >
    >+ 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 | Sat May 10th 2003 2:53 p.m.
    On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 12:16 PM, Mark Tribe wrote:

    > This is a real loss for the Walker and for the field. Steve did
    > terrific work. Interesting to note that Jon Ippolito (Guggenheim) and
    > Benjamin Weil (SFMOMA) have both transitioned from full-time to
    > part-time in the past year or so. Taken together, these three changes
    > represent a major reduction in the commitment of American museums to
    > new media art. I may be forgetting someone, but I think no American
    > museum now has a full-time new media art curator. This comes as no
    > surprise--during tough economic times, institutions focus on their
    > core activities. It will be interesting to see what happens as the
    > economy recovers.

    perhaps not 'when', but 'if' the economy recovers. hhhmmm, i wonder...
    new media curators as the canary in the coal mine of US culture?

    Japan has been in bad times for, what? almost 10 years now. the way
    king george is running things we could see an economically and
    emotionally depressed US populace whipped into fear by the republican's
    machinations to hold onto power. politicians colluding with last
    century businesses like bechtel and halliburton could strangle
    innovation; gray times that could last for years.

    but then, i guess new media curators in the american art institutions
    will be low on our priority list at that point :-)

    >
    > At 11:06 AM 5/9/2003 -0400, Rachel Greene wrote:
    >> Well, I know art orgs are suffering, but Steve was doing such
    >> interesting,
    >> varied work -- for a long time. Totally sucks!! Steve was really one
    >> of the
    >> first museum curators who was a pillar of net art culture. I hope he
    >> can
    >> keep up some of his projects as an independent, or maybe he'll hop to
    >> another institution....
    --
    <t.whid>
    www.mteww.com
    </t.whid>
  • MTAA | Mon May 12th 2003 10:53 a.m.
    I'm not sure who I'm replying to, so I'm not quoting anyone and I'll
    assume everyone's kept up with this thread.

    I'm all for a letter or petition. The admin may have no clue how many
    people are out 'here' who support this medium. We need to build a web
    site for people to sign-up on, names, addresses, etc can simply be
    written to a file on a server (no need for a db), then we need to
    hard copy it to the Walker admin. They need to understand that there
    are lots of people out in the world who are advocates for this field
    at the very least.

    If Sarah writes the letter, I'll build the web site for the sign-up
    and we can coordinate from there.

    ++

    Beyond that, we do need to find the silver-lining. We've lost
    curators and advocates over the past couple of years, but in america
    we've gained an institution, Eyebeam. The closed nature of such
    museum-like institutions can be very frustrating, it's true, but
    they've been doing some decent work over there so far.

    ++
    The funny thing about the work possibly being lost from the Walker
    servers is that rhizome had set-up a system where they would archive
    work... the artbase clone feature, do they clone any longer? and
    people were angry that rhizome didn't pay them for the privilege of
    archiving their work. If any other sort of grassroots org or Eyebeam
    offered this service, would people take advantage of it? Or would
    they complain that this org was 'stealing' their work? 'using' them
    for the org admin's advantage?

    it would be nice if someone, The Thing or Rhizome, could organize a
    huge archive of the web/internet work, Rhizome tried and people
    bitched and moaned about it. Perhaps it was the way Rhiz went about
    it?

    So maybe a new grassroots org could rise to handle just archiving,
    storing work. It ain't cheap, the disk space, bandwidth, searchable
    index, interface development might cost you more than 5 bucks a year.
    Rhizome has all of this going on already of course, but they don't
    push the cloned art objects much anymore, people didn't want to
    'give' away their files.
    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • dgs | Mon May 12th 2003 12:19 p.m.
    > people are out 'here' who support this medium. We
    > need to build a web
    > site for people to sign-up on, names, addresses, etc
    > can simply be
    > written to a file on a server (no need for a db),
    > then we need to
    > hard copy it to the Walker admin.

    i'm not so pro for hard copy i prefer gif, but ztatic
    one, zen after send it to digital fair with ozer non
    linkgif..ze fuck i forget ze name..bobig ? what is ze
    fucking name of zis wait a minute damien hirzchzl
    formaline net art exhibition nobody understnad then
    itz great as a parzec kheopz..ekzept murph only me
    follow in zis fucking netart, but rob follow with 2
    billion year late, that standing stone all, but it'z
    due to his bigbenbell he has as chaos the very virst
    rattleznake

    They need to
    > understand that there
    > are lots of people out in the world who are
    > advocates for this field
    > at the very least.
    >
    > If Sarah writes the letter, I'll build the web site
    > for the sign-up
    > and we can coordinate from there.
    >
    > ++
    >
    > Beyond that, we do need to find the silver-lining.
    > We've lost
    > curators and advocates over the past couple of
    > years, but in america
    > we've gained an institution, Eyebeam. The closed
    > nature of such
    > museum-like institutions can be very frustrating,
    > it's true, but
    > they've been doing some decent work over there so
    > far.
    >
    > ++
    > The funny thing about the work possibly being lost
    > from the Walker
    > servers is that rhizome had set-up a system where
    > they would archive
    > work... the artbase clone feature, do they clone any
    > longer? and
    > people were angry that rhizome didn't pay them for
    > the privilege of
    > archiving their work. If any other sort of
    > grassroots org or Eyebeam
    > offered this service, would people take advantage of
    > it? Or would
    > they complain that this org was 'stealing' their
    > work? 'using' them
    > for the org admin's advantage?
    >
    > it would be nice if someone, The Thing or Rhizome,
    > could organize a
    > huge archive of the web/internet work, Rhizome tried
    > and people
    > bitched and moaned about it. Perhaps it was the way
    > Rhiz went about
    > it?
    >
    > So maybe a new grassroots org could rise to handle
    > just archiving,
    > storing work. It ain't cheap, the disk space,
    > bandwidth, searchable
    > index, interface development might cost you more
    > than 5 bucks a year.
    > Rhizome has all of this going on already of course,
    > but they don't
    > push the cloned art objects much anymore, people
    > didn't want to
    > 'give' away their files.
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
    >
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > t h i n g i s t
    > message by "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    > archive at http://bbs.thing.net
    > info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
    > and write "info thingist" in the message body
    >
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    ___________________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en francais !
    Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Mon May 12th 2003 1:38 p.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>

    > The funny thing about the work possibly being lost from the Walker
    > servers is that rhizome had set-up a system where they would archive
    > work... the artbase clone feature, do they clone any longer? and
    > people were angry that rhizome didn't pay them for the privilege of
    > archiving their work. If any other sort of grassroots org or Eyebeam
    > offered this service, would people take advantage of it? Or would
    > they complain that this org was 'stealing' their work? 'using' them
    > for the org admin's advantage?

    Well it is important to note that this binary exists because both needs are
    rightfully expected to be met. I don't know how many people objected to
    having thier work included in the artbase, the index of that thing is
    massive and far too inclusive for its own good and overall sustainability.
    The problem is that Rhizome has a reputation for being Rhizome first and art
    second, a reputation that they have repeatedly failed to address to my
    satisfaction. [I would also say that the shift to the five dollar enrollment
    fee was not a problem in and of itself, but came at a time when there was a
    marked shift between rhizome as "grassroots org" and rhizome as
    "institution."]

    The archive is clearly not stealing anyones work, but let's be honest,
    Rhizome benefits from having and maintaining the archive whereas artists can
    simply make back up cds and keep the sites up independantly if they wanted
    to. The proof of this is the ratio of cloned objects compared to linked
    objects- almost nothing is cloned. [The one piece I personally gave to the
    artbase is cloned.]

    > it would be nice if someone, The Thing or Rhizome, could organize a
    > huge archive of the web/internet work, Rhizome tried and people
    > bitched and moaned about it. Perhaps it was the way Rhiz went about
    > it?

    I think a lot of people took advantage of it [look at a list of artists in
    the art base] but some legitimate questions were raised concerning
    precedents and artists rights. I think another element of the backlash
    against rhizome is the fact that they were in a position to set multiple
    precedents and failed to utilize that opportunity despite promoting
    themselves to the contrary, sort of a new media Al Gore. Had rhizome set up
    a five dollar a month user fee from the beginning for admittance to the
    artbase and provided some kind of split between the artists in the artbase
    and rhizome itself [and had been less inclusive of every website that had
    the word "art" on it] it may have been able to succesfully provide a *model*
    for revenue streams. Even if that stream was ridiculously small, which it
    would have been, it could have been a step in the right direction that
    spawned other institutions to try that model. It's not like charging
    admittance to an art museum is a radical concept. Granted, a lot of stuff
    sucks about this model, but it's better than paying exorbinant server and hd
    costs for an archive that doesn't really even benefit the artist.

    Rhizome also has a problem with truly archiving work in that the archive is
    not immune to browser changes, a problem that has been brought up when they
    opened the artbase but never really acted on. While they added more than one
    piece a day to the archive last year, the principal strategy seems to be
    "emulation" which is, they will re-write the code to work for new browsers.
    At this rate by 2010 they will have something like 5000 archived pieces of
    art in the artbase. Why they would prefer to hire a coder to "restore" these
    pieces to work with new browsers [destroying the integrity of the original
    work] as opposed to simply running a simultaneous "browser museum" is
    anyone's guess.

    I feel like if rhizome was serious about the artbase they would have
    addressed these issues by now, but they seem to overcome that by simply
    allowing for a massive rate of expansion, and whether rhizome will last
    until 2010 is still up in the air. I personally doubt it survives 2004. What
    happens to the archive then?

    -e.
  • Mark Tribe | Mon May 12th 2003 2:30 p.m.
    At 09:46 AM 5/12/2003 -0400, t.whid wrote:

    <snip>

    >The funny thing about the work possibly being lost from the Walker servers
    >is that rhizome had set-up a system where they would archive work... the
    >artbase clone feature, do they clone any longer?

    yup: http://rhizome.org/artbase

    as of may 1, the artbase had 984 art works. not sure how many are cloned
    vs. linked. in the case of linked art works, the artist has supplied
    information about the art work and a link to it, but has not provided a
    copy of the work itself. in the case of cloned art works, the artist has
    provided information as well as a copy of the work to be stored on our
    server for posterity.

    >and people were angry that rhizome didn't pay them for the privilege of
    >archiving their work. If any other sort of grassroots org or Eyebeam
    >offered this service, would people take advantage of it? Or would they
    >complain that this org was 'stealing' their work? 'using' them for the org
    >admin's advantage?
    >
    >it would be nice if someone, The Thing or Rhizome, could organize a huge
    >archive of the web/internet work, Rhizome tried and people bitched and
    >moaned about it. Perhaps it was the way Rhiz went about it?

    there was a bit of bitching and moaning, but there has also been a lot of
    participation.

    >So maybe a new grassroots org could rise to handle just archiving, storing
    >work. It ain't cheap, the disk space, bandwidth, searchable index,
    >interface development might cost you more than 5 bucks a year. Rhizome has
    >all of this going on already of course, but they don't push the cloned art
    >objects much anymore, people didn't want to 'give' away their files.

    we don't push it, but we do give each artist the option. artists can also
    change their minds later. so if you've submitted a linked object and would
    like to give us a copy for safe keeping, you can do so at any time.
  • Mark Tribe | Mon May 12th 2003 3:10 p.m.
    At 12:37 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

    >Rhizome also has a problem with truly archiving work in that the archive is
    >not immune to browser changes, a problem that has been brought up when they
    >opened the artbase but never really acted on. While they added more than one
    >piece a day to the archive last year, the principal strategy seems to be
    >"emulation" which is, they will re-write the code to work for new browsers.

    Actually, emulation referrs to running old software on new hardware by
    installing emulators (kind of like running Windows software on a Mac using
    Virtual PC. Imagine, for example, that we are living in the year 2018 and
    want to experience a work of net art that was made in 1998. This art works
    best on the Netscape 4 web browser (not sure if Netscape for is the right
    browser for 1998, but you get the idea), but the Netscape web browser is
    obsolete--you can't even install it on your fancy new Macintosh GS11
    computer. So you download a Pentium II emulator and install it. Then you
    download free copies of the obsolete software you need: Windows 98,
    Netscape 4, maybe a particular Shockwave plug-in. After installing all
    these, you can enter the URL of the art work, and experience the art. There
    are several problems. It will be difficult and expensive to make emulators.
    We can only hope that smart people will want to make them and that
    institutions with major resoruces will pay for it. Second, nobody that we
    know if us archiving operating systems, browsers and plug-ins (not to
    mention all the other software that other forms of new media art might
    require). Third, nobody is keeping track of the software required to run a
    given work of art. We'll probably be able to work that out retrospectively,
    but it would be much better to get the information up-front from the
    artist. Rhizome does not have the resources to archive commercial software
    (we looked into it, and it's harder than it sounds to do it in a thorough
    and organized way). Right now, we are focused on the third problem: getting
    info from artists on what software is needed to run the art work in an
    ideal situation. In order to do that, we need funding. We applied for a
    grant from the NEA to cover this, but we got much less than we asked for.
    So this might have to wait a while (until the funding situation improves).

    Alternatives to emulation include documentation (screen shots, etc.),
    migration (updating old code to meet new specs) and recreation (rebuilding
    old work from scratch so it would work in a new technological environment).

    We have a lengthy questionnaire for artists who submit copies of their work
    (what we call cloned objects). For each of the four main preservation
    tactics we contemplate (documentation, migration, emuation and recreation),
    it asks for permission (i.e. do we have permission to document your work in
    the future?), information (tech specs, etc.) and guidance (what's are the
    most important aspects to preserve?).

    This is all explained in some detail, including a copy of the
    questionnaire, at http://rhizome.org/artbase/policy

    For a report by Rick Rinehart that talks about emulation and sets out a
    plan for gathering information on required software, see
    http://rhizome.org/artbase/policy.

    >I feel like if rhizome was serious about the artbase they would have
    >addressed these issues by now,

    We have addressed these issues, Eryk. You just haven't been paying attention.

    ;-)
  • Mark Tribe | Mon May 12th 2003 3:15 p.m.
    At 12:37 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
    >The archive is clearly not stealing anyones work, but let's be honest,
    >Rhizome benefits from having and maintaining the archive whereas artists can
    >simply make back up cds and keep the sites up independantly if they wanted
    >to. The proof of this is the ratio of cloned objects compared to linked
    >objects- almost nothing is cloned. [The one piece I personally gave to the
    >artbase is cloned.]

    The Rhizome ArtBase currently contains 270 cloned art works and 716 linked
    art works.
  • MTAA | Mon May 12th 2003 3:40 p.m.
    At 14:14 -0400 5/12/03, Mark Tribe wrote:
    >At 12:37 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
    >>The archive is clearly not stealing anyones work, but let's be honest,
    >>Rhizome benefits from having and maintaining the archive whereas artists can
    >>simply make back up cds and keep the sites up independantly if they wanted
    >>to. The proof of this is the ratio of cloned objects compared to linked
    >>objects- almost nothing is cloned. [The one piece I personally gave to the
    >>artbase is cloned.]
    >
    >The Rhizome ArtBase currently contains 270 cloned art works and 716
    >linked art works.
    >

    Each artist, if they're even mildly diligent, is backing up their
    projects keeping their web sites more or less up-to-date.

    This piecemeal approach doesn't address the needs or future curators,
    viewers, researchers who will need a centralized database of this
    work for them to be able to get any sort of historical perspective at
    all.

    Also, i wasn't critting the rhiz's artbase in my last post. I wanted
    to point out that it seemed that some folks were afraid for the work
    in the Walker's collection but there is a system running presently to
    address the archival issue.

    Rhizome should be more proactive in my opinion. If artists don't
    submit work that the admins feel is important than rhizome should
    make copies/mirrors of the work without permission. But then of
    course, they might not want to charge for access if that's the policy.

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • dgs | Mon May 12th 2003 4:09 p.m.
    --- Mark Tribe <mt@rhizome.org> a ecrit
  • dgs | Mon May 12th 2003 4:20 p.m.
    > <twhid>

    in slice in huile d'olive premiere pression a froid de
    cul nu de vierge de camaret, or 100 yearz connerie
    inkjet probe

    ___________________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en francais !
    Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Tue May 13th 2003 5:36 a.m.
    I remember that I signed something saying that Rhizome had the right to
    alter my piece if any portion of it became obsolete and needed to be
    emulated. I think this was specifically in the case of flash, which is
    proprietary, and if it went under and went obsolete [a process which would
    take 4-7 years perhaps] there would be no way to emulate proprietary code
    such as flash. Therefore, the work would have to be altered because rhizome
    doesn't want to ["can't"] keep an archive of the 3mb Flash 4.0 plugin.

    I also have doubts about whether netscape, opera, and explorer are
    considered "commercial" software, and whether or not keeping an offline
    archive of these freely distributed browsers is violating some law or
    another. But with internet law being what it is it wouldn't be a total
    shock.

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Mark Tribe" <mt@rhizome.org>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>; <thingist@bbs.thing.net>
    Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:02 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: [thingist] Steve Dietz Out at Walker Art
    Center

    > At 12:37 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
    >
    > >Rhizome also has a problem with truly archiving work in that the archive
    is
    > >not immune to browser changes, a problem that has been brought up when
    they
    > >opened the artbase but never really acted on. While they added more than
    one
    > >piece a day to the archive last year, the principal strategy seems to be
    > >"emulation" which is, they will re-write the code to work for new
    browsers.
    >
    > Actually, emulation referrs to running old software on new hardware by
    > installing emulators (kind of like running Windows software on a Mac using
    > Virtual PC. Imagine, for example, that we are living in the year 2018 and
    > want to experience a work of net art that was made in 1998. This art works
    > best on the Netscape 4 web browser (not sure if Netscape for is the right
    > browser for 1998, but you get the idea), but the Netscape web browser is
    > obsolete--you can't even install it on your fancy new Macintosh GS11
    > computer. So you download a Pentium II emulator and install it. Then you
    > download free copies of the obsolete software you need: Windows 98,
    > Netscape 4, maybe a particular Shockwave plug-in. After installing all
    > these, you can enter the URL of the art work, and experience the art.
    There
    > are several problems. It will be difficult and expensive to make
    emulators.
    > We can only hope that smart people will want to make them and that
    > institutions with major resoruces will pay for it. Second, nobody that we
    > know if us archiving operating systems, browsers and plug-ins (not to
    > mention all the other software that other forms of new media art might
    > require). Third, nobody is keeping track of the software required to run a
    > given work of art. We'll probably be able to work that out
    retrospectively,
    > but it would be much better to get the information up-front from the
    > artist. Rhizome does not have the resources to archive commercial software
    > (we looked into it, and it's harder than it sounds to do it in a thorough
    > and organized way). Right now, we are focused on the third problem:
    getting
    > info from artists on what software is needed to run the art work in an
    > ideal situation. In order to do that, we need funding. We applied for a
    > grant from the NEA to cover this, but we got much less than we asked for.
    > So this might have to wait a while (until the funding situation improves).
    >
    > Alternatives to emulation include documentation (screen shots, etc.),
    > migration (updating old code to meet new specs) and recreation (rebuilding
    > old work from scratch so it would work in a new technological
    environment).
    >
    > We have a lengthy questionnaire for artists who submit copies of their
    work
    > (what we call cloned objects). For each of the four main preservation
    > tactics we contemplate (documentation, migration, emuation and
    recreation),
    > it asks for permission (i.e. do we have permission to document your work
    in
    > the future?), information (tech specs, etc.) and guidance (what's are the
    > most important aspects to preserve?).
    >
    > This is all explained in some detail, including a copy of the
    > questionnaire, at http://rhizome.org/artbase/policy
    >
    > For a report by Rick Rinehart that talks about emulation and sets out a
    > plan for gathering information on required software, see
    > http://rhizome.org/artbase/policy.
    >
    > >I feel like if rhizome was serious about the artbase they would have
    > >addressed these issues by now,
    >
    > We have addressed these issues, Eryk. You just haven't been paying
    attention.
    >
    > ;-)
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > t h i n g i s t
    > message by Mark Tribe <mt@rhizome.org>
    > archive at http://bbs.thing.net
    > info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
    > and write "info thingist" in the message body
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
Your Reply