Annie Abrahams
Since the beginning
Works in Montpellier France

Annie Abrahams has a doctorate in biology from the university of Utrecht and a grade from the Academy of fine arts of Arnhem. In her work, using video, performance as well as the internet, she questions the possibilities and the limits of communication in general and more specifically investigates its modes under networked conditions. She is an internationally regarded pioneer of networked performance art.
She has performed and shown work extensively in France, including at the Pompidou Centre, Paris, and in many international galleries including among others Espai d’Art Contemporani de Castelló, Spain; the Museum of Contemporary Art, Tokyo; the Armenian Center for Contemporary Experimental Art, Yerevan; HTTP gallery in London and NIMk in Amsterdam; festivals such as the Moscow Film Festival; the International Film Festival of Rotterdam and the Stuttgarter Filmwinter, and on online platforms such as and Turbulence.
She teached at the university of Montpellier in the arts department. (2002-2005) From november 2006 to january 2009 she curated the project “InstantS” for She also curated and organized the “Breaking Solitude” and Double Bind webperformances on in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Besides doing her art work she lectures and teaches workshops.

Information, articles etc. and
Discussions (120) Opportunities (2) Events (37) Jobs (0)

net art

I like this very much

bye Annie


FearingS call

What is fear? Why should you be afraid? What, who is to fear? Where
does your fear come from?
Participate in creating a collective voice about "fear". Help
revealing it's actual tendencies.

Thank you for your attention.
Annie Abrahams

"FearingS" is a part of the project Oppera Internettikka - Protection
et Securite by Annie Abrahams & Igor Stromajer

Project supported by The Ministry of Culture of the Republic of
Slovenia, The Ministry of Culture of the Republic of France, The
Municipality of Montpellier, The Council of the Languedoc-Roussillon
region and 2006-2007 Commissions.
Co-produced by Intima Virtual Base (Slovenia), & (France)


Re: Re: Community

Hi Lauren,

Yes I am really interested
I saw the community box. I think it's to much at the bottom of the
page, it would need an image. More presence! The ""project of the
week" should be mentioned in the digest.
To be clear, I am not interested in presenting ArtBase works myself, I
am only interested in functioning as a go between the members and the
site. I can imagine a system in which members send a mail with the
name and the url (a small text would be great too, but not nescessary)
of the project they would like to see on the front page for a week. I
make a list, select the one with the most votes and send you every
week an image and a small text to publish. (I or someone else, would
have some influence, because if votes are equal, I could put in a vote
myself and so make the balance go in the direction of a specific
project.) If no one is participating there will be no project on the
front page.

Yours Annie
I didn't want all ArtBase proposals on the raw list to review them,
but to be able to see them and to be able to propose them for
acception. Again if no one proposes a work for acception, it won't
even be considered by the "staff".
I want a direct role for the members in the process, not only a
secondary one. (even if I think a intelligent review is worth more
than ten ArtBase acceptations)

On 10/7/06, <> wrote:
> Hi Annie,
> All these ideas sound great. And actually, we do have a box on the front
> page of our site, entitled Community, that highlights works in the ArtBase
> as well as Member-Curated Exhibits. It would be great to have someone
> devoted to more regularly updating that, if you were really interested.
> We're also in support of ArtBase proposals going to Raw, but one caveat is
> that I think it should be optional for the artist. Listservs can be
> hostile places, and 'bashing' is a popular form of collective discussion.
> I think artists should have the choice of whether they'd like their work
> reviewed in this space or not.
> In any case, a main point I'm taking out of this thread is that, aside
> from the pending re-activation of announcements of accepted works, the
> interaction between the community and the ArtBase should be increased. We
> actually have already begun work on the Artbase, in terms of Metadata
> changes, so this is good time for this discussion to happen and for
> changes to be made.
> I would also say, to Lee, that Rhizome is not like a secret society at all
> :) But, an overworked staff with only one full-time member (me) -- and
> we're all new. But, the fact that it feels like this to you is worth
> debating. It seems the recent lack of connection between the ArtBase and
> Raw has been an issue and that, in general, there is a need for more
> forums of collaboration to be created. This is exciting to me, as these
> are all priorities Rhizome staff has for this year. Francis Hwang also
> used to send monthly Director of Technology reports, which were useful for
> people in understanding the changes or fixes he was making to the Rhizome
> system (and in general what he was doing), and I know Patrick has been
> preparing to bring these back into the picture. Patrick really used our
> massive server crash in April/May to rebuild the system so that it could
> be more collaborative and open, implementing wikis, etc.
> In terms of communication, we do make announcements about changes to this
> list regularly but it seems like they're getting missed. For instance, the
> change of title from superuser to site editor was something that began as
> a request from one of the superusers who felt this title didn't represent
> the activity he was performing. So, we discussed with the group --
> formerly known as superusers -- and agreed to change the title to 'site
> editors.' Then, the change was announced to Raw. The process was entirely
> transparent, but we cant force people to read our boring admin emails :)
> I'm looking forward to seeing where this conversation goes, bashing can be
> productive, and suggestions for fixes or changes are taken seriously by us
> -- though the amount of feedback can be hard to synthesize :)
> Thanks, Lauren
> > It will be a good thing to post all the ArtBase submissions to Raw.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be a good idea to let Raw readers propose submissions for
> > acceptation? Wouldn't that stimulate discussion?
> >
> > How to get more member interaction?
> > A special highlight of an ArtBase work on the front page? Every week a
> > different one chosen by members? Just counting votes shouldn't be too
> > difficult? (I could do it and send a title and name each week to one
> > of the editors)
> >
> > best Annie
> >
> > by the way I found the editors list ( we have site editors, not
> > superusers! What was I doing, when all this changed? I didn't even pay
> > attention! Too much information too much to follow, yes Alexis, was I
> > selecting at that time? and wasn't rhizome important enough? probably)
> >
> > I never noticed Steve's work and I didn't have a look at it till this
> > morning. That was a pity. It's good work.
> > Isn't that significant for
> > how Rhizome works and not works?
> >
> > On 10/6/06, Lauren Cornell <> wrote:
> >
> >> A related possibility I'd like to (re) raise is the idea of opening up
> >> the
> >> ArtBase so that all submissions are accepted, and ones selected by
> >> Rhizome
> >> are tiered. This has been considered on this list before and I return to
> >> it
> >> now as it seems relevant in Iight of this conversation. An open/tiered
> >> system would seem to combine what artists want from the ArtBase, as well
> >> as
> >> enabling it to grow faster. But its also a change to a system that
> >> hundreds
> >> of people have submitted to as is -- these things are complicated to
> >> change.
> >>
> >> First, of course, we want to make sure the ArtBase is working smoothly
> >> as
> >> is, but I just raise this to see if RAW subscribers generally have any
> >> opinions on it.
> >>
> >> Other suggested -- and more minor changes -- to the ArtBase in its
> >> current
> >> iteration could include posting all submissions to RAW so the community
> >> gets
> >> to see them even if they are not approved, and perhaps to see if site
> >> editors would also like to be artbase curators.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> On 10/6/06 4:05 PM, "Rob Myers" <> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On the art base...
> >> >> I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been broken
> >> for a
> >> >> year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.
> >> >
> >> > Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?
> >> >
> >> > Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for
> >> Rhizome.
> >> >
> >> > We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then we
> >> > know who to blame.
> >> >
> >> > - Rob.
> >>


Re: Community

I do agree with Pall Thayer who wanted all artbase proposals posted to
raw. I would even like to be able to "vote" for the proposals I like.
Be able to put them on the front page without being a superuser. (I
cannot find information about the superusers on the front page any
more (maybe it's me because sometimes I seem to be blind), do they
still exist? who are they? Shouldn't we all be superusers? )

When I connect I see a lot of anonymous visitors and very few real
names. It is amazing to see Rhizome has a lot of visitors and still
being so little lively, en vie (french). But maybe it's the same
phenomenon as I see in my site that has a lot more visitors a day
nowadays, but not much more real attention than a few years ago. It's
a consequence of the way search engines etc. work, but not a real sign
of interest. ??

> On 10/6/06, Pall Thayer <> wrote:
> > I think RAW should remain the way it is. A new branch could be made
> > for announcements but RAW should be the "raw" collection of all posts
> > that then are filtered to the various other, more limited lists.
> >
> > Pall
> >
> > On 6.10.2006, at 14:16, Lauren Cornell wrote:
> >
> > > Alexis,
> > >
> > > Yes, actually that's an idea we've been debating in the office, as
> > > well.
> > > Francis, the previous Director of Technology, had suggested
> > > creating a kind
> > > of channel for announcements so they would be branched off RAW,
> > > therefore
> > > opening the list up for discussion (only). This is the same as what
> > > you are
> > > suggesting, as I understand. However, the premise of RAW has always
> > > been
> > > that its completely unfiltered, but perhaps this would allow for more
> > > conversation to flower and that's worth making a change for. I'd
> > > like to
> > > see additional areas for discussion on Rhizome as well, as I
> > > mentioned.
> > >
> > > What do others think?
> > >
> > > Thanks, Lauren
> > >
> > > On 10/6/06 1:44 PM, "Alexis Turner"
> > > <> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> ::Ideas on how to make Rhizome more communal are valuable, and I
> > >> look forward
> > >> ::to having conversations about different possibilities. One of
> > >> our main
> > >> ::questions relates to Rhizome discussion and how this should be
> > >> maintained
> > >> ::and enhanced (this is a question that has long been at the heart of
> > >> ::Rhizome). Do people think lists remain an appropriate form of
> > >> discussion? Or
> > >> ::are there are other ways you'd like to converse with members on
> > >> the site?
> > >> ::One idea is enabling comments on the reblog, another is
> > >> integrating blogs or
> > >> ::linking to blogs on member pages.
> > >> ::
> > >> ::Are there thoughts on this?
> > >>
> > >> How about splitting RAW into a minimum of two lists - one for
> > >> discussion and
> > >> one
> > >> for notices (announcements, events, openings, calls for
> > >> submissions, etc.)
> > >> -Alexis
> > >
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> post:
> > > -> questions:
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > > subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give:
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
> > > 29.php
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pall Thayer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post:
> > -> questions:
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > -> give:
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> >
> --
> "Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
> .news series.


"Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
.news series.


Re: Re: Community ????????

This mail to show that I agree with Steve, Lee and Eric and that I
would like to have more enregie spend on recreating a community part
of Rhizome. (yes recreating, because now it's inexistant)

Annie Abrahams On and off member (more on) from almost the beginning
of Rhizome.

ps The art base isn't fuctioning right? What are you doing with it? Is
it still recieving proposals? Why don't we hear about it more often?
Why aren't there any member curated exhibitions any more? Is no one interested?

On 10/6/06, Lee Wells <> wrote:
> It definitely isn't the same thing it use to be.
> My biggest disappointment lately was that they didn't let the community know
> about the 10 year festival until it was already curated. I'm sure many of
> the members would have liked to be included in some part of it outside of
> the Keylines discussion on the choices that were made.
> Isn't that what Rhizome is anyway????
> Where was the open call to the members?
> Was it something we all missed.
> Did the New Museum of Contemporary Art make an executive decision? Is the
> fact that Rhizome's a membership org only a conduit for grants? I know its
> not easy to run a non profit but what used to be an open network has to a
> certain degree become a bit privileged and elitist.
> Perhaps Marisa can explain to everyone her curatorial decisions. The main
> mistake was that there wasn't even the illusion that the real community on
> Rhizome would be asked to be a part of something. For as much as the staff
> is accountable to the Board of Directors they should also be accountable to
> the members of the community as well.
> I'm sure there could have been some sort of collaborative project created
> that could have included everyone if they so desired.
> I've been hanging around the RAW servers since 1998 and have been surprised
> by some of the directions that the org has taken over the years.
> On certain levels the site is better, like the New York Times of New Media
> and an amazing resource for calls for work and exhibition opportunities. But
> the great conversations and real community participation of the past now
> only happen once in a great while and the users have been turned into
> passive viewers. As long as there are only a couple people questioning
> nothing will change.
> Full community participation is needed to create a positive change in any
> society.
> Cheers,
> Lee
> On 10/5/06 6:03 PM, "Steve OR Steven Read" <> wrote:
> > Uh oh, it