Re: One Day Left

<I hope that Rhizome, as a public space,
has been useful enough, and engaging enough, that
our survival matters to you, too.>
Absolutely. Certainly to me it does - I think it's a
tremendous resource & whenever I feel a bit aggravated
with some or other aspect of it I think to myself
"would I like to do any of the organisational work
associated with it?" & the answer is a big fat no.

The argument is not about $5 is it? Clearly anyone who
lives in the US and the majority of Europe who really
can't afford $5 a *year*(=less than one and a half
cents a day) is not thinking about new media art but
where their next mouthful is coming from.

Lastly the question of community: it's one of those
rather touchy feely words that I as a rather awkward
Brit have never that felt comfortable with..but..
I have to say that participating in the list and
looking at the site has been a real education for me
,I've met some very nice and some very interesting
people (and some who are both) and I've been
stimulated by what is in fact quite a large amount of
constructive debate .. and what does warm the cockles
of my cynical old heart is that when the discussion is
good it's very good indeed ..and that sometimes you
can see an almost palpable decision by a number of
contributors to start discussing something
constructive..examples being the thread Mark River
started recnetly and going back further, Eryk's 'Six
rules..' thing , which idea in particular has been a
really fertile and important one for me and my work.
It's when those moments happen that I feel I can mouth
the word community without blushing.
I read everything that Eryk posts, everything that
Curt, T.Whid, M.River, Ivan Pope post, most of what
Marc Garret, Jess and Max ( come back Max) post (most
of only because they're so damn prolific) plus I read
lots more.
I'm glad I read it and I learn a good deal from it.
I'd be extremely sorry to lose any of those
distinctive and fascinating voices and I really hope
that people will calm down, pay their $5 and stay and
apply themselves once more to a collective effort to
keep the list constructive and interesting ( which
doesn't mean of course conflict free).
If you find a particular contributor to be a pain in
the arse then block him/her then follow up by sending
something interesting to the list.
Oh and the Artbase ..OK maybe there are ( are there?)
people who don't have a life and work beyond the
Artbase and feel cheated that so many are getting in
and robbing them of their exclusivity but I think the
policy is about right- we simply don't know now who is
our Cezanne, our Picasso.
I suspect in 50 years the Artbase will be an
*extraordinarily* important historical document with a
fighting chance of containing included said net
Picasso, Cezanne.
that's my two pennyworth.
best
michael

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

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

That

>Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:49:14 +0000
>To: [email protected]
>From: miguel leal <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>
>That

>
>
> 3. I have had issues as former superuser which included chastisements for
> inactivity based on the "work" involved in maintaining a superuser who do=
esn't
> "contribute" [I didn't publish texts to the webpage because I had a brows=
er
> compatibility issue with rhizome's interface.] There's an opportunity for
> streamlined efficiency, I would guess, in allowing an inactive user's sta=
tus
> to remain the same, as opposed to the unneccesary housekeeping of user
> removal- particularly when a user is an active contributor in other areas.
> What seemed to happen is: I was asked why I didn't publish anything, I
> complained about a very real user bug in the interface, and I was asked to
> leave my position as a superuser, as opposed to having the compatibility =
issue
> worked out. Since it is a voluntary position, I don't see how quotas can =
be
> imposed on any given interested user who shows a refined judgement in what
> gets published and what doesn't.
>
>
> eryk

At 10:34 PM 1/14/2003 -0800, m e t a wrote:
>At 2:48 PM -0500 1/14/03, [email protected] wrote:
> >Hi Meta:
> >
> >This is a reminder that our new membership policy takes effect tomorrow,
> >Wednesday, January 15. We value your membership and hope that you will
> >renew your membership by making a contribution of $5 or more today.
>
>i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
>
>1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.
>
>2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the
>weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.
>
>3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website
>are compensated as well.

if we paid for artbase submissions, texts, etc. we would have to be much
more selective.

>my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
>it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
>or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.

when we were figuring out the new membership policy, we considered giving
free memberships to people who contribute to artbase, digest, etc. my take
on it was that people get as much value from posting as they do from
accessing the content. unlike print, net-based platforms like rhizome are
all about many-to-many communication. we have many more contributors than
say a book or a print journal, so giving away free memberships to those who
post would reduce our paid membership significantly. i also didn't like the
idea of dividing the community into people who post and get free membership
and those who don't post and have to pay. but maybe it makes sense.

these are, to say the least, very difficult decisions. $5 per year is
really very low for most people. less than the cost of a print magazine,
for example.

>this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
>regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or not.

this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a nonprofit
organization. nobody is getting rich.

that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should* offer free
memberships to those whose work is included in the artbase, in digest, etc.

i'd be curious to hear from others on this. feel free to email me directly
if your membership gets suspended.

Here is my dillemma. It's not about money- the five dollars is nothing.

On the one hand:

1. I have already used Rhizome to promote my own work to a large audience.
2. The majority of my "publicity" for new works seems to descend from
announcing it on rhizome.

On the other hand:

1. I have never been paid [or even offerred to be paid] for my numerous
contributions to Rhizome, which have included interviews and essays
which have gone on to be published elsewhere [my interview with michael
daines, or my "zen and the art of ascii" essay] even though that I know
others have been "commissioned" to write pieces for rhizome. Since I
feel like a major contributor (and I have been told by some that I am a
major reason that they are on rhizome to begin with) I often wonder what
it is exactly that I get out of rhizome- but also what it is that
rhizome gets out of me, and whether my own inclusion is worth five
dollars to rhizome.

As of late, I've been posting my better texts to other lists instead of
this one- syndicate, empyre, and thingist- to gauge a response to them,
and the end result has been similar- there is more discussion of new
media on syndicate than there is on rhizome, which has turned into the
navel-gazing cafeteria for defensive psycholanalysis- and it's not just
Karei, it's the entire list- recently there has been an upsurge in meaty
dialogue, but I don't have a lot of faith in it staying that way.


2. I have problems with what I see as a hypocritical personal
detatchment towards the list from the administration, who has long held
the view that the list is only a small part of the community whereas the
website is the greatest asset. What I don't understand is how they are
seperate, since everything on the website originates on the mailing list
to begin with- which is also why the aforementioned slide into defensive
psychoanalysis is worrisome. There's also a sense of populism vs
academic credibility that comes through, and this comes back to the
commissioned texts and artworks coming out of rhizome. While it veers
towards an alledged pop sensibility [Mark Tribe's recent statements
against exclusivity to the artbase, for example] it is also decidedly
exclusive as far as who gets paid and who gets promoted. A major factor
in this was the rhizome grants, which were awarded by people with little
to no actual interest or particpation in the rhizome community. I found
the response to my complaints on this matter patronizing and ripe with
weasel words with no real steps taken towards opening up the selection
process, which I am afraid to say, I find to be the case more and more
when dealing with the rhizome admins one on one. Whether this is a
private issue or a widespread one remains to be seen, I suppose.


3. I have had issues as former superuser which included chastisements
for inactivity based on the "work" involved in maintaining a superuser
who doesn't "contribute" [I didn't publish texts to the webpage because
I had a browser compatibility issue with rhizome's interface.] There's
an opportunity for streamlined efficiency, I would guess, in allowing an
inactive user's status to remain the same, as opposed to the unneccesary
housekeeping of user removal- particularly when a user is an active
contributor in other areas. What seemed to happen is: I was asked why I
didn't publish anything, I complained about a very real user bug in the
interface, and I was asked to leave my position as a superuser, as
opposed to having the compatibility issue worked out. Since it is a
voluntary position, I don't see how quotas can be imposed on any given
interested user who shows a refined judgement in what gets published and
what doesn't.


4. I find the mandate of rhizome to be extraordinarily muddy. I don't
know what Rhizome stands for, or why it stands for it. It has an
identity crisis: Is it a resource? Then what are the resources? Is it a
community? Then why the inattention to the community, who makes up that
community, and if it is a rhizomatic community, then why are some
members more valued for thier status than others? Is it an archive for
new media? Then why is the site not designed around that purpose in the
first place? If the mandate of rhizome is to provide a resource for
understanding new media, how did the website get so segmented to begin
with? Shouldn't it have naturally evolved into something in which cross
referencing texts with art would be easy and neccesary? The answer seems
to have been "We don't have the money now" but what about in 1997, 98,
99, 00, 01? What is rhizome? What is it that I am paying for? I don't
really know the answer to that. I don't know what the vision for rhizome
is, or if it even has a vision- Mark Tribe is talking in interviews
about getting away from rhizome anyway. Alex has already left. Whose
vision is rhizome, and where is it going? Who else is seeing it?


5. Do I really want to support a community that can't even hack up a
"best of/trends seen" discussion at the end of any given year?


These are my concerns. The reason I don't just give the five dollars is
because I have asked myself honestly if it matters to me if Rhizome is
here in five years. The answer is that I don't know if it matters. Would
something more interesting spring up in its place? If rhizome was gone,
would it make for a more interesting time? What would replace it? Is it
time to just let rhizome die, and make way for something new? I think
maybe it is.

I'd love it if something came up that, as I said in previous posts,
actually endeavored to bring net.art to a wide audience, instead of the
circle of usual suspects that rhizome caters to. In this sense I think
rhizome has shot itself in the foot and is stuck in a rut of academia,
ignoring a huge section of net.art that academia usually ignores [but
actually makes up a majority of the net.art scene] and refusing to speak
the language of accessibility. On the other hand, it makes up for this
by accepting everything remotely resembling html or flash to be
preserved for "historical significance" in the artbase [and if you
imagine for a moment that the seperation between these pieces and the
discussion of these pieces is intentional, you have the interesting
question of why. Why would a web site, after 6 years of touting itself
as an "online resource," still not have the infrastructure for
connecting art to the theory of the art? And furthermore, why can't that
be done in a way that makes it exciting? Is rhizome afraid to look excited?]

People may want to CC this for me to respond, as I may not be on the
list when it starts rejecting the non-contributors…Maybe I'll end up
on the other side eventually.


Cheers,
-e.








m e t a wrote:

>At 2:48 PM -0500 1/14/03, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Hi Meta:
>>
>>This is a reminder that our new membership policy takes effect tomorrow,
>>Wednesday, January 15. We value your membership and hope that you will
>>renew your membership by making a contribution of $5 or more today.
>>
>
>i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
>
>1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.
>
>2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.
>
>3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website are compensated as well.
>
>
>my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
>it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
>or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.
>
>this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
>regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or not.
>
>it is most unfair that you are being paid,
>while those who generate your content are not.
>
>
>
>
>//m
>127.0.0.1
>
>http://meta.am/
>216.71.65.73
>
>
>
>
>+ 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
>

>>>
i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :

1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a
commission.2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included
in the weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.3. those whose works,
writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website are compensated as
well.
>>>

Give me a break. Rhizome is a platform for viewing, discussing and
communicating about net.art, not a profit-making machine. I am happy to
support such a service both through financial and other forms of
participation. I consider rhizome to be an invaluable **service**
provided to the net.art community. Indeed rhizome is a key reason why
there is any kind of community at all.

I doubt they are going to be making a profit off your measly $5
contribution, but if you feel that strongly about it I have nothing
against rhizome taking your work out of the art base, removing you from
their list, and never mentioning your work ever again on the site.

best,
kanarinka


—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of m e t a
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:34 AM
To: rhizome
Subject: <nettime> Re: One Day Left


At 2:48 PM -0500 1/14/03, [email protected] wrote:

>Hi Meta:
>
>This is a reminder that our new membership policy takes effect
tomorrow,
>Wednesday, January 15. We value your membership and hope that you will
>renew your membership by making a contribution of $5 or more today.

i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :

1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.

2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the
weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.

3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome
website are compensated as well.


my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.

this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or
not.

it is most unfair that you are being paid,
while those who generate your content are not.




//m
127.0.0.1

http://meta.am/
216.71.65.73

# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg
body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]

Two matters;

Membership
In respose to Mark's idea about having considered free memberships for
various individuals for their participation, I understand this but agree
with the fact that much of the net.art community has been running on the
gift economy, and we're running out of steam in many places. That's why
I've given to many, albeit small as my consulting firm seems to be going out
of business again. The interesting thing is that I have a problem with the
'something for nothing' mentality, although I certainly practice it. WHat
tends to happen is that you get swamped in worthless gomi that you don't
need anyway. How many CD's of Napster music did I make that collect dust
now? Useless gomi, not even good for occasional enjoyment. I'm becoming a
big believer in streamlining.

But $5 is fine, and I think it will help to deal with the latter issue. The
people not willing to pony up for Rhizome don't value it enough to do so.
Because of my finances, I only gave around $10, but I want a backpack
sometime.

Acceptable use
Actually I think Tim has a good idea, but an AUP is the reason why my
Polyhydra.com site has little more on it than pictures ofme in a Klingon
uniform. (oh yes, you should see THAT.) Many ISP's now disallow streaming
media, media of any polemic, etc. Pretty ridiculous. However, I think that
there have been clear and substantial abuses of the list that could be
eliminated by a very loose AUP without endangering free speech whatsoever.
The argument about free speech is so horribly flawed that I am always
shocked to see it taken for granted.

For example, first, a listserv is not a public commons. If sufficiently
provoked, Rhizome's provider could yank it if, for some odd reason, a big
enough fish woudl take exception with it. This is extremely unlikely, but
the dowchemical.com case proves my point, not in the terms of listservs, but
in the explication of ISPs not as public servants, but as private entities
that exercise their own policies, and do not honor matters like the 1st
Amendment if it goes against their company policies.

Secondly, many abuses take the form of endless repetition, swamping, etc.
Perhaps by saying in an AUP that multiple replies over 3-4 a day should be
in single postings, and that repeat offenses will be asked to consolidate or
be suspended for a given period of time does not discourage content.
Problemm is, most of the people who would protest any limitation are ones
who I would argue generate anything resembling 'content' anyway. But then
after making that point, it's Daffy and Bugs arguing about Rabbit or Duck
Season. I refuse to engage in that argument.

I think there's a difference between exclusiveness and social
responsibility.

At 9:08 -0600 1/15/03, Patrick Lichty wrote:
>Two matters;

>
>Acceptable use
>Actually I think Tim has a good idea, but an AUP is the reason why my
>Polyhydra.com site has little more on it than pictures ofme in a Klingon
>uniform. (oh yes, you should see THAT.) Many ISP's now disallow streaming
>media, media of any polemic, etc. Pretty ridiculous. However, I think that
>there have been clear and substantial abuses of the list that could be
>eliminated by a very loose AUP without endangering free speech whatsoever.
>The argument about free speech is so horribly flawed that I am always
>shocked to see it taken for granted.
>

AUPs can certainly be abused as in what's happening to the THING
presently. but RAW's could be voted on by a majority of RAW members
and be reviewed periodically. i'm sure we could come up with
something that allows free discussion, mail art, interventions etc
but keeps disrespectful and abusive shenanigans to a minimum.
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

> if we paid for artbase submissions, texts, etc. we
> would have to be much
> more selective.


lizen rhizomerz or you are historical zelected around
50% shitty zozial maleable or you are not get it.
fired rhizome! it's a nuizible parazit wiz not any
value exzept to zpeculate on global imbezility.
you said "artbase exist" curatorial not
what did you hope till ?
lizten i was fired from rhizome just befor rhizome
understand 'free' speech iz at this time a necezezar
condition to grow -only- i repeat -only-
exactly as to display peanutz to ape get it
rhizome just confiscate zozial zcale benefit
& now do a tax membership, did you only imagine zome
would pay for yeeling ? no, not even a penny
far wellknown in politic az 'mode censitaire'
but itz banal az itz so banal tribe say banal zingz
& zome ov you juzt hope to have part of the zozial
plundering, shame on zoz who remain h!r, to the fifth
generazion, be damned for having break the aeternel
law of art, pharizee ! shity zepulcr !

and now my next post would cure the haemorage but do
you even imagine i will touch you anymore, no,
multiplexed heretikz you are, i will only cure my ownz

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? – Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en francais !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

> but keeps disrespectful and abusive shenanigans to
a
> minimum.

ta gueule !

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? – Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en francais !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

Rachel Greene wrote:

>
> eryk – not only I would say "chastisements" is a
> mischaracterization of our dialogue about your activities as a
> superuser, but your narrative suggests you were asked to leave
> being a superuser after you pointed out a bug – another
> characterization I find misleading.
>

Allow me to clarify: I did not publish texts because I had a problem
with the rhizome interface. I was asked why I did not post, I responded
that I was having a problem with the rhizome interface (the problem: A
complete lack of interesting content, making it so that when something
finally came around that was noteworthy, other superusers raced to
publish the text. I had tried on several occasions, but the pages took
upwards of fifteen to twenty minutes to load up the screen with the text
I would want to publish, at which point, someone else had already done
it.) I was told that no one else had this problem. I responded that I,
in fact, actually had the problem, which eventually led to being
dismissed as a superuser due to inactivity (…due to a problem that I
had with the rhizome interface,)


> first, I doubt there was much official communication about
> superusing that didn't acknowledge that you were volunteering your
> time, and that we were grateful for it.
>

Most if the emails were courteous in the same way that the above
sentence is courteous. The standard "thanks for being here" through a
blanket of obvious annoyance. I would not call this gratitude, instead I
was given the standard rhizome accusatory recording about how there is
no one who can fix all the problems because rhizome is a non profit
organization with a limited budget. But at no point was anyone
discourteous, nor are the people at the desk of JC Penney's discourteous
when I want to return pants. I felt a similar sense of gratitude in this
situation.


> simply, there is a minimum number of texts per month superusers
> have to publish –
>

I was never told this number in any of our communications, nor when I
signed up to be a superuser. In fact this is the very first time I had
heard that there is a minimum number of texts per month that have to be
published. Could you tell me that number?



> it helps me manage who is doing what, and helps insure that the
> rare list is channeled content, and that the textbase evolves.
> we're working on improving the bugs you suggested – maybe when
> they're fixed, and you're able to publish texts (which is how we
> define superusing), you'll want to resume being a superuser. you
> would be welcome.
>

But would that not mean more database changes to reinstate me on top of
the time spent on removing me?] It seems a more practical solution to
have kept me as a superuser until the problem was resolved- not to
mention that the time spent on emails I received urging me to
"contribute" to rhizome, or else I would be removed as a superuser- with
the reasoning that, if I did not contribute, you would all have to
compose more emails to me about contributing, and you simply didn't have
the time- seemed redundant in my eyes. You could have just stopped
emailing me until the problem that we discussed was resolved, don't you
think? The reason I am so worked up about this is because it seemed like
everyone was acting in defense of a database problem by eliminating
anyone who complained about it, instead of looking at the issue of
streamlining (in all fairness, Francis agreed completely with me when I
told him about the sluggishness of the site, and agreed that there would
have to be work done in streamlining the archives in order to get them
to load faster.)

Mark Tribes recent statements that "people contribute to rhizome to
share their ideas" is a fine one, but when coupled with the sentiment
that this therefore renders the ideas valueless, and that rhizome owes
nothing to people who _want_ to make rhizome a better place (as opposed
to those who do so because they are paid- or who want to contribute
because they themselves pay) strikes me as an inelegant solution to the
funding problem.

In the end, I will not pay for rhizome because I am uncomfortable with
how it is run, I am uncomfortable over what its mandate is, and I am
uncomfortable for paying someone else for the "opportunity" to share
ideas, especially when sharing those ideas then become the property and
fuel for rhizome. I do not like the logic that one should pay to share
ideas. To say so is to change the entire reasoning behind institutions
like rhizome. Is it here to serve us, or are we here to serve it? I can
understand a give and take, a membership fee to support the
infrastructure, but what if we are a major component of that
infrastructure, and what if that role is now considered irrelevant
because it was voluntary- and is now something that we are paying for?

What is the role of an institution?

-e.

>i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
>
>1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a
>commission.2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included
>in the weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.3. those whose works,
>writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website are compensated as
>well.

I Would say that Meta questions are merely rethorical and not to be
taken as they are. At least that was my point on my last post to the
list. The problem is that we are used to "use" rhizome and other
community based services for free, and right now we are facing
something that I could already guess since 2001 or so: Rhizome was
getting to dependent from external founding and any cut could put it
on risk. Probably I'm going to pay fot it (with or without e-mail
address or t-shirt…) only to see how the community evolves on this
new basis. But we can also question the Rhizome project itself,
specially on the relation between it's size (and correlated founding)
and its significance for the community that was used to "use" it.
Bigger is not necessarily better. But we will see the results on
medium term basis. And how it affects other web-based communities.


>
>I doubt they are going to be making a profit off your measly $5
>contribution, but if you feel that strongly about it I have nothing
>against rhizome taking your work out of the art base, removing you from
>their list, and never mentioning your work ever again on the site.
>

And that's the kind of unnecessary debate… and one of the reasons
that make me afraid of the use it/pay it solution.

ml

http://www.virose.pt
http://arch.virose.pt

Kanarinka wrote:

>
>Give me a break.
>



>Rhizome is a platform for viewing, discussing and
>communicating about net.art, not a profit-making machine.
>

Let me ask you then: who is viewing it? Following this, who is making
what these people are viewing? Isn't there a difference? Does it make
sense that people should have to pay to show their work to people? Maybe
street musicians should hand us dollar bills for being attentive
listeners? Wouldn't it make more sense for the people who want to see
the work, to pay for the work that they want to see?

Secondly, discussion is based on communication. One can communicate
something, and then other people can discuss it. I can communicate my
ideas anywhere. Rhizome certainly offers a forum for discussion, but
what is the line between a communication and a discussion, and are they
of the same value? What if there was nothing to talk about? I have to
say that rhizome has a lot of discussion but very little communication.


>I am happy to
>support such a service both through financial and other forms of
>participation. I consider rhizome to be an invaluable **service**
>provided to the net.art community.
>

Can you define this service? And how it is invaluable? I am curious to
know what rhizome offers that you can't find elsewhere. The artbase
could have been arranged through an independent organization of artists.
The mailing list is nothing, there are plenty of these (and I expect
more to come up when rhizome dissolves.) I see rhizome as having filled
a very particular niche, and as having abandoned that purpose. Now it is
an institution, like a museum, and this is unfortunate for people who
believed in something different. It used to be ironic that this place
was called rhizome, now it's insulting. It is a tree, pure and simple,
with people at the top making decisions for people at the bottom, with
very little sideways decision making. [They even now have a class
system- user, superuser, admin.]




>Indeed rhizome is a key reason why
>there is any kind of community at all.
>

I disagree. The majority of net.artists are not on rhizome, or don't
contribute- you will get a weird line about how all the people
subscribed to digest are "part of the community" because they get an
email once a week. (This was the reasoning behind having three heads of
museums selecting the rhizome grants. I have no problem with museum
heads, but I also felt like an actual rhizome user should have helped
make that decision- since all of our input is so valuable.) The rhizome
discussion list is a small portion of the net.art community, a large sum
of that membership sharing the membership of other lists, like thingist
or syndicate, anyway.

>
>
>I doubt they are going to be making a profit off your measly $5
>contribution, but if you feel that strongly about it I have nothing
>against rhizome taking your work out of the art base, removing you from
>their list, and never mentioning your work ever again on the site.
>

Ha. "Welcome to the new Rhizome" indeed. Maybe we should also move to
China if we don't like this country. It would be interesting if rhizome
removed everyone from the artbase who didn't pay them. Essentially this
would mean that rhizome was a vanity press! For a certain amount of
money down, rhizome will host any webpage. Also, I wonder if you would
really be happy with only discussing the work of people who pay five
dollars to rhizome?

Write back if you want to: Maybe I'll be here, maybe I won't.

Cheers,
-e.

Cor blimey, Eryk, grow up. You sound like a whingebag. I dont think you
should leave Rhizome. If you have a problem with some very valid issues, eg:
'I do not like the logic that one should pay to share ideas. To say so is to
change the entire reasoning behind institutions like rhizome. Is it here to
serve us, or are we here to serve it?', you should stay and argue the toss.
To me $5 is generally worth paying if only to keep my nosy nose stuck in
places. And who knows, Rhizome might blossom …
My issue now is what will be left of Rhizome when all the non payers and the
cant pay wont pay and the ideological dissenters have left? Will it die a
natural death as we all leave when the fun stops, or will it blossom?
cheers, Ivan

–
Ivan Pope
[email protected]

http://www.ivanpope.com
http://www.tochki-inc.com

"Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death"
Hunter S. Thompson

From: Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>


Rachel Greene wrote:
Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left

eryk

Re: 1/15/03 1:34, "m e t a" <[email protected]>:

> i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
>
> 1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.
>
> 2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the weekly
> digest are paid for their inclusion.
>
> 3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website are
> compensated as well.
>
> my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
> it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
> or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.
>
> this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
> regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or not.
>
> it is most unfair that you are being paid,
> while those who generate your content are not.
>

One can not disagree with the above, on any share and share alike level, but
when one is talking economy and art there is usually more than one side to
every coin. Apart from a few similar emails and a few anonymous ecards,
there appears to have been very little said about the current state of (the)
rhizome, although nettime churns out proclamation after proclamation that
effectively orate as if we are still networking like it was 1995 and that
2001 never happened. I can't help thinking that part of the reason rhizome
is getting so much stick, is that it bursts more than a few bubbles,
exposing our artsy utopias of wanting idealism and collective activism to a
capital pinprick of, dare I say, sliding exploitation.

Some reflections, then, that do not endorse or condemn but try to reflect.
There is no doubt that rhizome is a pyramid scheme with a limited trickle
down effect, like *every* art org., but they are no doubt smart enough to
realize that the word community can only be used in the paid context they
now enter into very carefully, and that if steps 1, 2, and 3 above are not
openly and transparently implemented, so that those seeking payment receive
it, the rhizome crew is effectively packing their own office boxes.
Everything they have done the last year, whether one deems it cosmetic and
feeble or not, has sought to address this balance and people, sans artbase
contributors, are to my outsider knowledge actually getting paid on a scale
that obviously supports no one full/part time but the inner circle (usual
charges of nepotism and cronyism apply, of course). To this one can only
say, and as Coco Fusco has repeatedly pointed out here, look around you and
throw/send the first string of ASCII.

To actually address the issues meta very rightfully brings up, one needs to
dig much deeper and wider. Consider first of all the widespread use of
interns in all art contexts, and an economy where all the money stays on top
thanks to FREE labor on the bottom is abundantly clear. Further, as studies
have shown, the *surplus* of free labor in any field undermines the
possibility of any sustainable employment down the food chain. And on the
topic of artsy economies and pyramid schemes, the pinnacle must surely be
academia, where, as I gather, more than a few nettimers are buttering their
bread. Especially in the new media art field, where new courses are popping
up by the minute (arguably years too late), students pay big bucks to enter
a field that is extremely limited, and that has virtually no economy to
secure a return on their investment and fee. Sadly faculty can barely be
bothered to roll down the window on their new SUV to address this sham, but
swear off rhizome after they had the *audacity* to ask for five bucks. (Yep,
I've heard it.)

So, that said, rhizome does not remotely fit my bill of idealism either, my
utopia for the net, my dreams of a community where we are all equal and
benefit equally, my D&G theories. It is what it is, Tribe's rather
embarrassing social sculpture or not. But I can say that, as someone outside
the university, I acted out of selfishness and not principle when I finally
paid up last night. I just wanted to easily access a portal that gathers
what some, and only some, people do with computer media/code that differs
from the three columns with a menu on either side and ads top and bottom
that comprise much of the WWW. There are no doubt worse and better things to
spend money on, but bottom line is that I find rhizome, as a whole, far more
interesting than another pontificating essay about the new media scam or
another ideological and uninformed confusion of open source with libre.

$0.02 to more than one day left,

-af

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day LeftThink of it like a bar. When you and some =
friends go to a bar and buy drinks, you're not really going for the drinks.=
You pay much more for the drinks than you would if you just bought a six-p=
ack and stayed home with your friends. And most of the value of your experi=
ence actually comes from the other people, who are also paying for their dr=
inks. You go to a bar to be out in public, to meet up with friends and acqu=
aintances, maybe to meet some cute girl or guy or dance to music or just se=
e funny random things happen. Having a drink makes up a very small part of =
the whole experience. If you went to a bar and it was just you and the bart=
ender and your drink, you probably wouldn't have as much fun.

So why do people go to bars? Why do they pay more for their drinks than the=
y should?

Because when people get together in large groups, there's a certain amount =
of work that needs to be done to keep everything running smoothly. This wor=
k is dependent on a lot of things; one of them is how big those large group=
s are. If you want to get together in a group of 40 people you already know=
, probably somebody can host a party at their apartment. If you're in the m=
ood to be around 150 people, some of who you know and some of whom are stra=
ngers, you probably have to go to a bar. So you pay more for your drinks, b=
ecause you're not just paying for the liquor. You're also paying the rent, =
and the cleaning costs, and the labor. Somebody has to serve drinks, and so=
mebody has to keep the place clean, and once in a while a broken barstool h=
as to be replaced. None of those things are free.

To me, that's why we're asking everybody to pay. It's true that most of the=
value doesn't come from the place; it comes from the members. Nobody comes=
to Rhizome because Mark or I or Rachel are particularly clever people – t=
hey come because Rhizome offers a space for other people to come and be cle=
ver for one another.

I know that in some ways $5 is a lot to ask. Not that it's a lot of money t=
o most people, but it's still a conceptual hurdle: It makes you wonder how =
much Rhizome.org really is worth to you. But our options today aren't what =
they were a few years ago, and we've decided that this is the best bet for =
our survival. I hope that Rhizome, as a public space, has been useful enoug=
h, and engaging enough, that our survival matters to you, too.

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

+ + +

> i suppose we also should say merci patronn!
>
> ED
>
>
>
> Think of it like a bar. When you and some friends go to a bar and buy drinks,
> you're not really going for the drinks. You pay much more for the drinks than
> you would if you just bought a six-pack and stayed home with your friends. And
> most of the value of your experience actually comes from the other people, who
> are also paying for their drinks. You go to a bar to be out in public, to meet
> up with friends and acquaintances, maybe to meet some cute girl or guy or
> dance to music or just see funny random things happen. Having a drink makes up
> a very small part of the whole experience. If you went to a bar and it was
> just you and the bartender and your drink, you probably wouldn't have as much
> fun.
>
> So why do people go to bars? Why do they pay more for their drinks than they
> should?
>
> Because when people get together in large groups, there's a certain amount of
> work that needs to be done to keep everything running smoothly. This work is
> dependent on a lot of things; one of them is how big those large groups are.
> If you want to get together in a group of 40 people you already know, probably
> somebody can host a party at their apartment. If you're in the mood to be
> around 150 people, some of who you know and some of whom are strangers, you
> probably have to go to a bar. So you pay more for your drinks, because you're
> not just paying for the liquor. You're also paying the rent, and the cleaning
> costs, and the labor. Somebody has to serve drinks, and somebody has to keep
> the place clean, and once in a while a broken barstool has to be replaced.
> None of those things are free.
>
> To me, that's why we're asking everybody to pay. It's true that most of the
> value doesn't come from the place; it comes from the members. Nobody comes to
> Rhizome because Mark or I or Rachel are particularly clever people – they
> come because Rhizome offers a space for other people to come and be clever for
> one another.
>
> I know that in some ways $5 is a lot to ask. Not that it's a lot of money to
> most people, but it's still a conceptual hurdle: It makes you wonder how much
> Rhizome.org really is worth to you. But our options today aren't what they
> were a few years ago, and we've decided that this is the best bet for our
> survival. I hope that Rhizome, as a public space, has been useful enough, and
> engaging enough, that our survival matters to you, too.
>
> Francis Hwang
> Director of Technology
> Rhizome.org
> 212-989-2363
>
> + + +
>
>

Dear Meta, Mark, et al–

I pretty much never go to Rhizome.org at all…all the discussions and poetry in the RAW list is sufficient for me (or I should say…takes up all my time), and communicating with those smarter/wiser than I has been rewarding, to say the least. Most of the net.art I see is whatever is hyperlinked in these mails, which is sometimes on Rhizome…I bet there are many more Rhizomers that are rather list-oriented, too.

Rhizome isn't some sort of 'art show,' where the 'artists' make it their day job to compose net.art pieces for us to pay to see, and 'critics' doing the same. It's more community-oriented than that. You're not an 'artist' in the traditional sense, and I'm not an 'audience' in that way either, nor should I be paid for my 'brilliant analysis' of your piece. These names don't really have meaning here, as most of us have a little of each of those roles. At least I feel that way.

And US$5.00 is reasonable enough for most countries….definitely for US and Europe…the real bargain is the huge archive of art and text stuff from the past we get access to, not necessarily the current 'cloned art objects.'

If you're in art to make money, Rhizome don't look so good for you…

..and yeah, I know art-types gotta eat, too..
–Vijay
+please comment
+sorry if mult posts

>Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:32:05 -0500
> Mark Tribe <[email protected]> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: One Day Left m e t a <[email protected]>, rhizome <[email protected]>Reply-To: Mark Tribe <[email protected]>
>
>At 10:34 PM 1/14/2003 -0800, m e t a wrote:
>>At 2:48 PM -0500 1/14/03, [email protected] wrote:
>> >Hi Meta:
>> >
>> >This is a reminder that our new membership policy takes effect tomorrow,
>> >Wednesday, January 15. We value your membership and hope that you will
>> >renew your membership by making a contribution of $5 or more today.
>>
>>i would be happy to pay for rhizome membership, provided :
>>
>>1. those whose works are included in the artbase are paid a commission.
>>
>>2. those whose works, writings, and commentaries are included in the
>>weekly digest are paid for their inclusion.
>>
>>3. those whose works, writings, or projects appear on the rhizome website
>>are compensated as well.
>
>if we paid for artbase submissions, texts, etc. we would have to be much
>more selective.
>
>>my work has been included in a number of books and magazines.
>>it is customary that when this occurs i am either paid,
>>or at the very least receive a free copy of the publication.
>
>when we were figuring out the new membership policy, we considered giving
>free memberships to people who contribute to artbase, digest, etc. my take
>on it was that people get as much value from posting as they do from
>accessing the content. unlike print, net-based platforms like rhizome are
>all about many-to-many communication. we have many more contributors than
>say a book or a print journal, so giving away free memberships to those who
>post would reduce our paid membership significantly. i also didn't like the
>idea of dividing the community into people who post and get free membership
>and those who don't post and have to pay. but maybe it makes sense.
>
>these are, to say the least, very difficult decisions. $5 per year is
>really very low for most people. less than the cost of a print magazine,
>for example.
>
>>this is only fair - considering they are profiting in part from my work
>>regardless of whether it was created especially for their publication or not.
>
>this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a nonprofit
>organization. nobody is getting rich.
>
>that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should* offer free
>memberships to those whose work is included in the artbase, in digest, etc.
>
>i'd be curious to hear from others on this. feel free to email me directly
>if your membership gets suspended.
>
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> post: [email 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


————————————————————
Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com


———————————————————————
Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
Hundreds of choices. It's free!
http://www.bigmailbox.com
———————————————————————

>>>
>>>
Wouldn't it make more sense for the people who want to see
the work, to pay for the work that they want to see?
>>>

Then I suggest a paypal authentication system for each one of your
net.art works that you want to charge people to see. I do not personally
want to charge anyone to see my work. Nobody looks at net.art anyways.

>>>
I have to
say that rhizome has a lot of discussion but very little communication.
>>>
I agree. But I really like the digest and Net Art News. There are also
occasionally truly interesting threads and opportunities.

>>>
The artbase
could have been arranged through an independent organization of artists.
>>>
Yeah, but it wasn't.

>>>
The rhizome discussion list is a small portion of the net.art community,
a large sum of that membership sharing the membership of other lists,
like thingist or syndicate, anyway.
>>>
Agreed, but, like all lists, those lists are meaningless and boring in
their own special ways.

>>>
Maybe we should also move to China if we don't like this country.
>>>
It's much more expensive to move to China than to stop going to
rhizome's website.

Anyways, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding all this uproar.
People who are professionals often pay to be members of professional
associations where they can network, go to events, have discussions,
show their work etc. People who are in the arts often support (via money
or attending their events) the organizations that provide them with
services. For example, our organization iKatun has whatever money we can
fundraise ($600 last year) and any personal money we all put into it.
But we gave $50 to the Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts association. We
gave $25 to rhizome. Often when I go to a non-profit gallery for an
event they ask for donations at the door and I give what they request.
Running an organization, even if it is non-profit, takes money! I admire
people who run things because I think it is way more interesting and fun
to make art than to run a real non-profit organization.

It seems to me to be exceedingly selfish to wah-wah about donating $5 or
to conspiracy-theorize about how rhizome is really making some huge
profit on all our stuff in their art base. (yah, right)

Hope you don't leave even though I disagree with you.
Love,
kanarinka




—–Original Message—–
From: Eryk Salvaggio [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 12:58 PM
To: Kanarinka; [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: RE: <nettime> Re: One Day Left



Kanarinka wrote:

>
>Give me a break.
>



>Rhizome is a platform for viewing, discussing and
>communicating about net.art, not a profit-making machine.
>

Let me ask you then: who is viewing it? Following this, who is making
what these people are viewing? Isn't there a difference? Does it make
sense that people should have to pay to show their work to people? Maybe

street musicians should hand us dollar bills for being attentive
listeners? Wouldn't it make more sense for the people who want to see
the work, to pay for the work that they want to see?

Secondly, discussion is based on communication. One can communicate
something, and then other people can discuss it. I can communicate my
ideas anywhere. Rhizome certainly offers a forum for discussion, but
what is the line between a communication and a discussion, and are they
of the same value? What if there was nothing to talk about? I have to
say that rhizome has a lot of discussion but very little communication.


>I am happy to
>support such a service both through financial and other forms of
>participation. I consider rhizome to be an invaluable **service**
>provided to the net.art community.
>

Can you define this service? And how it is invaluable? I am curious to
know what rhizome offers that you can't find elsewhere. The artbase
could have been arranged through an independent organization of artists.

The mailing list is nothing, there are plenty of these (and I expect
more to come up when rhizome dissolves.) I see rhizome as having filled
a very particular niche, and as having abandoned that purpose. Now it is

an institution, like a museum, and this is unfortunate for people who
believed in something different. It used to be ironic that this place
was called rhizome, now it's insulting. It is a tree, pure and simple,
with people at the top making decisions for people at the bottom, with
very little sideways decision making. [They even now have a class
system- user, superuser, admin.]




>Indeed rhizome is a key reason why
>there is any kind of community at all.
>

I disagree. The majority of net.artists are not on rhizome, or don't
contribute- you will get a weird line about how all the people
subscribed to digest are "part of the community" because they get an
email once a week. (This was the reasoning behind having three heads of
museums selecting the rhizome grants. I have no problem with museum
heads, but I also felt like an actual rhizome user should have helped
make that decision- since all of our input is so valuable.) The rhizome
discussion list is a small portion of the net.art community, a large sum

of that membership sharing the membership of other lists, like thingist
or syndicate, anyway.

>
>
>I doubt they are going to be making a profit off your measly $5
>contribution, but if you feel that strongly about it I have nothing
>against rhizome taking your work out of the art base, removing you from
>their list, and never mentioning your work ever again on the site.
>

Ha. "Welcome to the new Rhizome" indeed. Maybe we should also move to
China if we don't like this country. It would be interesting if rhizome
removed everyone from the artbase who didn't pay them. Essentially this
would mean that rhizome was a vanity press! For a certain amount of
money down, rhizome will host any webpage. Also, I wonder if you would
really be happy with only discussing the work of people who pay five
dollars to rhizome?

Write back if you want to: Maybe I'll be here, maybe I won't.

Cheers,
-e.

Ivan Pope wrote:

>>
>>
>c) the Rhizome staff would love to raise enough money to commission all the
>artists at the same time, but they are old enough to know this is unlikely
>
>

A piss poor excuse. I want idealistic institutions.

-e.




>
>

At 9:32 AM -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:

>
>this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a nonprofit organization. nobody is getting rich.

'survival' & 'rich' are relative terms.

you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000

alex galloway was paid $36,692 - and he is listed as a part-time employee.

http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf


i could live more than comfortably off of your salary, mark.


>that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should* offer free memberships to those whose work is included in the artbase, in digest, etc.

sorry - you *need* to offer much more than that.

everyone who is actively producing the very material whereby you pay yourself $47,260 a year needs to be receiving a share of the wealth.

this includes the regional editors, those who write reviews of festivals and shows and artworks, those whose writings are included in the digest…

and here's a novel concept :

perhaps even the artists - the ones actually producing the stuff that the entire rhizome community supposedly revolves around - could actually see some of that money.

perhaps the money collected from the community
could actually be put back into the community itself
in the form of direct financial support for the artists.

perhaps one modest commission a month,
or a fee for inclusion in the artbase.

… instead of :

rhizomes office space, - $10,176
rhizomes travel expenses, - $8,049
rhizomes office expense, - $8,175
rhizomes legal fees, - $25,444
etc.


your .org has become bloated.

you have a number of things generating considerable expense
that are providing little or no benefit to the majority of the list members.

in addition - you are asking for us to pay for them
while providing no financial support for those generating the very content
that IS of benefit to the majority of the list members.

that is not survival, it is exploitation.


sorry - before you receive a dime from me,
i need to know that my money is going to be spent much more wisely
and distributed much more fairly.


>i'd be curious to hear from others on this. feel free to email me directly if your membership gets suspended.

cute.



//m
127.0.0.1

http://meta.am/
216.71.65.73

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> As of late, I've been posting my better texts to other lists instead of
> this one- syndicate, empyre, and thingist- to gauge a response to them,
> and the end result has been similar- there is more discussion of new
> media on syndicate than there is on rhizome, which has turned into the
> navel-gazing cafeteria for defensive psycholanalysis- and it's not just
> Karei, it's the entire list- recently there has been an upsurge in meaty

Actually Eryk, there are no 'defensive psychoanalysts' here besides you.
Do us a favor and avoid slapping your own myopic prejudices onto
things you dont understand. We know it's tough.
It's far easier to slapstick label in a dictatorial fashion,
and when the other side doesn't play along to claim defensiveness.
Your level of intelligence is that observed in a kindergarten
sandbox, particularly if not allowed to throw sand in other kids
eyes, you will engage bully behavior.

Unimpressive one bit.

> dialogue, but I don't have a lot of faith in it staying that way.

As if. The 'judge' of new media 'dialogue'.
One never gives up the careerism, does one.
A primary interest.


`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

>you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


–
$
http://tonk.org

At 0:30 -0800 1/17/03, m e t a wrote:
>At 9:32 AM -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:
>
>>
>>this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a
>>nonprofit organization. nobody is getting rich.
>
>'survival' & 'rich' are relative terms.
>
>you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000
>
>alex galloway was paid $36,692 - and he is listed as a part-time employee.
>
>http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf


that doesn't sound like an unreasonable salary to me. rhizome is in
nyc after all, the cost of living is much higher than other parts of
the USA.


>
>
>>that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should*
>>offer free memberships to those whose work is included in the
>>artbase, in digest, etc.
>
>sorry - you *need* to offer much more than that.
>
>everyone who is actively producing the very material whereby you pay
>yourself $47,260 a year needs to be receiving a share of the wealth.


up until 2 days ago Mark raised all the money himself thru donations
and voluntary contributions. there is also a board that oversees the
compensation of full time employees.

i think you are really barking up the wrong tree. if you don't want
to share your work and thoughts on rhizome, then don't. of course you
can attempt to persuade others on this list, but i think your
argument is fairly flaccid myself.

a my proposal to the main problem which is lack of true community.

!!!the members of rhizome should elect the board.!!!
this would really make the members feel like they have a real say in
how the org is run.

of course this may not even be legal by the laws governing
non-profits in the usa i have no idea.



>
>this includes the regional editors, those who write reviews of
>festivals and shows and artworks, those whose writings are included
>in the digest…
>
>and here's a novel concept :
>
>perhaps even the artists - the ones actually producing the stuff
>that the entire rhizome community supposedly revolves around - could
>actually see some of that money.
>
>perhaps the money collected from the community
>could actually be put back into the community itself
>in the form of direct financial support for the artists.



>
>perhaps one modest commission a month,
>or a fee for inclusion in the artbase.
>
>… instead of :
>
>rhizomes office space, - $10,176
>rhizomes travel expenses, - $8,049
>rhizomes office expense, - $8,175
>rhizomes legal fees, - $25,444
>etc.
>
>
>your .org has become bloated.

and what yer proposing leads to more bloat imo, more admin fees, more
paperwork etc. and with 415 entries to the artbase last year, what
sort of fee could rhizome pay? lets say they could cut the office
lease out all together and applied it to the artbase contributions,
that would be a measly $24.50 per contribution. so to make this fee
mean anything we would have to cut down on the number of
contributions by at least 3/4 and get the fee to around 100 bucks.
then instead of accusing exploitation, you'd accuse elitism.

if they could somehow reduce the fees above to 0, then we could have
a $125 fee per artbase submission. i'm sure some of those fees could
be reduced and are being reduced but to think they could be cut to 0
is naive.


–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

m e t a wrote:

> you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000
>
> alex galloway was paid $36,692 - and he is listed as a part-time employee.
>
> http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf
>
>
> i could live more than comfortably off of your salary, mark.

Not to get personal, m e t a, but where do you live? $47k isn't a
poverty-level wage, but by NYC standards, it's quite paltry. Especially
considering the hours Mark has to put in and the overall stress of being the
executive director of a non-profit. Even with the depressed dot-com economy,
I know people in this city who are five years younger than Mark and make
twice as much money. (Hell, I used to be one of them.)

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

+ + +

I don't mind paying for Rhizome, and in fact I did. But there are obvious
(at least to me) questions that have never been answered.

What's wrong with corporate sponsorship?

Whitney does it, BAM does it, Guggenheim does it. And it works well for
them. Would I be correct in guessing that Rhizome has a predominantly
anti-big-business spirit?

What about the distribution of labor?

It seems ironic that the organization that endorses digital technology isn't
taking advantage of one of the greatest aspects of the Internet technology:
de-centralization of labor. Why couldn't Rhizome be run like the way
K10K.net is? Their site is just as ambitious as Rhizime is, and no one is
getting paid for their contributions there, and the site is free for
everyone. They got Adobe to pay for software and hardware. They got Media
Temple to provide them free hosting. Beyond that, all the labor is
voluntary. Everyone has a job. They have no office space or travel expense.
This is possible because the labor is distributed wide enough that each
person does not have to do much. This is one of the greatest things about
the net. Why do you need to have one person dedicated to reviewing all the
artwork? Why do you need to have one person dedicated to anything for that
matter. Why couldn't you distribute?

I'm not exactly sure what part of the site is going to be members-only, but
depending on it, I have a feeling that the fee could potentially be fatal
for Rhizome. It's not the amount. It is the friction of the payment
processing that the majority of people will not go through. I always thought
Rhizome to be a great resource for anyone who wants to learn about digital
art, but the membership strategy will limit the audience to the insiders
only. Rhizome, therefore, will stop functioning as a force to disseminate
and proliferate the messages of the digital art. This will be very
unfortunate.

-Dyske

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

as always,
paying the artists is the last thing to be thought of,
as always,
artists are lucky to have such a good promotional vitrine,

… et c'est tant mieux ?

–
OG

–+ Whit, Goog, + museums pay the artists they show. +–


—– Original Message —–
From: "Dyske Suematsu" <[email protected]>
To: "Francis Hwang" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: One Day Left


> I don't mind paying for Rhizome, and in fact I did. But there are obvious
> (at least to me) questions that have never been answered.
>
> What's wrong with corporate sponsorship?
>
> Whitney does it, BAM does it, Guggenheim does it. And it works well for
> them. Would I be correct in guessing that Rhizome has a predominantly
> anti-big-business spirit?
>
> What about the distribution of labor?
>
> It seems ironic that the organization that endorses digital technology
isn't
> taking advantage of one of the greatest aspects of the Internet
technology:
> de-centralization of labor. Why couldn't Rhizome be run like the way
> K10K.net is? Their site is just as ambitious as Rhizime is, and no one is
> getting paid for their contributions there, and the site is free for
> everyone. They got Adobe to pay for software and hardware. They got Media
> Temple to provide them free hosting. Beyond that, all the labor is
> voluntary. Everyone has a job. They have no office space or travel
expense.
> This is possible because the labor is distributed wide enough that each
> person does not have to do much. This is one of the greatest things about
> the net. Why do you need to have one person dedicated to reviewing all the
> artwork? Why do you need to have one person dedicated to anything for that
> matter. Why couldn't you distribute?
>
> I'm not exactly sure what part of the site is going to be members-only,
but
> depending on it, I have a feeling that the fee could potentially be fatal
> for Rhizome. It's not the amount. It is the friction of the payment
> processing that the majority of people will not go through. I always
thought
> Rhizome to be a great resource for anyone who wants to learn about digital
> art, but the membership strategy will limit the audience to the insiders
> only. Rhizome, therefore, will stop functioning as a force to disseminate
> and proliferate the messages of the digital art. This will be very
> unfortunate.
>
> -Dyske
>
> –
> Dyske Suematsu
> http://www.dyske.com
> Where Nothing Is Everything
>
>
> + 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
>

At 10:33 -0500 1/17/03, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
>I don't mind paying for Rhizome, and in fact I did. But there are obvious
>(at least to me) questions that have never been answered.
>
>What's wrong with corporate sponsorship?
>
>Whitney does it, BAM does it, Guggenheim does it. And it works well for
>them. Would I be correct in guessing that Rhizome has a predominantly
>anti-big-business spirit?
>
>What about the distribution of labor?


dyske is right. there could be a much more wider distribution of the
labor. i think rhizome may be afraid that if they go in this
distributed route that it might wipe out the institutional grants and
funding they've been receiving. many sites are run this way (all
slash code sites are, k5, etc) and i think rhizome is moving this way
but it's not happening fast enough imo.

also, rhizome wants to be more than a web hub for new media art. they
have their commissions, they sponsor events, and generally act as the
face of new media to the art world at large.


>
>It seems ironic that the organization that endorses digital technology isn't
>taking advantage of one of the greatest aspects of the Internet technology:
>de-centralization of labor. Why couldn't Rhizome be run like the way
>K10K.net is? Their site is just as ambitious as Rhizime is, and no one is
>getting paid for their contributions there, and the site is free for
>everyone. They got Adobe to pay for software and hardware. They got Media
>Temple to provide them free hosting. Beyond that, all the labor is
>voluntary. Everyone has a job. They have no office space or travel expense.
>This is possible because the labor is distributed wide enough that each
>person does not have to do much. This is one of the greatest things about
>the net. Why do you need to have one person dedicated to reviewing all the
>artwork? Why do you need to have one person dedicated to anything for that
>matter. Why couldn't you distribute?
>
>I'm not exactly sure what part of the site is going to be members-only, but
>depending on it, I have a feeling that the fee could potentially be fatal
>for Rhizome. It's not the amount. It is the friction of the payment
>processing that the majority of people will not go through. I always thought
>Rhizome to be a great resource for anyone who wants to learn about digital
>art, but the membership strategy will limit the audience to the insiders
>only. Rhizome, therefore, will stop functioning as a force to disseminate
>and proliferate the messages of the digital art. This will be very
>unfortunate.
>
>-Dyske
>
>–
>Dyske Suematsu
>http://www.dyske.com
>Where Nothing Is Everything

–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

Hi Meta & Mark,

'Hark I hear a cheap swipe…woe is me when one tries to kill thy father'.

People are so mean about other people who are bothering to do things that
are kool. Why is that?

I worked for an organization in the East End of London with Ruth Catlow.
In that time we managed to get more studios built, studio rents as the
lowest
in London for over 80 artists. We sorted out a

—– Original Message —–
From: t.whid <[email protected]>
>
> a my proposal to the main problem which is lack of true community.
>
> !!!the members of rhizome should elect the board.!!!
> this would really make the members feel like they have a real say in
> how the org is run.

Now that I like!
Ivan

—– Original Message —–
From: "clement Thomas" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: One Day Left


> as always,
> paying the artists is the last thing to be thought of,
> as always,
> artists are lucky to have such a good promotional vitrine,
>
> … et c'est tant mieux ?


==> mouarf

to restate :

i am not against mark or alex or other rhizome staff being paid,

i am not against paying $5,
(the amount is trivial.
i personally would charge & be comfortable paying 3 times that amount.)

what i am objecting to, is a pattern
that is unfortunately quite common :

the administrative & executive staff are being paid
while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.


as long as this basic inequity exists,
i will not be paying anything for rhizome.

the situation is unfair.




//m
127.0.0.1

http://meta.am/
216.71.65.73

mmmm…

Now you're talking…

marc

>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: t.whid <[email protected]>
> >
> > a my proposal to the main problem which is lack of true community.
> >
> > !!!the members of rhizome should elect the board.!!!
> > this would really make the members feel like they have a real say in
> > how the org is run.
>
> Now that I like!
> Ivan
>
> + 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
>

> From: m e t a <[email protected]>

> what i am objecting to, is a pattern
> that is unfortunately quite common :
>
> the administrative & executive staff are being paid
> while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.

You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we all want to change the
world.

Which of these are true:
a) the Rhizome staff could raise enough money to pay all the artists, but
they wont because they are lazy
b) the Rhizome staff did raise enough money to pay all the artists, but they
stashed it in Bermuda because they are rapacious con merchants
c) the Rhizome staff would love to raise enough money to commission all the
artists at the same time, but they are old enough to know this is unlikely
d) the Rhizome staff do count their blessings that for the last few years
they have been able to earn a crust from a project that is both hard work
and hugely satisfying and they will find it hard to go back to slaving for
some capitalist pigs if it all goes down the drain

If the world wasnt a strange unfair place there would be nothing for artists
to do. If things like Rhizome could pay the creatives, what a fat arsed art
world it would be.

Cheers, Ivan


–
Ivan Pope
[email protected]

http://www.ivanpope.com
http://www.tochki-inc.com

"Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death"
Hunter S. Thompson

OK

> the administrative & executive staff are being paid
> while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.

So what kind of system do you think should be put in place to pay artists
featured or cloned (their work that is not them) , say if the Lawyers fees
were scrapped?

marc



>
>
> to restate :
>
> i am not against mark or alex or other rhizome staff being paid,
>
> i am not against paying $5,
> (the amount is trivial.
> i personally would charge & be comfortable paying 3 times that amount.)
>
> what i am objecting to, is a pattern
> that is unfortunately quite common :
>
> the administrative & executive staff are being paid
> while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.
>
>
> as long as this basic inequity exists,
> i will not be paying anything for rhizome.
>
> the situation is unfair.
>
>
>
>
> //m
> 127.0.0.1
>
> http://meta.am/
> 216.71.65.73
>
>
>
>
>
> + 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
>
>

At 09:48 AM 1/17/2003 -0500, t.whid wrote:
>my proposal to the main problem which is lack of true community.
>
>!!!the members of rhizome should elect the board.!!!

i agree that the members should have at least one elected representative on
the board.

>this would really make the members feel like they have a real say in how
>the org is run.

agreed.

>of course this may not even be legal by the laws governing non-profits in
>the usa i have no idea.

i'm not sure how it would work legally, but i'm sure it could be done. i'll
bring this up with the board at the next meeting.

Hi Dyske:

You raise some good points and ask some excellent questions. Forgive me if
my responses go on a bit.

At 10:33 AM 1/17/2003 -0500, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
>I don't mind paying for Rhizome, and in fact I did. But there are obvious
>(at least to me) questions that have never been answered.
>
>What's wrong with corporate sponsorship?
>
>Whitney does it, BAM does it, Guggenheim does it. And it works well for
>them. Would I be correct in guessing that Rhizome has a predominantly
>anti-big-business spirit?

I suppose I have a somewhat anti-big-business spirit, and that many if not
most Rhizome members have a similar attitude. But I don't think this
attitude has much to do with our lack of corporate support. We received
some corporate support in 1999 and 2000 from Absolut and Altoids. But those
were exceptional: the Absolut money came through a competition–Absolut
Angel–and functioned more like a grant. The Altoids sponsorship happened
when we were doing events at The Kitchen in NYC and had a lot to do with
the venue.

Other than Absolut and Altoids, our attempts to attract corporate sponsors
have been unsuccessful. I'm not sure how much of this has to do with the
slow economy and how much of it has to do with the fact that corporations
have a hard time seeing the value in sponsoring an organization like
Rhizome whose programs are mostly online. I think they would see it as a
form of online advertizing, and that market is still pretty depressed.
Corporations seem to be more interested in sponsoring established museums
(where they can put their name on the wall) and performing arts
organizations (where they can put their name in the program). They also
seem to be most comfortable with either established art forms or
established organizations. A new organization that supports a new art form
is a pretty hard sell. Because we've had more success with Foundations,
government agencies and individuals, that's where we've focused our
energies. Perhaps it is time for us to try again with corporate sponsors.

>What about the distribution of labor?
>
>It seems ironic that the organization that endorses digital technology isn't
>taking advantage of one of the greatest aspects of the Internet technology:
>de-centralization of labor. Why couldn't Rhizome be run like the way
>K10K.net is? Their site is just as ambitious as Rhizime is, and no one is
>getting paid for their contributions there, and the site is free for
>everyone. They got Adobe to pay for software and hardware. They got Media
>Temple to provide them free hosting. Beyond that, all the labor is
>voluntary. Everyone has a job. They have no office space or travel expense.
>This is possible because the labor is distributed wide enough that each
>person does not have to do much. This is one of the greatest things about
>the net. Why do you need to have one person dedicated to reviewing all the
>artwork? Why do you need to have one person dedicated to anything for that
>matter. Why couldn't you distribute?

I love K10K.net. But Rhizome.org and K10K.net are very different creatures.
K10K is a design zine, more-or-less. They are based in Denmark, I think. As
a Denmark-based web design zine, their ability to get corporate sponsorship
is pretty different from ours (both because they are about design, not art,
and because they are in Denmark). In my experience, European and
Scandinavian corporations, and even European and Scandinavian subsidiaries
of American corporations, are much more open to sponsoring new media and
online projects. Look, for example, at Ars Electronica.

I'm not going to argue that the Rhizome.org web site is more or less
ambitious than K10K. K10K is amazing. It has great content, kewl design and
a dilirously funny FAQ. But Rhizome.org has a very different range of
programs, including:

+ Four email lists (Raw, Rare, Digest and Net Art News) and their web-based
equivalents.

+ Archives of texts (TextBase) and new media art works (ArtBase) that have
been methodically indexed with keywords and other metadata–I think these
may be the largest archives of their kind in existence today. Hopefully we
will have a better search engine soon so these archive will be more
accessible. We also participate actively in CIAO, the Variable Media
Network, and other consortia and inititatives concerned with the archiving
and preservation of new media art, and are actively involved in helping to
set standards for the archiving and preservation of new media art (see our
recently published report at http://rhizome.org/artbase/report.htm). We see
this kind of advocacy, as well as a committment to preserving the work in
our archives for the long term, as important aspects of our service to the
field.

+ A new media art commissioning program in which we give money to artists
to make new work.

+ The Calendar, Opportunity Listings and Community Directory: these don't
take much effort to run now that they are set up, but we hope to improve them.

+ Face-to-face events at various venues (museums, clubs, bars, schools)
around the world.

+ Web Hosting and Online Education (both through partnerships, but these
still take time to manage).

We also have several other new programs in the works, including Grok, a
traveling arcade-style game console that will make new media art accessible
to disadvantaged youth and others at non-traditional venues around the US,
and Rhizome Latino, a Spanish-language version of Rhizome.org.

The question of operating in a more distributed manner came up during the
initial discussion around membership fees back in November. The short
answer is that I don't think it would work for us. Or rather that it could
work, but it would mean radically scalaing back both our current programs
and our ambitions for the future. We (meaning the staff and board)
seriously considered shutting down the office, laying off the staff and
going into a kind of hibernation mode in which we would keep most of the
web site going but terminated all the other programs and activities. But we
decided instead to try to keep Rhizome going in its current form so we can
continue to grow and build on what we have thus far accomplished. A
physical office and a small core staff are necessary in order to function
as a nonprofit organization supported primarily by grants and individuals,
in order to sustain a high level of professionalism in our programs and
activities, in order to serve as advocates for new media art, etc. If our
current gambit to achieve financial stability through member contributions
fails, we could always fall back to a more distributed approach.

>I'm not exactly sure what part of the site is going to be members-only, but
>depending on it, I have a feeling that the fee could potentially be fatal
>for Rhizome. It's not the amount. It is the friction of the payment
>processing that the majority of people will not go through.

Good point about the hassle factor vs. the amount.

>I always thought
>Rhizome to be a great resource for anyone who wants to learn about digital
>art, but the membership strategy will limit the audience to the insiders
>only. Rhizome, therefore, will stop functioning as a force to disseminate
>and proliferate the messages of the digital art. This will be very
>unfortunate.

Well, the home page will continue to be free, as will Net Art News. And the
whole thing will be free on Fridays.

Best,

Mark

At 12:30 AM 1/17/2003 -0800, m e t a wrote:
>At 9:32 AM -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:
>
> >
> >this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a nonprofit
> organization. nobody is getting rich.
>
>'survival' & 'rich' are relative terms.

agreed. but when i talk about survival, i mean rhizome's survival, not my own.

>you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000
>
>alex galloway was paid $36,692 - and he is listed as a part-time employee.
>
>http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf
>
>
>i could live more than comfortably off of your salary, mark.

i realize that these salaries could seem high, especially to people from
places where wages and costs of living are lower. but our salaries are
actually about average for nonprofit arts organization of our size in new
york city. we could move to a cheaper location, of course, but our access
to government and foundation funding is much better in new york than it
would be elsewhere. and there are other benefits to being in new york as
well, so all in all i think it makes sense for us to stay.

> >that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should* offer
> free memberships to those whose work is included in the artbase, in
> digest, etc.
>
>sorry - you *need* to offer much more than that.
>
>everyone who is actively producing the very material whereby you pay
>yourself $47,260 a year needs to be receiving a share of the wealth.
>
>this includes the regional editors, those who write reviews of festivals
>and shows and artworks, those whose writings are included in the digest…
>
>and here's a novel concept :
>
>perhaps even the artists - the ones actually producing the stuff that the
>entire rhizome community supposedly revolves around - could actually see
>some of that money.

they do, through our commissioning program.

>perhaps the money collected from the community
>could actually be put back into the community itself
>in the form of direct financial support for the artists.

last year, we gave $20,000 to five artists through our commissioning
program. this year, we hope to give more (depends on funding).

>perhaps one modest commission a month,
>or a fee for inclusion in the artbase.
>
>… instead of :
>
>rhizomes office space, - $10,176
>rhizomes travel expenses, - $8,049
>rhizomes office expense, - $8,175
>rhizomes legal fees, - $25,444
>etc.
>
>your .org has become bloated.

as others on this list can attest, our operating expenses are in fact
rather low for a nonprofit arts organization based in new york or similar city.

>you have a number of things generating considerable expense
>that are providing little or no benefit to the majority of the list members.

perhaps. you seem to have some pretty clear ideas about how an organization
like rhizome should be run. maybe you should start one yourself!

>in addition - you are asking for us to pay for them
>while providing no financial support for those generating the very content
>that IS of benefit to the majority of the list members.
>
>that is not survival, it is exploitation.
>sorry - before you receive a dime from me,
>i need to know that my money is going to be spent much more wisely
>and distributed much more fairly.

i think your expectations and assumptions are unrealistic.

> >i'd be curious to hear from others on this. feel free to email me
> directly if your membership gets suspended.
>
>cute.
>
>
>
>//m
>127.0.0.1
>
>http://meta.am/
>216.71.65.73
>
>
>
>
>
>
>+ 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

At 11:27 PM 1/17/2003 +0000, marc.garrett wrote:
>OK
>
> > the administrative & executive staff are being paid
> > while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.
>
>So what kind of system do you think should be put in place to pay artists
>featured or cloned (their work that is not them) , say if the Lawyers fees
>were scrapped?

by the way, all of our legal fees are provided *pro bono* as in-kind
support, i.e. for free. we record them as expenses on our financial
statements in accordance with standard nonprofit accounting procedures. our
volunteer lawyers are sean o'connor, a professor at the university of
washington school of law, and jeffrey cunard, a partner at the law firm of
debevoise and plimpton. they are both on the rhizome board of directors.

>marc
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > to restate :
> >
> > i am not against mark or alex or other rhizome staff being paid,
> >
> > i am not against paying $5,
> > (the amount is trivial.
> > i personally would charge & be comfortable paying 3 times that amount.)
> >
> > what i am objecting to, is a pattern
> > that is unfortunately quite common :
> >
> > the administrative & executive staff are being paid
> > while the creatives (the people generating rhizomes content) are not.
> >
> >
> > as long as this basic inequity exists,
> > i will not be paying anything for rhizome.
> >
> > the situation is unfair.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > //m
> > 127.0.0.1
> >
> > http://meta.am/
> > 216.71.65.73
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > + 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