Words on the Rhizome Artbase

> piece artistically and historically [which is less subjective than it
> seems to be, I had added pieces by artists who I have massive personal
> dislike for, simply because I knew the work was discussed and because
> the artists had made "contributions" for better or for ill.] On top of

Hi Eryk,

There is no end to arguing about what is "subjective" and "objective".
Whatever you think is objective is always subjective for someone else. The
only way to be objective is to accept anything, like Google or Yellow Pages.
There is a value in that. What Rhizome needs to decide is: Is it a resource
for artists, or is it like a gallery/museum? If it is the former, then what
Rhizome is doing now is more-or-less appropriate. But if it is supposed to
be the latter, then it is as much about the curators as it is about the
artists, in which case they should not hire some interns to evaluate. They
need to hire more credible curators and make no pretense about being
"objective". Simply present whatever they think is good.

What you don't want to do is to be inbetween: Be "subjective" in a mediocre
way, and claim being "objective".

–
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything

Eryk,

Actually, Alena turns down more ArtBase submissions than she accepts.

Personally, I don't think it's a problem if there's a lot in the ArtBase; I
think of its function as more curatorial than editorial. And, hey, disk
drives are cheap, relatively speaking. I do think that the site doesn't do
enough to help Rhizomers filter through them. (Another aspect of the Rhizome
functionality not scaling with the increased community volume.) There are a
lot of different functions we could implement to make it easier to surf
through the ArtBase; by this I'm speaking of more modest concepts than the
far-reaching alt.interface tools.

If people want to throw out suggestions for filtering tools, now is a good
time to do so. Bonus points will be awarded for schemes that can be
implemented in days and weeks, as opposed to months and years.

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

+ + +

> If people want to throw out suggestions for filtering tools, now is a good
> time to do so. Bonus points will be awarded for schemes that can be
> implemented in days and weeks, as opposed to months and years.

My two cents:

1st cent: Let the members bookmark artists of their choice. Aggregate the
data to come up with the Top 40 most bookmarked artists.

2nd cent: Have a roster of volunteer curators who are always looking out for
good artists. We as visitors to the site can simply find the curator we can
best relate to, and check out the artists he/she recommends. I have a
similar scheme running at http://www.urldj.com

–
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything

— Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
!
>
> I believe that now the process is to add anyone and
> anything that asks
> to be stored on the artbase.


In 2002 I tried to sneak htpp://tinjail.com/you into
the rhizome.org artbase. I got back the under review
email. I have not herd back. Just goes to show you,
someone is awake at the switch. ;)

=====
http://mteww.com
http://tinjail.com

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I have to say i agree with Alena's perspective on the artbase and don't
have any problems with the 'inordinately high' number of projects added
to it - whilst some of the pieces may not appear to be 'historically
significant' to everyone (I'm sure they are to the artists who created
them - I was over the moon when work I created was included), the
result is a very rich and inspiring collection of work.

I work at several universities and colleges, teaching both practical
skills and theory in new media and the artbase is a fantastic resource
to show students the diversity of work being created, lets face it the
number of artists working in this field has grown as exponentially as
the net itself.

there has been much critiscism for the lack of discussion and critique
on work presented via the artbase and _raw, surely this is an opportune
moment to really kick start such dialogue, before half the community
disappears in a $5 huff

so, while we're at it can Eryk's recent infoslut plunderphonics be
added :)

cheers
neil

On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 05:38 pm, Alena Williams wrote:

> Hello Eryk:
>
> While the number 415 may seem inordinately high, the amount of
> submissions
> we've received each month has increased significantly over the past
> year.
> Just to give you some perspective on the statistics–in May 2001, we
> received 68 submissions, and by October 2002, this number nearly
> doubled to
> 129. The expansion of the archive's scope, which was enacted this time
> last
> year, is another factor to keep in mind. We now not only include net
> art,
> but also other forms of new media, which has allowed us to cast our net
> wider and accept projects which would have at one time been declined.
>
> Moreover, the ArtBase is not a curated collection. Our primary concern
> in
> admitting projects into the ArtBase is whether or not they meet the
> definition of new media art as described in the selection criteria. As
> Mark
> already mentioned, the potential value a project might have for future
> historians of new media art is the most important when considering a
> work's
> "historical significance."
>
> Needless to say, processing these objects is certainly not a task I
> take
> lightly. I find myself coming back to projects repeatedly–sometimes
> the
> decision whether or not to include an object into the archive develops
> into
> a discussion between myself and the artist, and even with other
> members on
> staff. The admission of projects into the ArtBase represents a
> commitment of
> time and resources which will continue into the future, long past their
> initial acceptance. As such, many of your points are well-taken.
>
> Thanks,
> Alena
>
> + + +
>
> Alena Williams
> ArtBase Coordinator
> Rhizome.org
>
>
>> This is why I said that there are too many works in the art base. 415
>> pieces added, was it? That means that at least once a day, and
>> sometimes
>> twice, a piece of net.art with "historical significance" was created,
>> many of which I have never heard of or had seen discussed.
>>
>> When I was an intern on the artbase a few years back, we had a careful
>> process- pieces were looked at at least 3 or 4 times, we looked for
>> discussions that had taken place about the work- instead of adding
>> them
>> to the artbase, and then announcing the additions to the artbase in
>> order to start a discussion of the work, which, if you notice, is what
>> they are doing now- and still no one is talking!
>>
>> I believe that now the process is to add anyone and anything that asks
>> to be stored on the artbase. My job as intern was to review every
>> piece
>> submitted to the artbase and make a decision based on the merit of the
>> piece artistically and historically [which is less subjective than it
>> seems to be, I had added pieces by artists who I have massive personal
>> dislike for, simply because I knew the work was discussed and because
>> the artists had made "contributions" for better or for ill.] On top of
>> that, however, I was also supposed to scour the web for pieces that
>> were
>> not submitted, to keep an eye on mailing lists and blogs for pieces
>> that
>> were being discussed.
>>
>> In the end, I think I added maybe 45 to 60 pieces at most, in the
>> couple
>> of months I was an intern, and this included a historical backlog
>> because we were adding "heroic era" net art at the same time. Now, any
>> time a piece gets announced to rhizome it gets into the artbase.
>>
>> As an intern I had wanted to add a discussion from my perspective of
>> why
>> the piece was added to the artbase, since I knew the reasons for my
>> decisions would be lost when the piece was there, and the historical
>> context would be lost as well- and also had asked if possibly they
>> could
>> cross reference pieces with discussions of the pieces that took place
>> on
>> rhizome, interviews with the artist, etc. Even something as simple as
>> clicking on the name, or the artists name, and sending a search query
>> through the textbase. When I left my internship after going back to
>> school, I lost touch with the process, but I do believe that no one is
>> "running" the artbase anymore. The problem isn't money either, since I
>> had a paid internship that cost rhizome about pennies a day for my
>> work
>> (and I accepted the internship under the assumption that it was
>> strictly
>> voluntary.)
>>
>> I would volunteer 15 hours a week [again, unpaid] to overlook the
>> rhizome artbase if rhizome's administration and rhizome membership
>> agreed that some discernment and critical perspective was needed (and
>> that the discernment needed was mine, which is obviously an assailable
>> point.) As it is now, it does precisely the same thing as "the way
>> back
>> machine" or googles "cached copy" archive, except with a narrower
>> focus.
>>
>> I don't believe in snobby exclusivity, but I don't believe that
>> everyone
>> who submits a piece of work to the artbase is "historically
>> significant"
>> either- particularly when you consider 415 entries were submitted in
>> 2002, and I can name maybe one or two pieces that stick out to me this
>> past year as being discussed- not a personal decision of like/dislike,
>> just observances of discussions. They're fewer than you would assume,
>> and I think maybe because we can limbo a little lower than we are.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -e.
>
>> Daniel Young wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Rhizome Artbase Standards
>>>
>>> The Rhizome ArtBase includes works of new media art–including net
>>> art,
>>> software art, computer games, and documentation of new media
>>> performance and
>>> installation–that are of potential historical significance. We
>>> define new
>>> media art as contemporary art that uses emerging technologies in
>>> significant
>>> ways. Online displays of work that does not meet this definition are
>>> not
>>> included in the ArtBase.
>>>
>>> In order to evaluate potential historical significance, we look at:
>>>
>>> the work's aesthetic innovation, conceptual sophistication or
>>> political
>>> impact
>>>
>>> the work's relevance to the discourse of new media art
>>>
>>> any discussion of the work itself on Rhizome.org or other relevant
>>> networks
>>> or publications
>>>
>>> the work's place in the artist or artists' oeuvre
>>>
>>> the work's provenance, including commissions, exhibitions and
>>> collections
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> 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: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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
>

why do my posts seem to not appear on raw at all?? this is about the
4th i've posted over the last few days and i've yet to see one post!!

a+
gar

–
+———————————————————–+

[email protected]
http://www.asquare.org/
http://www.bannerart.org/
http://www.zendco.com/
http://rhizome.org/member.rhiz?user_id00113

+———————————————————–+

neil jenkins wrote:

>
>
> so, while we're at it can Eryk's recent infoslut plunderphonics be
> added :)


I only have one piece in the artbase, "absolut net.art." The rest of my
work is apparently devoid of potential historical significance. I've
never been included in the net.art news, either, which does leave me
kind of bitter, so the two of us can share some solidarity in that
regard. It's been almost a vehement refusal to include me in the net.art
news, which I have to assume is because of the anti-pop bias in rhizome
and the pro- tech savvy "new media equals new technology" angle + "new
avant garde" lines that should have brought in money during the .com
90's. [Not that it worked.]

Of course it's also possible that all of my work just plain sucks and
I'm too biased to tell.

-e.

At 11:14 AM 1/14/2003 -0500, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

>This is why I said that there are too many works in the art base. 415
>pieces added, was it? That means that at least once a day, and sometimes=

>twice, a piece of net.art with "historical significance" was created, many=

>of which I have never heard of or had seen discussed.

hey eryk:

the artbase selection criteria start off like this: " The Rhizome ArtBase=

includes works of new media art

At 1:25 -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:


there is plenty of exclusiveness in the art world. i have always
tried to make rhizome an exception, to keep it open. that's why we
have not bowed to pressure to moderate raw. that's why our
commissioning program is based on a call for proposals (most
commissioning programs are invitational).

hey mark,

moderation and inclusiveness are not antagonistic. you may include
anyone who plays fairly by agreed on rules. RAW has no acceptable use
policy, that's the problem. so anyone may use it and abuse it (and
it's members) however they wish. as long as you keep this imo flawed
policy RAW won't reach it's full potential.
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

Hello Eryk:

While the number 415 may seem inordinately high, the amount of submissions
we've received each month has increased significantly over the past year.
Just to give you some perspective on the statistics–in May 2001, we
received 68 submissions, and by October 2002, this number nearly doubled to
129. The expansion of the archive's scope, which was enacted this time last
year, is another factor to keep in mind. We now not only include net art,
but also other forms of new media, which has allowed us to cast our net
wider and accept projects which would have at one time been declined.

Moreover, the ArtBase is not a curated collection. Our primary concern in
admitting projects into the ArtBase is whether or not they meet the
definition of new media art as described in the selection criteria. As Mark
already mentioned, the potential value a project might have for future
historians of new media art is the most important when considering a work's
"historical significance."

Needless to say, processing these objects is certainly not a task I take
lightly. I find myself coming back to projects repeatedly–sometimes the
decision whether or not to include an object into the archive develops into
a discussion between myself and the artist, and even with other members on
staff. The admission of projects into the ArtBase represents a commitment of
time and resources which will continue into the future, long past their
initial acceptance. As such, many of your points are well-taken.

Thanks,
Alena

+ + +

Alena Williams
ArtBase Coordinator
Rhizome.org


> This is why I said that there are too many works in the art base. 415
> pieces added, was it? That means that at least once a day, and sometimes
> twice, a piece of net.art with "historical significance" was created,
> many of which I have never heard of or had seen discussed.
>
> When I was an intern on the artbase a few years back, we had a careful
> process- pieces were looked at at least 3 or 4 times, we looked for
> discussions that had taken place about the work- instead of adding them
> to the artbase, and then announcing the additions to the artbase in
> order to start a discussion of the work, which, if you notice, is what
> they are doing now- and still no one is talking!
>
> I believe that now the process is to add anyone and anything that asks
> to be stored on the artbase. My job as intern was to review every piece
> submitted to the artbase and make a decision based on the merit of the
> piece artistically and historically [which is less subjective than it
> seems to be, I had added pieces by artists who I have massive personal
> dislike for, simply because I knew the work was discussed and because
> the artists had made "contributions" for better or for ill.] On top of
> that, however, I was also supposed to scour the web for pieces that were
> not submitted, to keep an eye on mailing lists and blogs for pieces that
> were being discussed.
>
> In the end, I think I added maybe 45 to 60 pieces at most, in the couple
> of months I was an intern, and this included a historical backlog
> because we were adding "heroic era" net art at the same time. Now, any
> time a piece gets announced to rhizome it gets into the artbase.
>
> As an intern I had wanted to add a discussion from my perspective of why
> the piece was added to the artbase, since I knew the reasons for my
> decisions would be lost when the piece was there, and the historical
> context would be lost as well- and also had asked if possibly they could
> cross reference pieces with discussions of the pieces that took place on
> rhizome, interviews with the artist, etc. Even something as simple as
> clicking on the name, or the artists name, and sending a search query
> through the textbase. When I left my internship after going back to
> school, I lost touch with the process, but I do believe that no one is
> "running" the artbase anymore. The problem isn't money either, since I
> had a paid internship that cost rhizome about pennies a day for my work
> (and I accepted the internship under the assumption that it was strictly
> voluntary.)
>
> I would volunteer 15 hours a week [again, unpaid] to overlook the
> rhizome artbase if rhizome's administration and rhizome membership
> agreed that some discernment and critical perspective was needed (and
> that the discernment needed was mine, which is obviously an assailable
> point.) As it is now, it does precisely the same thing as "the way back
> machine" or googles "cached copy" archive, except with a narrower focus.
>
> I don't believe in snobby exclusivity, but I don't believe that everyone
> who submits a piece of work to the artbase is "historically significant"
> either- particularly when you consider 415 entries were submitted in
> 2002, and I can name maybe one or two pieces that stick out to me this
> past year as being discussed- not a personal decision of like/dislike,
> just observances of discussions. They're fewer than you would assume,
> and I think maybe because we can limbo a little lower than we are.
>
> Cheers,
> -e.

> Daniel Young wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. Rhizome Artbase Standards
>>
>> The Rhizome ArtBase includes works of new media art–including net art,
>> software art, computer games, and documentation of new media performance and
>> installation–that are of potential historical significance. We define new
>> media art as contemporary art that uses emerging technologies in significant
>> ways. Online displays of work that does not meet this definition are not
>> included in the ArtBase.
>>
>> In order to evaluate potential historical significance, we look at:
>>
>> the work's aesthetic innovation, conceptual sophistication or political
>> impact
>>
>> the work's relevance to the discourse of new media art
>>
>> any discussion of the work itself on Rhizome.org or other relevant networks
>> or publications
>>
>> the work's place in the artist or artists' oeuvre
>>
>> the work's provenance, including commissions, exhibitions and collections
>>
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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