At 15:02 -0500 1/15/03, Are Flagan wrote:
>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.
it's very simple to disagree with the above when we stop thinking of
rhizome as 'they' and start thinking of it as 'we'. meta's post and
eryk's posts are good at pointing out what rhizome seems to be
failing at: creating a true community.
if we truly felt like a community then we wouldn't mind a small fee
to maintain our clubhouse. we would all feel that we were
contributing to something we collectively own. instead of meta
feeling that the work is being taken for profit but without sharing
the profit, meta would see that we're all collectively sharing our
work and effort.
but we don't feel like a community. why? i have my own answers, as
well as suggestions on building a stronger community but i would be
interested in hearing others before i go into it.
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
RHIZOME_RAW:Re: One Day Left
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Re: 1/15/03 15:22, "t.whid" <[email protected]>:
> it's very simple to disagree with the above when we stop thinking of
> rhizome as 'they' and start thinking of it as 'we'. meta's post and
> eryk's posts are good at pointing out what rhizome seems to be
> failing at: creating a true community.
>
> if we truly felt like a community then we wouldn't mind a small fee
> to maintain our clubhouse. we would all feel that we were
> contributing to something we collectively own. instead of meta
> feeling that the work is being taken for profit but without sharing
> the profit, meta would see that we're all collectively sharing our
> work and effort.
>
> but we don't feel like a community. why? i have my own answers, as
> well as suggestions on building a stronger community but i would be
> interested in hearing others before i go into it.
This is that utopia of the net, as an autonomous sphere of disembodied
nodes, repeating itself again. A network does not come as a community out of
the box, with some default setting of happily ever after; it is constantly
configured and maintained according the afforded bandwidth and the
expectations users bring to it. Rhizome is, IMO, suffering from a clash
between a highly utopian and outdated notion of the network as a carte
blanche ideal and the various economic realities and cultural differences,
even conflicts, actually constituting that network. (And every network needs
a sys admin with configuration files and protocols, too.) I have only two
words and an adjective that may help rhizome flourish in its paid
community-building phase and none of them have directly to do with the $
breakdown: complete openness and transparency.
-af
…/…
>>
>> 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.
>
> it's very simple to disagree with the above when we stop thinking of
> rhizome as 'they' and start thinking of it as 'we'. meta's post and
> eryk's posts are good at pointing out what rhizome seems to be
> failing at: creating a true community.
>
> if we truly felt like a community then we wouldn't mind a small fee
> to maintain our clubhouse. we would all feel that we were
> contributing to something we collectively own. instead of meta
> feeling that the work is being taken for profit but without sharing
> the profit, meta would see that we're all collectively sharing our
> work and effort.
>
> but we don't feel like a community. why? i have my own answers, as
> well as suggestions on building a stronger community but i would be
> interested in hearing others before i go into it.
>
>
community needs fantomas not bruce waynes
nor robin red herrings
artbase is montdepiete stuff for pompom legitimacy
no community there
ED
At 04:35 PM 1/15/2003 -0500, Are Flagan wrote:
>I have only two
>words and an adjective that may help rhizome flourish in its paid
>community-building phase and none of them have directly to do with the $
>breakdown: complete openness and transparency.
good words.
see http://rhizome.org/financials