I think there are a lot of very complicated issues which are all pretty irrelevant to making work and getting it "shown". Talking heads in net.art- especially in book form- is interesting, can be fun to read and read about, but in terms of pinning
down any kind of history, it's laughable, and I sincerely doubt it's even intended. Any importance to this critical historical thread only exists because the people "left out" are convinced that being left out means something- I really doubt the
people writing these books care, at all, about anything besides illustrating their own points and themes...
I dunno, I know this is backwards, but I think of books as blogs with a bigger budget. Some are fun to read, some aren't, some say something interesting, some don't. Sometimes you get linked. Usually you don't.
But the discourse takes place on one track, and the art takes place on another. It's nice when they are both aware of each other, but operate with their own agency. Maybe that's too simple, but it works for me.
-excerpt from a conversation on Rhizome RAW email list
Originally posted on Rhizome.org Raw by Eryk Salvaggio