resentment...

Found this on the Syndicate list..

seemjs like there is a lot of resentment out there…

marc
look below

In case you've been meaning to renew your Rhizome membership
NO have not thought about it not even once but thanks for proving that you
are nothing but a propaganda and scrouge dog-e digger from the netherworld


but just haven't gotten around to it yet, this is a quick note

will never get around to it would rather spend five dollars toiletpaper
practical POOPY POOP

to say that we'd love to have you back.

No you would not you want my money Go Get Big AmeriKan Grant That Supports
The Big AmeriKan Arts ha hahahhahaa ___AmeriKa Does Not Support The Arts
!!!!!!
we have principles like L.Armstrong NO RHIZOME!!!!!!!!!!!

hah aha ahah ahahah ahah aha hah aha ha all day long

Comments

, Eryk Salvaggio

The resentment issue is going to stick around for a while, because no one
(by "no one" I mean Mark Tribe) has really addressed it, and no one (Mark
Tribe) seems interested in addressing it. I am sure they have a steady
increase in new subscribers, though I am at a loss to explain how it would
happen- (closed circuits don't invite expansion).

-e.

(Mark Tribe)




—– Original Message —–
From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 3:38 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: resentment…


> Found this on the Syndicate list..
>
> seemjs like there is a lot of resentment out there…
>
> marc
> look below
>
> In case you've been meaning to renew your Rhizome membership
> NO have not thought about it not even once but thanks for proving that you
> are nothing but a propaganda and scrouge dog-e digger from the netherworld
>
>
> but just haven't gotten around to it yet, this is a quick note
>
> will never get around to it would rather spend five dollars toiletpaper
> practical POOPY POOP
>
> to say that we'd love to have you back.
>
> No you would not you want my money Go Get Big AmeriKan Grant That Supports
> The Big AmeriKan Arts ha hahahhahaa ___AmeriKa Does Not Support The Arts
> !!!!!!
> we have principles like L.Armstrong NO RHIZOME!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> hah aha ahah ahahah ahah aha hah aha ha all day long
>
>
>
> + 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
>

, Jim Andrews

> The resentment issue is going to stick around for a while, because no one
> (by "no one" I mean Mark Tribe) has really addressed it, and no one (Mark
> Tribe) seems interested in addressing it. I am sure they have a steady
> increase in new subscribers, though I am at a loss to explain how it would
> happen- (closed circuits don't invite expansion).
>
> -e.

What would you like to see, Eryk?

I think what keeps Rhizome so popular is the unending string of announcements of projects,
competitions, jobs, and more good new URLs than you get on other lists. The discussion is OK,
but it's these other things that mark it as unique among lists.

Lists have their problems. Email has its problems. They deal with that via Rhizome Rare and
Rhizome Digest. And Net Art News. And the site. Nettime deals with it in a different way, by
censoring posts and by creating things like the Publications and Events posts that summarize
such posts, and things like the Unstable Digest.

Lordy, though, all I really want to do is create art and code and discuss net.art. Not
particularly into creating ha 'social sculpture'.

You're an artist. Are you moved to create an organization?

How many are? Not too many. And then they suck. More or less unavoidably? A primarily New York
hegemony in this case. Ah, back to the drawing board–no, make that the friggin RAD authoring
env.

ja

, marc garrett

Hi Eryk & Jim,

The unrequited mutualism between Rhizome and the Global, creative Net commu=
nity…

What are the real reasons for Rhizome becoming more conservative?

There are other issues that are not openly discussed on here regharding Rhi=
zome's changes since late 2001. Perhaps the non collective nature of Rhizom=
e today is more to do with the political climate in the world.

It is not a coincidence that Rhizome's changes are also in keeping with the=
political shifts regarding its own cultural locality and nationhood, its g=
radual dumbing down of being involved openly with artists who are contextua=
lly political in their net art-work and moving (even more) towards consciou=
sly advocating self referential net art, a natural side-step towards a more=
institutionalised role, is worrying.

Since the introduction of the 'Patriot Act October' on 26th 2001 by the Bus=
h administration (as everyone knows in the whole wide world) are a very nas=
ty bunch of rich people who kill and maim lives. 'The FBI and CIA can now g=
o from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each=
is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may =
now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or=
entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in=
the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the pa=
rticular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a crimi=
nal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even hav=
e to report where they served the order or what information they received.'
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa=
_patriot_analysis.php

Rachel's suggestion to all those who participate with Amy Alexander's excel=
lent piece called 'PPMMM' in the latest Net Art News felt significant with =
her added warning 'The artist also recommends sending your slogans to Washi=
ngton, but considering the reach and force of the Patriot Act, we suggest u=
sers proceed with caution'. Which is an honourable suggestion in view of ho=
w after Sept 11, America's own people are even considered potential enemies=
.

I wrote a brief article days after Sept 11 called 'Spies on the net - thoug=
ht control- denial - and of course another stupid war'.

'Beware everyone, for we are going to experience sweeping control laws, enf=
orcing non privacy on the net and in our communities. Using the masses emot=
ional grief as a barometer. Emotional blackmail (a cruel weapon, also used =
by religions to gain control over others) will be used to halt creative fre=
edom and valid information, correspondence between individuals and organisa=
tions'.

So how significant is the force of the Patriot Act? How much has political =
pressure influenced todays Rhizome? Has Mark Tribe been approached by a gov=
ernment ape, telling him to hang back with the bruts?

Is there a self censorship happening on Rhizome?

Are we all our discussions being monitored by those who would rather us jus=
t talk about how nice America is, and coding, abstraction is cute?

the Patriot Act must have an influence on the way that Rhizome acts. This c=
ould also mean that art that is linked to America's empire like activities =
and the war might not be supported or promoted via Net Art News as often, o=
r sometimes not accepted onto the database. Creating an environment that is=
not conducive to questioning structural elements in a political sense.

So is Rhizome more conservative now? Less inclined in supporting those who =
the roles, purposes of corrupt politicians, military and backward organizat=
ions and institutions that control what we all see?

There was a very good comment posted by Geert, not sure if many read it or =
saw it. He said 'If there is to be a true discussion on digital art, it sho=
uld be about the way art should or could propogate through the art communit=
y'. It would serve any controlling government organization well if we were =
to all talk about art in the micro sense and ignore the bigger picture, lik=
e why that wall is there and for whom that picture really hangs on the wall=
s for. This is all part of art thinking, not just the object.

I still think that Rhizome has a lot to offer, that is why I am still here,=
and I know that many users on this list also feel this way.

We are living in very strange and emotionally backward and violent times - =
everyone knows that the attack on Iraq was wrong. Yet, no one can do anythi=
ng about it. Who can police those who are more keen in helping themselves a=
nd more keen on feeding corporate greed?

And if everyone, still thinks that them being spied upon by their governemn=
ts is not really happening and is based on poranoid delusions; I'd say that=
they are naive not to know what is actually at stake for all concerned.

There are many digital/web/net artists outside of America's borders, outsid=
e of Rhizome's borders (and within) who did and still do wish for something=
more progressive, integrated, consciously, actively contributing, working =
with and networking for community based intentions in a more openly global =
way, less centralized, more decentralized.

I kind of feel that Rhizome is much more of a (masculine orientated) busine=
ss venture now. Money seems to be its main goal, also seen by outsiders as =
supporting its own (American based) peer related colleagues, rather than th=
e creative Internet community as a whole. It is no longer rhizomatic, more =
like a weed that grows in locality to its own habitual environment. In the =
UK we have an organizational body that follows via protocol called the 'tra=
des description act'. If it was based here in this country there would be i=
n trouble for selling a product that does not reflect what it says on the l=
abel of the tin.

So is Rhizome censored?
And by whom?
Is this one reason for the changes?

marc









>
> The resentment issue is going to stick around for a while, because no one
> (by "no one" I mean Mark Tribe) has really addressed it, and no one (Mark
> Tribe) seems interested in addressing it. I am sure they have a steady
> increase in new subscribers, though I am at a loss to explain how it would
> happen- (closed circuits don't invite expansion).
>
> -e.
>
> (Mark Tribe)
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 3:38 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: resentment…
>
>
> > Found this on the Syndicate list..
> >
> > seemjs like there is a lot of resentment out there…
> >
> > marc
> > look below
> >
> > In case you've been meaning to renew your Rhizome membership
> > NO have not thought about it not even once but thanks for proving that =
you
> > are nothing but a propaganda and scrouge dog-e digger from the netherwo=
rld
> >
> >
> > but just haven't gotten around to it yet, this is a quick note
> >
> > will never get around to it would rather spend five dollars toiletpaper
> > practical POOPY POOP
> >
> > to say that we'd love to have you back.
> >
> > No you would not you want my money Go Get Big AmeriKan Grant That Suppo=
rts
> > The Big AmeriKan Arts ha hahahhahaa ___AmeriKa Does Not Support The Arts
> > !!!!!!
> > we have principles like L.Armstrong NO RHIZOME!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > hah aha ahah ahahah ahah aha hah aha ha all day long
> >
> >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
>

, Rachel Greene

Hi – I would say that my nod to the actual enforcement of the Patriot Act
does reflect on the surveilling and repressive political climate we live
and work in – but it was also tongue in cheek. I understand you're
reading my comment with a careful eye, which I appreciate. But let me just
put this out there – that if you, or any reader, were to take it as a
serious warning, or reflection of some inside political knowledge – I
didn't mean it that way.

Marc, I agree with you that the political climate has affected Rhizome
since 2001 – I think that's totally reasonable. We are all feeling these
forces.

But, let me try to delineate how these conditions are affecting Rhizome.
As far as I can tell Rhizome staff is *no* more conservative than before
(I don't really want to speak for anyone but myself), but perhaps we spend
out time differently. In general, peers here in the States seem to be
focusing energy and time on political mobilization – especially with the
upcoming presidential election (can't let another one get stolen!). Vis a
vis Rhizome, the latest stats on the news, Friday – CBS, said that more
than 10% of American non-profits went out of business last year. I know we
have to spend more time on raising money to survive.

I have not heard anyone say though that there is a need to curtail free
speech on Raw… or modify our core principles. And no one approached up
from the Govt. vis a vis Rhizome content. But, as you suggest, I wouldn't
be surprised if people felt like they had to self-censor. It's a scary
time, and in the States the Patriot Act feels real. I mean, after Sept.
11, the White House issued a statement saying Americans should watch what
they say. Literally!! All of the topics you raise – the economy,
surveillance, repression, politics – these are conditions in effect –
and not just on Rhizome the organization. I mean, I think many of the
people on the list are also dealing with the more political and economic
issues – don't you? Aren't we all dealing with this – everywhere?

So I am glad you're bringing up issues like surveillance and repression –
they're not just the matters of art content. I agree that they are
affecting people, across the board. I would be keen to hear what you think
we should do to recruit more people or be more representative of the net
art community. I am interested in the idea of propogating net art…

I don't want to be negative about a sense of totality or community –
because what am I doing working here if not insisting on some kind of net
art community? But keep in mind that when RHizome started there were a
couple thousand net artists and enthusiasts. Now, the Net is a different
medium. Being a community amid watered-down hugeness has different
challenges. And vis a vis our masculinist vibe – it's depressing, isn't
it? Rhizome has always been male-dominated, as long as I can remember.
Last year I tried to get a lot of outspoken women to be active on and
interested in Rhizome – but it didn't work. I guess on some systematic
level, it wasn't organic.


> Hi Eryk & Jim,
>
> The unrequited mutualism between Rhizome and the Global, creative Net
> community…
>
> What are the real reasons for Rhizome becoming more conservative?
>
> There are other issues that are not openly discussed on here regharding
> Rhizome's changes since late 2001. Perhaps the non collective nature of
> Rhizome today is more to do with the political climate in the world.
>
> It is not a coincidence that Rhizome's changes are also in keeping with
> the political shifts regarding its own cultural locality and nationhood,
> its gradual dumbing down of being involved openly with artists who are
> contextually political in their net art-work and moving (even more)
> towards consciously advocating self referential net art, a natural
> side-step towards a more institutionalised role, is worrying.
>
> Since the introduction of the 'Patriot Act October' on 26th 2001 by the
> Bush administration (as everyone knows in the whole wide world) are a very
> nasty bunch of rich people who kill and maim lives. 'The FBI and CIA can
> now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating
> that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The
> government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order
> on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or
> entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to
> a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is
> relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations,
> they do not even have to report where they served the order or what
> information they received.'
> http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php
>
> Rachel's suggestion to all those who participate with Amy Alexander's
> excellent piece called 'PPMMM' in the latest Net Art News felt significant
> with her added warning 'The artist also recommends sending your slogans to
> Washington, but considering the reach and force of the Patriot Act, we
> suggest users proceed with caution'. Which is an honourable suggestion in
> view of how after Sept 11, America's own people are even considered
> potential enemies.
>
> I wrote a brief article days after Sept 11 called 'Spies on the net -
> thought control- denial - and of course another stupid war'.
>
> 'Beware everyone, for we are going to experience sweeping control laws,
> enforcing non privacy on the net and in our communities. Using the masses
> emotional grief as a barometer. Emotional blackmail (a cruel weapon, also
> used by religions to gain control over others) will be used to halt
> creative freedom and valid information, correspondence between individuals
> and organisations'.
>
> So how significant is the force of the Patriot Act? How much has political
> pressure influenced todays Rhizome? Has Mark Tribe been approached by a
> government ape, telling him to hang back with the bruts?
>
> Is there a self censorship happening on Rhizome?
>
> Are we all our discussions being monitored by those who would rather us
> just talk about how nice America is, and coding, abstraction is cute?
>
> the Patriot Act must have an influence on the way that Rhizome acts. This
> could also mean that art that is linked to America's empire like
> activities and the war might not be supported or promoted via Net Art News
> as often, or sometimes not accepted onto the database. Creating an
> environment that is not conducive to questioning structural elements in a
> political sense.
>
> So is Rhizome more conservative now? Less inclined in supporting those who
> the roles, purposes of corrupt politicians, military and backward
> organizations and institutions that control what we all see?
>
> There was a very good comment posted by Geert, not sure if many read it or
> saw it. He said 'If there is to be a true discussion on digital art, it
> should be about the way art should or could propogate through the art
> community'. It would serve any controlling government organization well if
> we were to all talk about art in the micro sense and ignore the bigger
> picture, like why that wall is there and for whom that picture really
> hangs on the walls for. This is all part of art thinking, not just the
> object.
>
> I still think that Rhizome has a lot to offer, that is why I am still
> here, and I know that many users on this list also feel this way.
>
> We are living in very strange and emotionally backward and violent times -
> everyone knows that the attack on Iraq was wrong. Yet, no one can do
> anything about it. Who can police those who are more keen in helping
> themselves and more keen on feeding corporate greed?
>
> And if everyone, still thinks that them being spied upon by their
> governemnts is not really happening and is based on poranoid delusions;
> I'd say that they are naive not to know what is actually at stake for all
> concerned.
>
> There are many digital/web/net artists outside of America's borders,
> outside of Rhizome's borders (and within) who did and still do wish for
> something more progressive, integrated, consciously, actively
> contributing, working with and networking for community based intentions
> in a more openly global way, less centralized, more decentralized.
>
> I kind of feel that Rhizome is much more of a (masculine orientated)
> business venture now. Money seems to be its main goal, also seen by
> outsiders as supporting its own (American based) peer related colleagues,
> rather than the creative Internet community as a whole. It is no longer
> rhizomatic, more like a weed that grows in locality to its own habitual
> environment. In the UK we have an organizational body that follows via
> protocol called the 'trades description act'. If it was based here in this
> country there would be in trouble for selling a product that does not
> reflect what it says on the label of the tin.
>
> So is Rhizome censored?
> And by whom?
> Is this one reason for the changes?
>
> marc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The resentment issue is going to stick around for a while, because no
>> one
>> (by "no one" I mean Mark Tribe) has really addressed it, and no one
>> (Mark
>> Tribe) seems interested in addressing it. I am sure they have a steady
>> increase in new subscribers, though I am at a loss to explain how it
>> would
>> happen- (closed circuits don't invite expansion).
>>
>> -e.
>>
>> (Mark Tribe)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> —– Original Message —–
>> From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 3:38 PM
>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: resentment…
>>
>>
>> > Found this on the Syndicate list..
>> >
>> > seemjs like there is a lot of resentment out there…
>> >
>> > marc
>> > look below
>> >
>> > In case you've been meaning to renew your Rhizome membership
>> > NO have not thought about it not even once but thanks for proving that
>> you
>> > are nothing but a propaganda and scrouge dog-e digger from the
>> netherworld
>> >
>> >
>> > but just haven't gotten around to it yet, this is a quick note
>> >
>> > will never get around to it would rather spend five dollars
>> toiletpaper
>> > practical POOPY POOP
>> >
>> > to say that we'd love to have you back.
>> >
>> > No you would not you want my money Go Get Big AmeriKan Grant That
>> Supports
>> > The Big AmeriKan Arts ha hahahhahaa ___AmeriKa Does Not Support The
>> Arts
>> > !!!!!!
>> > we have principles like L.Armstrong NO RHIZOME!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >
>> > hah aha ahah ahahah ahah aha hah aha ha all day long
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > + 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
>> >
>>
>>

, marc garrett

Hi Rachel,


> Hi – I would say that my nod to the actual enforcement of the Patriot Act
> does reflect on the surveilling and repressive political climate we live
> and work in – but it was also tongue in cheek. I understand you're
> reading my comment with a careful eye, which I appreciate. But let me just
> put this out there – that if you, or any reader, were to take it as a
> serious warning, or reflection of some inside political knowledge – I
> didn't mean it that way.

That's fair enough that you did not necessarily mean it in that way, I sort
of knew this yet there is a definite sense of irony in relation to
surveillance, political climate and the situation that you (all of us in
some way) are currently caught up in. For we are all prisoners of what has
been termed as the 'omni war'.

The irresponsible and patriarchal actions of both our governments' effect us
all in many different ways. For it is looking more like (we already knew
this of course) that they are not actually using such restrictive powers for
terrorist threats and dangerous cell groups alone. It is a direct threat on
civil liberties; unfinished business of Reagan-era domestic policies.
Elimination of public freedoms for the gains of the few who rule.

I remember during the Afghanistan war that with many art exhibitions from
chose whom to use their democratic freedom of speech, thus declaring views
contrary to the Bush Administration were being closed down by the FBI. And
many foriegn students were being victimized by ignorant bullies, including
staff, teachers, head masters/mistresses at colleges and schools.


> Marc, I agree with you that the political climate has affected Rhizome
> since 2001 – I think that's totally reasonable. We are all feeling these
> forces.
>
> But, let me try to delineate how these conditions are affecting Rhizome.
> As far as I can tell Rhizome staff is *no* more conservative than before
> (I don't really want to speak for anyone but myself), but perhaps we spend
> out time differently. In general, peers here in the States seem to be
> focusing energy and time on political mobilization – especially with the
> upcoming presidential election (can't let another one get stolen!). Vis a
> vis Rhizome, the latest stats on the news, Friday – CBS, said that more
> than 10% of American non-profits went out of business last year. I know we
> have to spend more time on raising money to survive.

Yes, it serves any mentally unhealthy administration well that non profit
organizations fold in such a climate, for in them probably reside the more
socially aware people. No great loss to those who are not that interested in
collective communities and what they offer people. This defuncts the
positive communication of networks amongst such groups, thus isolating them
from the usual support structures that they had grown used to relied upon
before being clamped down upon, via funding cuts.

> I have not heard anyone say though that there is a need to curtail free
> speech on Raw… or modify our core principles. And no one approached up
> from the Govt. vis a vis Rhizome content. But, as you suggest, I wouldn't
> be surprised if people felt like they had to self-censor.

Nor would I…

I believe that self-censorship is anti productive and merely helps to
contribute to the ever increasing decay of all our civil liberties. At times
like these it is important for all concerned to help and support each other,
whatever nation border that they are currently trapped behind.

This could happen in the form of regular public forums so others can get
involved to take part or secret groups (if concerned with being infiltrated
or attacked) creating their pro-democratic tongs, to further create real
links between people. For it seems that our cultures are not interested at
all in our autonomous sensibilties or needs.

We are witnessing, experiencing the beginning of our cultures being drowned
in surveillance. With the rise of technological surveillance on the
Internet, cameras watching us on the the streets as we walk . And of course
with recent advances in nano technology, surveillance and monitoring
techiniques become even greater threats for all concerned.
'By facilitating the miniaturisation of remote camera technology, the
panoptic effects from surveillance become magnified. It will soon become
possible to place undetectable video cameras, microphones and transmitters
anywhere one wishes. For example, researchers from Hiroshima University and
Nippon Hoso Kyokai (NHK) have discovered that silicon nano-crystal film is
photoconductive.[6] Once greater control over the size of crystal grains is
achieved, it should be possible to use such films in charge-coupled devices
for making highly sensitive, compact video cameras'.
http://chem4823.usask.ca/~cassidyr/OnNano-Panopticism-ASociologicalPerspective.htm


>It's a scary
> time, and in the States the Patriot Act feels real. I mean, after Sept.
> 11, the White House issued a statement saying Americans should watch what
> they say. Literally!! All of the topics you raise – the economy,
> surveillance, repression, politics – these are conditions in effect –
> and not just on Rhizome the organization. I mean, I think many of the
> people on the list are also dealing with the more political and economic
> issues – don't you? Aren't we all dealing with this – everywhere?

Yes, I feel it here, many do in various ways.

We are sort of lucky really that Mr. Blunket failed to impose such laws on
us here, he tried to but was voted out, phew! Although as you probably know,
the BBC here were recentlyslapped on the wrist for discussing issues around
the Iraq war and daring to question our government's actions. So, it is
reassuring that there are still people left who are not yes people in big
organizations such as the BBC. Self-censorship can happen and does in
institutions, and with the BBC being independent to some degree, harbouring
some pretty astute journalists, as do some of the non Murdoch funded news
groups here. The Uk has been experiencing a balanced and more openly
crtitical study of the current political climate.

Tony Blair is set to be the first Briton since Winston Churchill to get a US
Congressional Gold Medal. But not when he visits President Bush next week
because of the on-going row over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We can
all wear own proud badges to say 'I'm happy to be censored'.

> So I am glad you're bringing up issues like surveillance and repression –
> they're not just the matters of art content. I agree that they are
> affecting people, across the board. I would be keen to hear what you think
> we should do to recruit more people or be more representative of the net
> art community. I am interested in the idea of propogating net art…

Regarding recruitment to rhizome:-

Let Mark T have a more Advisory role, a more ambassadorial position with the
aim of actively promoting rhizome's projects and its users without the
hassle of management (he might come over here and beat me up for saying
this). I feel that it may be a very productive move for rhizome's possible
collective future to set-up temporary positions (six months say) for people
who have not had the chance to enjoy working in such an exciting
environment. Like a democracy, open up the position of management, in
whatever form you feel is appropriate to outsiders; they can be voted in by
rhizome members who currently pay fees to be part of rhizome.

I know that it will still be based locally, physically in New York. But
rhizome's influence in the real world in respect of tendering such
significant temporary positions out to individuals/groups of people who are
keen to develop their net art knowledge would be an excellent funding
opportunity. Introducing net art to people who may be are involved in such
creative activities but are not successful due to not having the right
contacts, or from the wrong background. This is a good start. It should not
be done for funding reasons alone though, but because it will open up
rhizome to different communities whom are presently not included. I would
happily be available as an advisor in this respect in some way, just to
begin with though. You might want me off your back after a while LOL.

Put in these positions also those who have no voice in the media, blacks,
more females and anyone else who needs the support. So they can move on to
somewhere else after there six months residency using their gained
experience to set-up other similar groups themselves. Where there's a will
there's a way, as they say…

I have loads of ideas but this email is getting a bit long now.

> I don't want to be negative about a sense of totality or community –
> because what am I doing working here if not insisting on some kind of net
> art community? But keep in mind that when RHizome started there were a
> couple thousand net artists and enthusiasts. Now, the Net is a different
> medium. Being a community amid watered-down hugeness has different
> challenges.

I feel that the only way to survive with the recent watering down of
totality as you mention, is to become less specialized and more open to non
artists, non designers non academics ( I can hear the moans). It is people
who are the blood of any community, not just artists, designers or
academics. We recently got our stats and we now have 6 thousand visitors on
a good day clicking and viewing work on furtherfield. This might be a small
no to yourselves, but for us it is a breakthrough - we have actively opened
up our doors to try and engage with people who do not come from the same
place as ourselves. Visiting groups in various centres who are not actually
engaged in Net Art but offer a sense of curiosity to it. Of course, one
cannot rely on a permanent visitor group level, or even a sustainable
membership that is dedicated solely to any singular group, but re-evaluating
and risking upsetting a few old school institutionally connected types is
worth doing if one breaks down the gates.

Sure, keep specialized net groups going to continue their own specific
adventures. But with a group as big as rhizome, there are only so many
people who will continue to enter here. This of course means that there will
probably have to be a free section, and a paid section as well for the more
involved, like what it is now but more open for participation to those who
do not wish to pay.


And vis a vis our masculinist vibe – it's depressing, isn't
> it? Rhizome has always been male-dominated, as long as I can remember.
> Last year I tried to get a lot of outspoken women to be active on and
> interested in Rhizome – but it didn't work. I guess on some systematic
> level, it wasn't organic.

See, there it is - women should be runing this joint for a while, so others
know that this place is not just a male enclave…

I not only see the issue as just a gender problem though, it is also a class
issue (black or white). The professionals are going to have to concede to
the need for others to be involved or the future could be pretty bleak…

marc

>
>
> > Hi Eryk & Jim,
> >
> > The unrequited mutualism between Rhizome and the Global, creative Net
> > community…
> >
> > What are the real reasons for Rhizome becoming more conservative?
> >
> > There are other issues that are not openly discussed on here regharding
> > Rhizome's changes since late 2001. Perhaps the non collective nature of
> > Rhizome today is more to do with the political climate in the world.
> >
> > It is not a coincidence that Rhizome's changes are also in keeping with
> > the political shifts regarding its own cultural locality and nationhood,
> > its gradual dumbing down of being involved openly with artists who are
> > contextually political in their net art-work and moving (even more)
> > towards consciously advocating self referential net art, a natural
> > side-step towards a more institutionalised role, is worrying.
> >
> > Since the introduction of the 'Patriot Act October' on 26th 2001 by the
> > Bush administration (as everyone knows in the whole wide world) are a
very
> > nasty bunch of rich people who kill and maim lives. 'The FBI and CIA can
> > now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating
> > that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The
> > government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap
order
> > on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or
> > entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing
to
> > a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired
is
> > relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA
situations,
> > they do not even have to report where they served the order or what
> > information they received.'
> >
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php
> >
> > Rachel's suggestion to all those who participate with Amy Alexander's
> > excellent piece called 'PPMMM' in the latest Net Art News felt
significant
> > with her added warning 'The artist also recommends sending your slogans
to
> > Washington, but considering the reach and force of the Patriot Act, we
> > suggest users proceed with caution'. Which is an honourable suggestion
in
> > view of how after Sept 11, America's own people are even considered
> > potential enemies.
> >
> > I wrote a brief article days after Sept 11 called 'Spies on the net -
> > thought control- denial - and of course another stupid war'.
> >
> > 'Beware everyone, for we are going to experience sweeping control laws,
> > enforcing non privacy on the net and in our communities. Using the
masses
> > emotional grief as a barometer. Emotional blackmail (a cruel weapon,
also
> > used by religions to gain control over others) will be used to halt
> > creative freedom and valid information, correspondence between
individuals
> > and organisations'.
> >
> > So how significant is the force of the Patriot Act? How much has
political
> > pressure influenced todays Rhizome? Has Mark Tribe been approached by a
> > government ape, telling him to hang back with the bruts?
> >
> > Is there a self censorship happening on Rhizome?
> >
> > Are we all our discussions being monitored by those who would rather us
> > just talk about how nice America is, and coding, abstraction is cute?
> >
> > the Patriot Act must have an influence on the way that Rhizome acts.
This
> > could also mean that art that is linked to America's empire like
> > activities and the war might not be supported or promoted via Net Art
News
> > as often, or sometimes not accepted onto the database. Creating an
> > environment that is not conducive to questioning structural elements in
a
> > political sense.
> >
> > So is Rhizome more conservative now? Less inclined in supporting those
who
> > the roles, purposes of corrupt politicians, military and backward
> > organizations and institutions that control what we all see?
> >
> > There was a very good comment posted by Geert, not sure if many read it
or
> > saw it. He said 'If there is to be a true discussion on digital art, it
> > should be about the way art should or could propogate through the art
> > community'. It would serve any controlling government organization well
if
> > we were to all talk about art in the micro sense and ignore the bigger
> > picture, like why that wall is there and for whom that picture really
> > hangs on the walls for. This is all part of art thinking, not just the
> > object.
> >
> > I still think that Rhizome has a lot to offer, that is why I am still
> > here, and I know that many users on this list also feel this way.
> >
> > We are living in very strange and emotionally backward and violent
times -
> > everyone knows that the attack on Iraq was wrong. Yet, no one can do
> > anything about it. Who can police those who are more keen in helping
> > themselves and more keen on feeding corporate greed?
> >
> > And if everyone, still thinks that them being spied upon by their
> > governemnts is not really happening and is based on poranoid delusions;
> > I'd say that they are naive not to know what is actually at stake for
all
> > concerned.
> >
> > There are many digital/web/net artists outside of America's borders,
> > outside of Rhizome's borders (and within) who did and still do wish for
> > something more progressive, integrated, consciously, actively
> > contributing, working with and networking for community based intentions
> > in a more openly global way, less centralized, more decentralized.
> >
> > I kind of feel that Rhizome is much more of a (masculine orientated)
> > business venture now. Money seems to be its main goal, also seen by
> > outsiders as supporting its own (American based) peer related
colleagues,
> > rather than the creative Internet community as a whole. It is no longer
> > rhizomatic, more like a weed that grows in locality to its own habitual
> > environment. In the UK we have an organizational body that follows via
> > protocol called the 'trades description act'. If it was based here in
this
> > country there would be in trouble for selling a product that does not
> > reflect what it says on the label of the tin.
> >
> > So is Rhizome censored?
> > And by whom?
> > Is this one reason for the changes?
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The resentment issue is going to stick around for a while, because no
> >> one
> >> (by "no one" I mean Mark Tribe) has really addressed it, and no one
> >> (Mark
> >> Tribe) seems interested in addressing it. I am sure they have a steady
> >> increase in new subscribers, though I am at a loss to explain how it
> >> would
> >> happen- (closed circuits don't invite expansion).
> >>
> >> -e.
> >>
> >> (Mark Tribe)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> —– Original Message —–
> >> From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 3:38 PM
> >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: resentment…
> >>
> >>
> >> > Found this on the Syndicate list..
> >> >
> >> > seemjs like there is a lot of resentment out there…
> >> >
> >> > marc
> >> > look below
> >> >
> >> > In case you've been meaning to renew your Rhizome membership
> >> > NO have not thought about it not even once but thanks for proving
that
> >> you
> >> > are nothing but a propaganda and scrouge dog-e digger from the
> >> netherworld
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > but just haven't gotten around to it yet, this is a quick note
> >> >
> >> > will never get around to it would rather spend five dollars
> >> toiletpaper
> >> > practical POOPY POOP
> >> >
> >> > to say that we'd love to have you back.
> >> >
> >> > No you would not you want my money Go Get Big AmeriKan Grant That
> >> Supports
> >> > The Big AmeriKan Arts ha hahahhahaa ___AmeriKa Does Not Support The
> >> Arts
> >> > !!!!!!
> >> > we have principles like L.Armstrong NO RHIZOME!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> >
> >> > hah aha ahah ahahah ahah aha hah aha ha all day long
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > + 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>

, Eryk Salvaggio

Marc / Rachel;

Marc, you frame the argument as a discussion of political conservativism, b=
ut I don't know if Rhizome has ever gone out on a limb politically as an or=
ganization. Rhizome has never really paid much attention to political art- =
and I say this in reference to the community, not necessarily the org. And =
this absence of political spectrum has probably contributed to much of how =
the list is viewed overseas.

I remember when I was in Europe for N5M3, Rhizome was considered to be seco=
ndary to nettime, not because of any quality difference or what have you, b=
ut because it was extremely localized and "American." It remains that way t=
oday- and whatever is happening w/rhiz in London is not going to change any=
thing, since Blair is the new American Vice President. The key factors are =
really not so much "political context" as it has always been: political app=
roach. Whenever you have a group of people, you have politics, and Rhizome =
has been run with a very American Idea of Radicalist Politics. The American=
political spectrum is simply not as varied. When you look at how other lis=
ts are organized, for example, you see a whole breadth of the spectrum. Fro=
m the neo-fascism of nettime, to the anarchy of syndicate, to the communism=
of thingist, to the meritocracy of places like empyre. Rhizome is a very A=
merican Political Structure: The Binary Democracy. It's the nature of the s=
ubscribers, as well. Case in point is Kandinskij or Max Herman: On or Off? =
Was the question; "Let the people ignore who they want to ignore" was rhizo=
mes slogan, while nettime outwardly banned both (I believe) and thingist at=
tempted to herd them by communal pressure. I don't think syndicate would ha=
ve given a rats ass- as they handled JODI's spam attack recently.

I have to say I really doubt that rhizome as an org has been influenced by =
the Patriot Act at all. What's happening instead is the bulk core of subscr=
ibers are behaving like Americans- including the foreigners who subscribe t=
o it. There is, since 9/11, increased resentment against America/Rhizome, i=
ncreased isolationism for America/Rhizome. Americans are behaving like Amer=
icans- we will wearily accept isolationism, and we will take resentment wit=
h a deep sincerity but with no *authentic* desire to find out where the res=
entment comes from. Why? Because the brand- America or rhizome- is strong. =
Unfortunately, I really doubt Rhizome's brand is that strong. As I doubt th=
at America's is.

What my email intended to address was issues like why the community is incl=
uded in fewer discussions of what happens with rhizome policy, and then, wh=
en we are, why our input has nothing to do with it. Part of this is dealt w=
ith by the idea of "superusers" (if those are still in place) but I have fe=
lt that this is a very American Way of dealing with an issue- Hire More Man=
agers. Charging Access to the Artbase is something that I still don't agree=
with; neither is the argument that the artbase is doing us a service and w=
e should be grateful. In fact, contributors are doing rhizome a favor for g=
iving rhizome credibility as a central hub which allows them to pad out the=
ir grant requests; in the meantime, of course, the artist benefits from the=
archival process. But I never felt the issue was addressed symbiotically. =
Why not have artists decide, on their own, as in, on a case by case basis- =
if they want their work public or privately archived? Make a case for both =
sides of the coin and let the ideas decide. Instead; we raised questions an=
d were politely prodded into compliance.

As for Rachels post, I think she addresses something that we are seeing acr=
oss the board for new media in the US: It is officially "no longer new" med=
ia, and so the novelty of its initial luster and potential has worn thin. I=
n short, Net.Art is not dead, but it is no longer a separate interest- mean=
ing no more ghettoes, but also no more special interest funding in getting =
us out of the ghetto. We lost Steve Dietz and Matt Mirapaul and now we are =
officially on our own legs as "another art form" and it may not seem pretty=
but now is when we start seeing that it is not simply enough to make art o=
n the web to be considered for grants and international acclaim. What this =
means is that Rhizome is not in a place as a "progressive hub for the futur=
e art form" but a very specific forum for a medium that has established its=
elf and is now left out of its adolescence to compete with the whole range =
of other art forms. Imagine an organization dedicated to the international =
charcoal-sketch community and you'll see how I imagine most art foundations=
are now seeing the rhizzah. I would not be surprised if we saw them cut ba=
ck the web art portion of the Whitney at the next Biennial either. Which is=
why the decision for net artists to stand resolutely outside the "art" com=
munity is something I would actually endorse: stay out of the museums, stay=
out of the galleries, keep it on the web and keep it real. Keep it to enth=
usiasts, and keep alive the enthusiasm.

I think this is what I mentioned (a very long time ago) about the "defensiv=
eness" of Rhizome as an institution, starting with the net.art grants, (are=
n't we overdue for another batch?) the Yoko Ono dinners, etc. Rhizome neede=
d to claw its way out of infancy and into "responsibility" quickly- and I d=
on't know if this was a conscious choice or if rhizome as an org was simply=
subconsciously grappling with the zeitgeist, but it was certainly there. L=
ook what happened to the sig generator. The results of this responsibility-=
as much as I don't like them, are probably the only reason Rhizome has any=
support and any shot at support for the next grant round.

Like it or not, Net.Art has come into its own, and now it's sink or swim, l=
ike the rest of the art world. The question that remains- and the question =
I think Mark/Rhizome needs to be held accountable for, is whether rhizome w=
ill stand up as a place where the sinkers get buoys and where *independant =
net.art* is given any sort of credibility, making rhizome a gateway communi=
ty, or if it will continue with its zealous push for the institutional cred=
ibility necessary for its survival but which comes at the expense of its co=
re community- most of whom are not in the grant winning art elite. Whether =
Rhizome "owes" anything to its community is a whole other debate. The answe=
r is not r owes us or we owe r, but more or less- how do we maintain a bala=
nce between the survival of the fittest mentality of the "real" art world, =
and rhizomes status (which I don't think it ever wanted, nor did it ever ea=
rn) as an incubator? [I have to give props here to Turbulence, because as f=
ar as walking the tightrope goes, I think they found a very intelligent way=
to distribute their weight.)

Cheers,
-e.





—– Original Message —–
From: marc.garrett

The unrequited mutualism between Rhizome and the Global, creative Net com=
munity…

What are the real reasons for Rhizome becoming more conservative?


There are other issues that are not openly discussed on here regharding R=
hizome's changes since late 2001. Perhaps the non collective nature of Rhiz=
ome today is more to do with the political climate in the world.

It is not a coincidence that Rhizome's changes are also in keeping with t=
he political shifts regarding its own cultural locality and nationhood, its=
gradual dumbing down of being involved openly with artists who are context=
ually political in their net art-work and moving (even more) towards consci=
ously advocating self referential net art, a natural side-step towards a mo=
re institutionalised role, is worrying.

Since the introduction of the 'Patriot Act October' on 26th 2001 by the B=
ush administration (as everyone knows in the whole wide world) are a very n=
asty bunch of rich people who kill and maim lives. 'The FBI and CIA can now=
go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that ea=
ch is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government ma=
y now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person =
or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named =
in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the =
particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a cri=
minal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even h=
ave to report where they served the order or what information they received=
.'
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_u=
sa_patriot_analysis.php

Rachel's suggestion to all those who participate with Amy Alexander's exc=
ellent piece called 'PPMMM' in the latest Net Art News felt significant wit=
h her added warning 'The artist also recommends sending your slogans to Was=
hington, but considering the reach and force of the Patriot Act, we suggest=
users proceed with caution'. Which is an honourable suggestion in view of =
how after Sept 11, America's own people are even considered potential enemi=
es.

I wrote a brief article days after Sept 11 called 'Spies on the net - tho=
ught control- denial - and of course another stupid war'.

'Beware everyone, for we are going to experience sweeping control laws, e=
nforcing non privacy on the net and in our communities. Using the masses em=
otional grief as a barometer. Emotional blackmail (a cruel weapon, also use=
d by religions to gain control over others) will be used to halt creative f=
reedom and valid information, correspondence between individuals and organi=
sations'.

So how significant is the force of the Patriot Act? How much has politica=
l pressure influenced todays Rhizome? Has Mark Tribe been approached by a g=
overnment ape, telling him to hang back with the bruts?

Is there a self censorship happening on Rhizome?

Are we all our discussions being monitored by those who would rather us j=
ust talk about how nice America is, and coding, abstraction is cute?

the Patriot Act must have an influence on the way that Rhizome acts. This=
could also mean that art that is linked to America's empire like activitie=
s and the war might not be supported or promoted via Net Art News as often,=
or sometimes not accepted onto the database. Creating an environment that =
is not conducive to questioning structural elements in a political sense.

So is Rhizome more conservative now? Less inclined in supporting those wh=
o the roles, purposes of corrupt politicians, military and backward organiz=
ations and institutions that control what we all see?

There was a very good comment posted by Geert, not sure if many read it o=
r saw it. He said 'If there is to be a true discussion on digital art, it s=
hould be about the way art should or could propogate through the art commun=
ity'. It would serve any controlling government organization well if we wer=
e to all talk about art in the micro sense and ignore the bigger picture, l=
ike why that wall is there and for whom that picture really hangs on the wa=
lls for. This is all part of art thinking, not just the object.

I still think that Rhizome has a lot to offer, that is why I am still her=
e, and I know that many users on this list also feel this way.

We are living in very strange and emotionally backward and violent times =
- everyone knows that the attack on Iraq was wrong. Yet, no one can do anyt=
hing about it. Who can police those who are more keen in helping themselves=
and more keen on feeding corporate greed?

And if everyone, still thinks that them being spied upon by their governe=
mnts is not really happening and is based on poranoid delusions; I'd say th=
at they are naive not to know what is actually at stake for all concerned.

There are many digital/web/net artists outside of America's borders, outs=
ide of Rhizome's borders (and within) who did and still do wish for somethi=
ng more progressive, integrated, consciously, actively contributing, workin=
g with and networking for community based intentions in a more openly globa=
l way, less centralized, more decentralized.

I kind of feel that Rhizome is much more of a (masculine orientated) busi=
ness venture now. Money seems to be its main goal, also seen by outsiders a=
s supporting its own (American based) peer related colleagues, rather than =
the creative Internet community as a whole. It is no longer rhizomatic, mor=
e like a weed that grows in locality to its own habitual environment. In th=
e UK we have an organizational body that follows via protocol called the 't=
rades description act'. If it was based here in this country there would be=
in trouble for selling a product that does not reflect what it says on the=
label of the tin.

So is Rhizome censored?
And by whom?
Is this one reason for the changes?

marc









>
> The resentment issue is going to stick around for a while, because no o=
ne
> (by "no one" I mean Mark Tribe) has really addressed it, and no one (Ma=
rk
> Tribe) seems interested in addressing it. I am sure they have a steady
> increase in new subscribers, though I am at a loss to explain how it wo=
uld
> happen- (closed circuits don't invite expansion).
>
> -e.
>
> (Mark Tribe)
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 3:38 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: resentment…
>
>
> > Found this on the Syndicate list..
> >
> > seemjs like there is a lot of resentment out there…
> >
> > marc
> > look below
> >
> > In case you've been meaning to renew your Rhizome membership
> > NO have not thought about it not even once but thanks for proving tha=
t you
> > are nothing but a propaganda and scrouge dog-e digger from the nether=
world
> >
> >
> > but just haven't gotten around to it yet, this is a quick note
> >
> > will never get around to it would rather spend five dollars toiletpap=
er
> > practical POOPY POOP
> >
> > to say that we'd love to have you back.
> >
> > No you would not you want my money Go Get Big AmeriKan Grant That Sup=
ports
> > The Big AmeriKan Arts ha hahahhahaa ___AmeriKa Does Not Support The A=
rts
> > !!!!!!
> > we have principles like L.Armstrong NO RHIZOME!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > hah aha ahah ahahah ahah aha hah aha ha all day long
> >
> >
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rh=
iz
> > -> 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.p=
hp
> >
>
>

, Francis Hwang

I don't have a lot to add to this thread, but I should clarify
something.

On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 01:59 AM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> Look what

, Francis Hwang

I don't have a lot to add to this thread, but I should clarify
something.

On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 01:59 AM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> Look what

, Lewis LaCook

Francis Hwang wrote:if that's not ideal than we can hope that a)
> Rhizome gets more funding so I can hire help or b) Francis gets
> less
> incompetent. Either way, the lack of sig generation was not a
> conscious
> policy decision. Sometimes code rots.


don't be so hard on yourself, francis—-

yes, sometimes code DOES rot—it's not political, and it's not indicative of any desire for hegemony (like much of this discusssion is)–

bliss
l