I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my work to be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I comfortable with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show without thier permission.
Yep -I agree -I think my first response was a little guarded for fear of seeming a bad sport, but Eryk, bless him , goes straight to the heart of it. Can we not have a format without the competitive element? -god knows there's enough of that in our lives -I'd be happy with David's picks, or T Whid's faves or whatever as a stimulus to discussion…but the voting smells of the bread and circus element of the vilest "reality" TV. best michael — Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition > when I allowed my work to > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) > Nor am I comfortable > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a > populist pony show > without thier permission. > > -e. > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is > open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set > out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
===== *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
Agreed…I speculate that many people from each different "era" of rhizome are no longer active, thus judging would be based upon current interests, not what was best at the time. I don't care to be part of a People Magazine's best dressed list.
joseph the barbarian
—– Original Message —– From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:28 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my work to > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I comfortable > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show > without thier permission. > > -e. > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
So lets test this: I wish to state that I refuse permission for my pieces on the artbase to be used in this way. Anyone else? Michael — joseph the barbarian <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed…I speculate that many people from each > different "era" of rhizome > are no longer active, thus judging would be based > upon current interests, > not what was best at the time. I don't care to be > part of a People > Magazine's best dressed list. > > joseph the barbarian > > —– Original Message —– > From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in > the rhizome artbase > > > > > > > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition > when I allowed my work > to > > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no > compensation.) Nor am I comfortable > > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a > populist pony show > > without thier permission. > > > > -e. > > > > + > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is > open to non-members > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms > set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is > open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set > out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
===== *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
But what if we all enter this potentially collective void naked?
marc
> Agreed…I speculate that many people from each different "era" of rhizome > are no longer active, thus judging would be based upon current interests, > not what was best at the time. I don't care to be part of a People > Magazine's best dressed list. > > joseph the barbarian > > —– Original Message —– > From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase > > > > > > > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my work > to > > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I comfortable > > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show > > without thier permission. > > > > -e. > > > > + > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >
Im with Eric this is not in the spirit of the artbase at all. How about a vote on the worst five attempts to represent lottery funding, we could all vote on it ..and then vote on the best five responses to the idea ..and then we could al do some work Patrick
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my > work to > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I > comfortable > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show > without thier permission. > > -e. >
I think we understand your feelings on the potential downside of the 'competitive nature' of such an idea and it's definitely a valid point.
Another possible artbase idea that we've been kicking around is the 'guest curator' concept, where we get one specific person to serve the curatorial function and give them a time window to do so— not to to choose on the supposed 'best in show' of what's already in the artbase but to help decide what actually goes in when it comes to new submissions.
My questions to you all are, do you feel that this could be a feasible proposition? Is it moving towards an Artbase Superuser capability, and if so, would that be a good or bad thing in your eyes? Best,
I don't think people should vote on projects unless we are holding some kind of competition or contest, which we are most definitely *not*. That wasn't my intention at all. Sorry about that.
I was thinking that people would make lists/groupings thematically, or organize ArtBase projects according to X premise, Y reason, etc., – and we publish those as a way to get people interested in looking at artwork and making connections between projects. I think people make amazing connections between artworks and also love really different kinds of projects – I think we should try to make those ideas more manifest.
Thoughts?
On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 09:23 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> So lets test this: I wish to state that I refuse > permission for my pieces on the artbase to be used in > this way. Anyone else? > Michael > — joseph the barbarian <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Agreed…I speculate that many people from each >> different "era" of rhizome >> are no longer active, thus judging would be based >> upon current interests, >> not what was best at the time. I don't care to be >> part of a People >> Magazine's best dressed list. >> >> joseph the barbarian >> >> —– Original Message —– >> From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:28 AM >> Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in >> the rhizome artbase >> >> >>> >>> >>> I never agreed to enter my work into a competition >> when I allowed my work >> to >>> be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no >> compensation.) Nor am I comfortable >>> with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a >> populist pony show >>> without thier permission. >>> >>> -e. >>> >>> + >>> -> post: [email protected] >>> -> questions: [email protected] >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is >> open to non-members >>> + >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms >> set out in the >>> Membership Agreement available online at >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >>> >> >> + >> -> post: [email protected] >> -> questions: [email protected] >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is >> open to non-members >> + >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set >> out in the >> Membership Agreement available online at > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > ===== > *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly > office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly > time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF > the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the > office OF the > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *** > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard > http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process.
let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists represented in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met with whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is the artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out, as with the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists. assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of voting necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing into a bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness of online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with a few editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more people. to the extent that rhizome works within a system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should be - is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what and how content is archived (how history gets made)?
Roman Minaev wrote:
> And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5? > The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere. >
Individual curatorship could be potentially interesting, so long as it made an attempt to be educational or at least explain the choices. Recombinant gallery shows could be good too. Who was it that proposed a travelling exhibition where the same works were constantly re-presented but the theme and explanations would change in every city?
-e.
—– Original Message —– From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]> To: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:20 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> > I don't think people should vote on projects unless we are holding some > kind of competition or contest, which we are most definitely *not*. > That wasn't my intention at all. Sorry about that. > > I was thinking that people would make lists/groupings thematically, or > organize ArtBase projects according to X premise, Y reason, etc., – > and we publish those as a way to get people interested in looking at > artwork and making connections between projects. I think people make > amazing connections between artworks and also love really different > kinds of projects – I think we should try to make those ideas more > manifest. > > Thoughts? > > > On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 09:23 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote: > > > So lets test this: I wish to state that I refuse > > permission for my pieces on the artbase to be used in > > this way. Anyone else? > > Michael > > — joseph the barbarian <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Agreed…I speculate that many people from each > >> different "era" of rhizome > >> are no longer active, thus judging would be based > >> upon current interests, > >> not what was best at the time. I don't care to be > >> part of a People > >> Magazine's best dressed list. > >> > >> joseph the barbarian > >> > >> —– Original Message —– > >> From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:28 AM > >> Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in > >> the rhizome artbase > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> I never agreed to enter my work into a competition > >> when I allowed my work > >> to > >>> be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no > >> compensation.) Nor am I comfortable > >>> with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a > >> populist pony show > >>> without thier permission. > >>> > >>> -e. > >>> > >>> + > >>> -> post: [email protected] > >>> -> questions: [email protected] > >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is > >> open to non-members > >>> + > >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms > >> set out in the > >>> Membership Agreement available online at > >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >>> > >> > >> + > >> -> post: [email protected] > >> -> questions: [email protected] > >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is > >> open to non-members > >> + > >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set > >> out in the > >> Membership Agreement available online at > > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > > > ===== > > *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly > > office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly > > time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF > > the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the > > office OF the > > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies > > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *** > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard > > http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree > > + > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
—– Original Message —– From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:19 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process. > > let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists represented in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met with whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is the artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out, as with the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists. assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of voting necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing into a bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness of online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with a few editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more people. to the extent that rhizome works within a ! > system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should be - is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what and how content is archived (how history gets made)? > > Roman Minaev wrote: > > > And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5? > > The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere. > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
The TOP FIVE idea is not for the the net.artists. Although, those chosen would benefit from the increased exposure. Its for the newbies and net.art enthusiasts. Its a way of using peer review to help a more mainstream audience begin to appreciate net.art.
Publishing thousands of net.art werks alphabetically is not the best way to introduce someone to net.art. Very few people take the time to go through it all to see if they like net.art. Chances are, they will click on one or two pieces and if they don't like what they see then they are gone.
The TOP FIVE idea is a way to introduce people to net.art. If they like what they see then they will dig much deeper into the Artbase. I want more people to see what the net.art community is creating … and using an old marketing trick to expose people to quality art is nothing to be ashamed of. It is a practical response to an obvious problem.
I've read through some of the other ideas and thry're great. Much more creative than mine. But then again, sometimes simple is best. KISS! KISS!
—– Original Message —– From: "Patrick Simons" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:39 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> Im with Eric > this is not in the spirit of the artbase at all. > How about a vote on the worst five attempts to represent lottery funding, we could all vote on it ..and then vote on the best five responses to the idea ..and then we could al do some work > Patrick > > > > > > > > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my > > work to > > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I > > comfortable > > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show > > without thier permission. > > > > -e. > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >
—– Original Message —– From: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 1:54 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> Hey all- > > The TOP FIVE idea is not for the the net.artists. Although, those chosen > would benefit from the increased exposure. Its for the newbies and net.art > enthusiasts. Its a way of using peer review to help a more mainstream > audience begin to appreciate net.art. > > Publishing thousands of net.art werks alphabetically is not the best way to > introduce someone to net.art. Very few people take the time to go through > it all to see if they like net.art. Chances are, they will click on one or > two pieces and if they don't like what they see then they are gone. > > The TOP FIVE idea is a way to introduce people to net.art. If they like > what they see then they will dig much deeper into the Artbase. I want more > people to see what the net.art community is creating … and using an old > marketing trick to expose people to quality art is nothing to be ashamed of. > It is a practical response to an obvious problem. > > I've read through some of the other ideas and thry're great. Much more > creative than mine. But then again, sometimes simple is best. KISS! KISS! > > > david goldschmidt > www.personify.tv > www.mediatrips.com > > > > —– Original Message —– > From: "Patrick Simons" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:39 AM > Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase > > > > Im with Eric > > this is not in the spirit of the artbase at all. > > How about a vote on the worst five attempts to represent lottery funding, > we could all vote on it ..and then vote on the best five responses to the > idea ..and then we could al do some work > > Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my > > > work to > > > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I > > > comfortable > > > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show > > > without thier permission. > > > > > > -e. > > > > > + > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
more invitations to the Whitney Biennial would be nice.
dg
—– Original Message —– From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]> To: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 9:48 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> > > What do net.artists gain from increased exposure? > > -e. > > > > —– Original Message —– > From: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 1:54 AM > Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase > > > > Hey all- > > > > The TOP FIVE idea is not for the the net.artists. Although, those chosen > > would benefit from the increased exposure. Its for the newbies and > net.art > > enthusiasts. Its a way of using peer review to help a more mainstream > > audience begin to appreciate net.art. > > > > Publishing thousands of net.art werks alphabetically is not the best way > to > > introduce someone to net.art. Very few people take the time to go through > > it all to see if they like net.art. Chances are, they will click on one > or > > two pieces and if they don't like what they see then they are gone. > > > > The TOP FIVE idea is a way to introduce people to net.art. If they like > > what they see then they will dig much deeper into the Artbase. I want > more > > people to see what the net.art community is creating … and using an old > > marketing trick to expose people to quality art is nothing to be ashamed > of. > > It is a practical response to an obvious problem. > > > > I've read through some of the other ideas and thry're great. Much more > > creative than mine. But then again, sometimes simple is best. KISS! > KISS! > > > > > > david goldschmidt > > www.personify.tv > > www.mediatrips.com > > > > > > > > —– Original Message —– > > From: "Patrick Simons" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:39 AM > > Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome > artbase > > > > > > > Im with Eric > > > this is not in the spirit of the artbase at all. > > > How about a vote on the worst five attempts to represent lottery > funding, > > we could all vote on it ..and then vote on the best five responses to the > > idea ..and then we could al do some work > > > Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my > > > > work to > > > > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I > > > > comfortable > > > > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show > > > > without thier permission. > > > > > > > > -e. > > > > > > > + > > > -> post: [email protected] > > > -> questions: [email protected] > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > > > + > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >
The TOP FIVE idea is not for the the net.artists. Although, those chosen would benefit from the increased exposure. Its for the newbies and net.art enthusiasts. Its a way of using peer review to help a more mainstream audience begin to appreciate net.art.
Publishing thousands of net.art werks alphabetically is not the best way to introduce someone to net.art. Very few people take the time to go through it all to see if they like net.art. Chances are, they will click on one or two pieces and if they don't like what they see then they are gone.
The TOP FIVE idea is a way to introduce people to net.art. If they like what they see then they will dig much deeper into the Artbase. I want more people to see what the net.art community is creating … and using an old marketing trick to expose people to quality art is nothing to be ashamed of. It is a practical response to an obvious problem.
I've read through some of the other ideas and thry're great. Much more creative than mine. But then again, sometimes simple is best. KISS! KISS!
—– Original Message —– From: "Patrick Simons" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:39 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> Im with Eric > this is not in the spirit of the artbase at all. > How about a vote on the worst five attempts to represent lottery funding, we could all vote on it ..and then vote on the best five responses to the idea ..and then we could al do some work > Patrick > > > > > > > > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my > > work to > > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I > > comfortable > > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show > > without thier permission. > > > > -e. > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > >
-e i shouldn't have to say that my presence or lack of presence in the artbase didn't have anything to do with my comments, but for you eryk i guess that explanation is needed. nice way of avoiding the content of my comments - shoot the messenger - kill the messege. maybe i should leave the discussion to heavyweights like you eryk. leave it to you to turn everything into a juvenile cock fight. the forum is yours -e - Strap it on and Go for it. the end.
> Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > Someone was left out of the Artbase? > > -e. > > > > —– Original Message —– > From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:19 PM > Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome > artbase > > > > just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process. > > > > let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists > represented > in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met > with > whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is > the > artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are > chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big > responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art > history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out, > as with > the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists. > assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of > voting > necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing > into a > bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness > of > online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with > a few > editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more > people. > to the extent that rhizome works within a ! > > system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling > competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should > be - > is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what > and how > content is archived (how history gets made)? > > > > Roman Minaev wrote: > > > > > And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5? > > > The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere. > > > > > + > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > >
I do not keep tabs on who is and who is not in the artbase, but I'm sorry if it looked like I was "coming after you." I wasn't. You seem to have read a lot into my comments. It was simply meant that there's a ton of people in the artbase- hence the problem that was raised concerning its navigation. It was a dumb comment and I didn't even think of the flip side of it, which you discovered and apparently mistook as a personal attack (or my own personal bombast).
I hope you'll accept my apology.
-e.
—– Original Message —– From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 1:07 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> > -e > i shouldn't have to say that my presence or lack of presence in the artbase didn't have anything to do with my comments, but for you eryk i guess that explanation is needed. nice way of avoiding the content of my comments - shoot the messenger - kill the messege. maybe i should leave the discussion to heavyweights like you eryk. leave it to you to turn everything into a juvenile cock fight. the forum is yours -e - Strap it on and Go for it. > the end. > > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > Someone was left out of the Artbase? > > > > -e. > > > > > > > > —– Original Message —– > > From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:19 PM > > Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome > > artbase > > > > > > > just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process. > > > > > > let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists > > represented > > in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met > > with > > whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is > > the > > artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are > > chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big > > responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art > > history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out, > > as with > > the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists. > > assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of > > voting > > necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing > > into a > > bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness > > of > > online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with > > a few > > editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more > > people. > > to the extent that rhizome works within a ! > > > system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling > > competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should > > be - > > is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what > > and how > > content is archived (how history gets made)? > > > > > > Roman Minaev wrote: > > > > > > > And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5? > > > > The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere. > > > > > > > + > > > -> post: [email protected] > > > -> questions: [email protected] > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > > > + > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > > Membership Agreement available online at > > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
Your point that the rhizome admission process is pretty much arbitrary and defined by a rather dynamic set of criteria is a good one, and part of the artbase's problem has always been figuring out what is and is not "historically relevant". I've moaned about how I believe the submission process should be done, but to little avail and it doesn't matter I suppose. I stinted as an artbase intern, which did give me a lot of opportunity to figure out what got in and what didn't. I was personally very selective but fair- it was based on a measure of A) how much discussion the work merited, and how often I had seen it brought up, B) date of creation- my rule was, all net.art prior to 1997 was accepted. The rest was judged by standard a and: C) How new the aesthetics or concept of the piece were for net art of its era, and how many spin offs or variations on code, technique or concept it inspired.
Now, I don't see much of a criterion in place for the work that is accepted or is not accepted. But there is one thing that I know I never did; which was base the selection on my personal opinion of the piece. A lot of artists I personally couldn't stand were submitted for (approval for) inclusion.
The reason a top five ranking is a different set of ridiculousness over the initial process of acceptance into the artbase is because it encourages opinion as a criteria. Secondly, it encourages a kind of cronyism- unless I knew that everyone voting for a top five, or choosing a top five, was looking at every single piece in the artbase prior to voting or making their selection, then the process will favor a) works that are already popular b) works by rhizome contributors c) works by friends of people choosing the process. I am also strongly, strongly against a "bottom five" ranking which really just seems boorish.
TWhid is correct that the art world is often based on opinion- gallery shows, grants, etc, usually come down to opinion of your work until you have a pretty decent resume they can stamp an approval on. But applying the criteria of the rest of the art world to net.art is unfair to the people who make net.art because they don't want to deal with that bullshit. I am one of those people. I believe that if anyone wants to actually pretend internet art is "revolutionary" the only thing that makes it so is the radical circumvention of mainstream gallery / curatorship models.
Now: if I really want to stay "pure" then I should really take my work out of the artbase anyway- since it is an institutional model- so if I'm not, then why don't I just shut up? Well, frankly, because the only piece I've got in the artbase is "absolut net.art" which I have pretty much disowned- it's a bunch of in jokes for the in crowd with no real artistic merit. But also because I would like to think that we could use the artbase as an institutionalized document of a non-institutional history. If we can do that, we should really look at something besides hierarchies, rankings, and competitions in order to diversify and draw in a more general audience.
Something like "starry night" (for artbase and text?) or Chris Fahey's Adabot, or John Klima's navigational system, encouraged alternate modes of exploration of the artbase (theoretically). The problem may be that both of these pieces are really rather esoteric and unwieldy- you needed to kind of know the artbase already in order to use them succesfully.
-e.
—– Original Message —– From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:19 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process. > > let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists represented in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met with whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is the artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out, as with the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists. assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of voting necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing into a bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness of online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with a few editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more people. to the extent that rhizome works within a ! > system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should be - is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what and how content is archived (how history gets made)? > > Roman Minaev wrote: > > > And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5? > > The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere. > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
This may seem very strange as a commentator on and curator of net art, but I believe that I have only looked at the Rhizome Artbase perhaps once, and it was a fairly cursory glance. My model for finding works of interest to me really don't stem from archives, but from how works seem to bubble up in the net art culture from any number of news sources from listservs to magazines to festivals to announcements to personal contacts.
To me, the Artbase represents another model for the creation of a record that is of great use, but it hasn't seemed to fit in my practice. I'm not slighting it, but it's just somewhere I haven't wound up going.
Comments
I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my work to
be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I comfortable
with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show
without thier permission.
-e.
Yep -I agree -I think my first response was a little
guarded for fear of seeming a bad sport, but Eryk,
bless him , goes straight to the heart of it.
Can we not have a format without the competitive
element? -god knows there's enough of that in our
lives -I'd be happy with David's picks, or T Whid's
faves or whatever as a stimulus to discussion…but
the voting smells of the bread and circus element of
the vilest "reality" TV.
best
michael
— Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I never agreed to enter my work into a competition
> when I allowed my work to
> be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.)
> Nor am I comfortable
> with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a
> populist pony show
> without thier permission.
>
> -e.
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
=====
*** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Agreed…I speculate that many people from each different "era" of rhizome
are no longer active, thus judging would be based upon current interests,
not what was best at the time. I don't care to be part of a People
Magazine's best dressed list.
joseph the barbarian
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
>
>
> I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my work
to
> be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I comfortable
> with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show
> without thier permission.
>
> -e.
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
So lets test this: I wish to state that I refuse
permission for my pieces on the artbase to be used in
this way. Anyone else?
Michael
— joseph the barbarian <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Agreed…I speculate that many people from each
> different "era" of rhizome
> are no longer active, thus judging would be based
> upon current interests,
> not what was best at the time. I don't care to be
> part of a People
> Magazine's best dressed list.
>
> joseph the barbarian
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in
> the rhizome artbase
>
>
> >
> >
> > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition
> when I allowed my work
> to
> > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no
> compensation.) Nor am I comfortable
> > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a
> populist pony show
> > without thier permission.
> >
> > -e.
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
=====
*** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
But what if we all enter this potentially collective void naked?
marc
> Agreed…I speculate that many people from each different "era" of rhizome
> are no longer active, thus judging would be based upon current interests,
> not what was best at the time. I don't care to be part of a People
> Magazine's best dressed list.
>
> joseph the barbarian
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
>
>
> >
> >
> > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my
work
> to
> > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I
comfortable
> > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show
> > without thier permission.
> >
> > -e.
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
Im with Eric
this is not in the spirit of the artbase at all.
How about a vote on the worst five attempts to represent lottery funding, we could all vote on it ..and then vote on the best five responses to the idea ..and then we could al do some work
Patrick
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
>
> I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my
> work to
> be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I
> comfortable
> with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show
> without thier permission.
>
> -e.
>
I think we understand your feelings on the potential downside of the 'competitive nature' of such an idea and it's definitely a valid point.
Another possible artbase idea that we've been kicking around is the 'guest curator' concept, where we get one specific person to serve the curatorial function and give them a time window to do so— not to to choose on the supposed 'best in show' of what's already in the artbase but to help decide what actually goes in when it comes to new submissions.
My questions to you all are, do you feel that this could be a feasible proposition? Is it moving towards an Artbase Superuser capability, and if so, would that be a good or bad thing in your eyes? Best,
= Feisal
I don't think people should vote on projects unless we are holding some
kind of competition or contest, which we are most definitely *not*.
That wasn't my intention at all. Sorry about that.
I was thinking that people would make lists/groupings thematically, or
organize ArtBase projects according to X premise, Y reason, etc., –
and we publish those as a way to get people interested in looking at
artwork and making connections between projects. I think people make
amazing connections between artworks and also love really different
kinds of projects – I think we should try to make those ideas more
manifest.
Thoughts?
On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 09:23 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> So lets test this: I wish to state that I refuse
> permission for my pieces on the artbase to be used in
> this way. Anyone else?
> Michael
> — joseph the barbarian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Agreed…I speculate that many people from each
>> different "era" of rhizome
>> are no longer active, thus judging would be based
>> upon current interests,
>> not what was best at the time. I don't care to be
>> part of a People
>> Magazine's best dressed list.
>>
>> joseph the barbarian
>>
>> —– Original Message —–
>> From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in
>> the rhizome artbase
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I never agreed to enter my work into a competition
>> when I allowed my work
>> to
>>> be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no
>> compensation.) Nor am I comfortable
>>> with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a
>> populist pony show
>>> without thier permission.
>>>
>>> -e.
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
>> open to non-members
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
>> set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
>> open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
>> out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
> =====
> *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly
> office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly
> time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF
> the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the
> office OF the
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process.
let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists represented in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met with whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is the artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out, as with the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists. assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of voting necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing into a bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness of online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with a few editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more people. to the extent that rhizome works within a system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should be - is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what and how content is archived (how history gets made)?
Roman Minaev wrote:
> And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5?
> The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere.
>
Individual curatorship could be potentially interesting, so long as it made
an attempt to be educational or at least explain the choices. Recombinant
gallery shows could be good too. Who was it that proposed a travelling
exhibition where the same works were constantly re-presented but the theme
and explanations would change in every city?
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]>
To: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
>
> I don't think people should vote on projects unless we are holding some
> kind of competition or contest, which we are most definitely *not*.
> That wasn't my intention at all. Sorry about that.
>
> I was thinking that people would make lists/groupings thematically, or
> organize ArtBase projects according to X premise, Y reason, etc., –
> and we publish those as a way to get people interested in looking at
> artwork and making connections between projects. I think people make
> amazing connections between artworks and also love really different
> kinds of projects – I think we should try to make those ideas more
> manifest.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 09:23 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > So lets test this: I wish to state that I refuse
> > permission for my pieces on the artbase to be used in
> > this way. Anyone else?
> > Michael
> > — joseph the barbarian <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> Agreed…I speculate that many people from each
> >> different "era" of rhizome
> >> are no longer active, thus judging would be based
> >> upon current interests,
> >> not what was best at the time. I don't care to be
> >> part of a People
> >> Magazine's best dressed list.
> >>
> >> joseph the barbarian
> >>
> >> —– Original Message —–
> >> From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 8:28 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in
> >> the rhizome artbase
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I never agreed to enter my work into a competition
> >> when I allowed my work
> >> to
> >>> be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no
> >> compensation.) Nor am I comfortable
> >>> with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a
> >> populist pony show
> >>> without thier permission.
> >>>
> >>> -e.
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> post: [email protected]
> >>> -> questions: [email protected]
> >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> >> open to non-members
> >>> +
> >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> >> set out in the
> >>> Membership Agreement available online at
> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>>
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> >> open to non-members
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> >> out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
> > =====
> > *** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly
> > office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly
> > time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF
> > the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the
> > office OF the
> > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
> > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> > http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Someone was left out of the Artbase?
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process.
>
> let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists represented
in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met with
whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is the
artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are
chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big
responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art
history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out, as with
the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists.
assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of voting
necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing into a
bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness of
online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with a few
editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more people.
to the extent that rhizome works within a !
> system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling
competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should be -
is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what and how
content is archived (how history gets made)?
>
> Roman Minaev wrote:
>
> > And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5?
> > The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere.
> >
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Hey all-
The TOP FIVE idea is not for the the net.artists. Although, those chosen
would benefit from the increased exposure. Its for the newbies and net.art
enthusiasts. Its a way of using peer review to help a more mainstream
audience begin to appreciate net.art.
Publishing thousands of net.art werks alphabetically is not the best way to
introduce someone to net.art. Very few people take the time to go through
it all to see if they like net.art. Chances are, they will click on one or
two pieces and if they don't like what they see then they are gone.
The TOP FIVE idea is a way to introduce people to net.art. If they like
what they see then they will dig much deeper into the Artbase. I want more
people to see what the net.art community is creating … and using an old
marketing trick to expose people to quality art is nothing to be ashamed of.
It is a practical response to an obvious problem.
I've read through some of the other ideas and thry're great. Much more
creative than mine. But then again, sometimes simple is best. KISS! KISS!
david goldschmidt
www.personify.tv
www.mediatrips.com
—– Original Message —–
From: "Patrick Simons" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> Im with Eric
> this is not in the spirit of the artbase at all.
> How about a vote on the worst five attempts to represent lottery funding,
we could all vote on it ..and then vote on the best five responses to the
idea ..and then we could al do some work
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my
> > work to
> > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I
> > comfortable
> > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show
> > without thier permission.
> >
> > -e.
> >
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
What do net.artists gain from increased exposure?
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> Hey all-
>
> The TOP FIVE idea is not for the the net.artists. Although, those chosen
> would benefit from the increased exposure. Its for the newbies and
net.art
> enthusiasts. Its a way of using peer review to help a more mainstream
> audience begin to appreciate net.art.
>
> Publishing thousands of net.art werks alphabetically is not the best way
to
> introduce someone to net.art. Very few people take the time to go through
> it all to see if they like net.art. Chances are, they will click on one
or
> two pieces and if they don't like what they see then they are gone.
>
> The TOP FIVE idea is a way to introduce people to net.art. If they like
> what they see then they will dig much deeper into the Artbase. I want
more
> people to see what the net.art community is creating … and using an old
> marketing trick to expose people to quality art is nothing to be ashamed
of.
> It is a practical response to an obvious problem.
>
> I've read through some of the other ideas and thry're great. Much more
> creative than mine. But then again, sometimes simple is best. KISS!
KISS!
>
>
> david goldschmidt
> www.personify.tv
> www.mediatrips.com
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Patrick Simons" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome
artbase
>
>
> > Im with Eric
> > this is not in the spirit of the artbase at all.
> > How about a vote on the worst five attempts to represent lottery
funding,
> we could all vote on it ..and then vote on the best five responses to the
> idea ..and then we could al do some work
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my
> > > work to
> > > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I
> > > comfortable
> > > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show
> > > without thier permission.
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
more invitations to the Whitney Biennial would be nice.
dg
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
>
>
> What do net.artists gain from increased exposure?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 1:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome
artbase
>
>
> > Hey all-
> >
> > The TOP FIVE idea is not for the the net.artists. Although, those
chosen
> > would benefit from the increased exposure. Its for the newbies and
> net.art
> > enthusiasts. Its a way of using peer review to help a more mainstream
> > audience begin to appreciate net.art.
> >
> > Publishing thousands of net.art werks alphabetically is not the best way
> to
> > introduce someone to net.art. Very few people take the time to go
through
> > it all to see if they like net.art. Chances are, they will click on one
> or
> > two pieces and if they don't like what they see then they are gone.
> >
> > The TOP FIVE idea is a way to introduce people to net.art. If they like
> > what they see then they will dig much deeper into the Artbase. I want
> more
> > people to see what the net.art community is creating … and using an
old
> > marketing trick to expose people to quality art is nothing to be ashamed
> of.
> > It is a practical response to an obvious problem.
> >
> > I've read through some of the other ideas and thry're great. Much more
> > creative than mine. But then again, sometimes simple is best. KISS!
> KISS!
> >
> >
> > david goldschmidt
> > www.personify.tv
> > www.mediatrips.com
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Patrick Simons" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome
> artbase
> >
> >
> > > Im with Eric
> > > this is not in the spirit of the artbase at all.
> > > How about a vote on the worst five attempts to represent lottery
> funding,
> > we could all vote on it ..and then vote on the best five responses to
the
> > idea ..and then we could al do some work
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my
> > > > work to
> > > > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I
> > > > comfortable
> > > > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony
show
> > > > without thier permission.
> > > >
> > > > -e.
> > > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
Hey all-
The TOP FIVE idea is not for the the net.artists. Although, those chosen
would benefit from the increased exposure. Its for the newbies and net.art
enthusiasts. Its a way of using peer review to help a more mainstream
audience begin to appreciate net.art.
Publishing thousands of net.art werks alphabetically is not the best way to
introduce someone to net.art. Very few people take the time to go through
it all to see if they like net.art. Chances are, they will click on one or
two pieces and if they don't like what they see then they are gone.
The TOP FIVE idea is a way to introduce people to net.art. If they like
what they see then they will dig much deeper into the Artbase. I want more
people to see what the net.art community is creating … and using an old
marketing trick to expose people to quality art is nothing to be ashamed of.
It is a practical response to an obvious problem.
I've read through some of the other ideas and thry're great. Much more
creative than mine. But then again, sometimes simple is best. KISS! KISS!
david goldschmidt
www.personify.tv
www.mediatrips.com
—– Original Message —–
From: "Patrick Simons" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> Im with Eric
> this is not in the spirit of the artbase at all.
> How about a vote on the worst five attempts to represent lottery funding,
we could all vote on it ..and then vote on the best five responses to the
idea ..and then we could al do some work
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I never agreed to enter my work into a competition when I allowed my
> > work to
> > be shown on Rhizome's servers (for no compensation.) Nor am I
> > comfortable
> > with the idea of any artists work "competing" in a populist pony show
> > without thier permission.
> >
> > -e.
> >
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
-e
i shouldn't have to say that my presence or lack of presence in the artbase didn't have anything to do with my comments, but for you eryk i guess that explanation is needed. nice way of avoiding the content of my comments - shoot the messenger - kill the messege. maybe i should leave the discussion to heavyweights like you eryk. leave it to you to turn everything into a juvenile cock fight. the forum is yours -e - Strap it on and Go for it.
the end.
> Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> Someone was left out of the Artbase?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome
> artbase
>
>
> > just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process.
> >
> > let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists
> represented
> in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met
> with
> whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is
> the
> artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are
> chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big
> responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art
> history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out,
> as with
> the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists.
> assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of
> voting
> necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing
> into a
> bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness
> of
> online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with
> a few
> editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more
> people.
> to the extent that rhizome works within a !
> > system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling
> competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should
> be -
> is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what
> and how
> content is archived (how history gets made)?
> >
> > Roman Minaev wrote:
> >
> > > And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5?
> > > The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere.
> > >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
I do not keep tabs on who is and who is not in the artbase, but I'm sorry if
it looked like I was "coming after you." I wasn't. You seem to have read a
lot into my comments. It was simply meant that there's a ton of people in
the artbase- hence the problem that was raised concerning its navigation. It
was a dumb comment and I didn't even think of the flip side of it, which you
discovered and apparently mistook as a personal attack (or my own personal
bombast).
I hope you'll accept my apology.
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
>
> -e
> i shouldn't have to say that my presence or lack of presence in the
artbase didn't have anything to do with my comments, but for you eryk i
guess that explanation is needed. nice way of avoiding the content of my
comments - shoot the messenger - kill the messege. maybe i should leave the
discussion to heavyweights like you eryk. leave it to you to turn
everything into a juvenile cock fight. the forum is yours -e - Strap it on
and Go for it.
> the end.
>
> > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > Someone was left out of the Artbase?
> >
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome
> > artbase
> >
> >
> > > just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process.
> > >
> > > let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists
> > represented
> > in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met
> > with
> > whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is
> > the
> > artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are
> > chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big
> > responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art
> > history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out,
> > as with
> > the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists.
> > assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of
> > voting
> > necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing
> > into a
> > bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness
> > of
> > online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with
> > a few
> > editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more
> > people.
> > to the extent that rhizome works within a !
> > > system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling
> > competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should
> > be -
> > is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what
> > and how
> > content is archived (how history gets made)?
> > >
> > > Roman Minaev wrote:
> > >
> > > > And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5?
> > > > The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere.
> > > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> >
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Your point that the rhizome admission process is pretty much arbitrary and
defined by a rather dynamic set of criteria is a good one, and part of the
artbase's problem has always been figuring out what is and is not
"historically relevant". I've moaned about how I believe the submission
process should be done, but to little avail and it doesn't matter I suppose.
I stinted as an artbase intern, which did give me a lot of opportunity to
figure out what got in and what didn't. I was personally very selective but
fair- it was based on a measure of A) how much discussion the work merited,
and how often I had seen it brought up, B) date of creation- my rule was,
all net.art prior to 1997 was accepted. The rest was judged by standard a
and: C) How new the aesthetics or concept of the piece were for net art of
its era, and how many spin offs or variations on code, technique or concept
it inspired.
Now, I don't see much of a criterion in place for the work that is accepted
or is not accepted. But there is one thing that I know I never did; which
was base the selection on my personal opinion of the piece. A lot of artists
I personally couldn't stand were submitted for (approval for) inclusion.
The reason a top five ranking is a different set of ridiculousness over the
initial process of acceptance into the artbase is because it encourages
opinion as a criteria. Secondly, it encourages a kind of cronyism- unless I
knew that everyone voting for a top five, or choosing a top five, was
looking at every single piece in the artbase prior to voting or making their
selection, then the process will favor a) works that are already popular b)
works by rhizome contributors c) works by friends of people choosing the
process. I am also strongly, strongly against a "bottom five" ranking which
really just seems boorish.
TWhid is correct that the art world is often based on opinion- gallery
shows, grants, etc, usually come down to opinion of your work until you have
a pretty decent resume they can stamp an approval on. But applying the
criteria of the rest of the art world to net.art is unfair to the people who
make net.art because they don't want to deal with that bullshit. I am one of
those people. I believe that if anyone wants to actually pretend internet
art is "revolutionary" the only thing that makes it so is the radical
circumvention of mainstream gallery / curatorship models.
Now: if I really want to stay "pure" then I should really take my work out
of the artbase anyway- since it is an institutional model- so if I'm not,
then why don't I just shut up? Well, frankly, because the only piece I've
got in the artbase is "absolut net.art" which I have pretty much disowned-
it's a bunch of in jokes for the in crowd with no real artistic merit. But
also because I would like to think that we could use the artbase as an
institutionalized document of a non-institutional history. If we can do
that, we should really look at something besides hierarchies, rankings, and
competitions in order to diversify and draw in a more general audience.
Something like "starry night" (for artbase and text?) or Chris Fahey's
Adabot, or John Klima's navigational system, encouraged alternate modes of
exploration of the artbase (theoretically). The problem may be that both of
these pieces are really rather esoteric and unwieldy- you needed to kind of
know the artbase already in order to use them succesfully.
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase
> just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process.
>
> let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists represented
in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met with
whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is the
artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are
chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big
responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art
history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out, as with
the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists.
assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of voting
necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing into a
bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness of
online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with a few
editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more people.
to the extent that rhizome works within a !
> system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling
competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should be -
is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what and how
content is archived (how history gets made)?
>
> Roman Minaev wrote:
>
> > And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5?
> > The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere.
> >
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
This may seem very strange as a commentator on and curator of net art, but I
believe that I have only looked at the Rhizome Artbase perhaps once, and it
was a fairly cursory glance. My model for finding works of interest to me
really don't stem from archives, but from how works seem to bubble up in the
net art culture from any number of news sources from listservs to magazines
to festivals to announcements to personal contacts.
To me, the Artbase represents another model for the creation of a record
that is of great use, but it hasn't seemed to fit in my practice. I'm not
slighting it, but it's just somewhere I haven't wound up going.