Michael Szpakowski
Since the beginning
Works in Harlow United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

PORTFOLIO (1)
Discussions (996) Opportunities (3) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Membership fee?


Rhizome has been really important to me. I have
learned a lot from it plus I got a real sense of a
body of people with similar concerns ( *community*
always seems a tad twee) engaged in a sometimes vastly
irritating but always for me addictive dialogue about
art and it's relationship to the world.
In my ideal world of course it would be funded
generously but if it's not then I for one am certainly
willing to pay a fee to make sure I can get my fix.
I tend to agree with those who think access to the
artbase should be general and free( because it's our
calling card to the wider world). Everything else, in
this imperfect world, I would be happy to cough up
for.
I do take David's point however. It would be a tragedy
if a world which is happy to fund war but not art
forced those without spare cash whether in the USA or
Europe or elsewhere to quit the list and the site.
So I suggest that those of us who can afford it pay
double whatever rate is decided so that free
membership is available to anyone who declares (
privately) an inability to pay the membership fee and
that this system is instituted entirely on trust. A
sort of 'twinning' arrangement.
$15 (Pall's suggestion) doesn't strike me as an
unreasonable basic annual fee. Tonight I spent a fiver
( =$7.50?) on a bottle of wine. I'd certainly be
comfortable with paying $30 p.a for something I value
a lot under the system I've described.
regards
Michael

--- David Goldschmidt <david@personify.tv> wrote:
> i'll pay. although i think the sliding scale should
> be based on where one
> lives. americans and west europeans should pay more
> while folks from less
> affluent regions should pay less (or free).
>
> david goldschmidt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Tribe" <mt@rhizome.org>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:34 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Membership fee?
>
>
> > Hi Rhizomers:
> >
> > I am hoping to start a discussion here on Raw
> about Rhizome's financial
> > situation and a possible solution. This email is
> rather long, but I'd
> > appreciate it if you'd take the time to read it
> through, give it some
> > thought, and let me know what you think.
> >
> > First, some background information. It will cost
> about $400,000 to operate
> > Rhizome.org this year. Here's how we spend it:
> $6,000 on administrative
> > fees (mostly processing credit card gifts);
> $122,000 on operating expenses
> > (phone, rent, web hosting, office supplies, etc.);
> $177,000 on payroll
> > costs (salaries, health insurance, payroll taxes,
> etc.); $93,000 on
> > professional fees (writers, commissions,
> consultants, etc.). These numbers
> > may seem high to some of you, but we actually run
> a very lean, efficient
> > operation. It simply costs a lot of money to run a
> nonprofit organization
> > that offers as many programs to as many people as
> we do.
> >
> > In the past, most of our revenue has come from
> foundations, but foundation
> > support is shrinking. We had hoped to make up the
> difference through
> earned
> > income from web hosting and online education, but
> those services are
> > getting off to a slow start. We have also, as you
> surely know, tried
> asking
> > for voluntary contributions. But so far this year
> only about 1% of our
> > 19,000 members have made gifts.
> >
> > The Rhizome Board of Directors met for its
> quarterly meeting last Friday.
> > The main topic was how to solve our financial
> problems. I proposed putting
> > the organization into hibernation mode. This would
> entail shutting down
> the
> > office, laying off the staff and discontinuing
> most of our programs. We
> > would keep the web site up, ask the SuperUsers to
> continue to publish
> > texts, and keep Raw online. But everything else
> would stop: no more Digest
> > or Net Art News, no more commissions, no more
> events. We'd stop adding new
> > projects to the ArtBase, stop improving the web
> site (we have a long list
> > of bugs to fix and features to add) and stop
> planning new programs.
> >
> > The Board felt that hibernation would be a big
> mistake. Once we went into
> > hibernation, they argued, it would be very hard to
> re-emerge and rebuild
> > momentum. Foundations would lose confidence in us
> (not to mention the fact
> > that we wouldn't have anyone to write the grants).
> Most important, our
> > ability to fulfill our mission would be
> compromised.
> >
> > Then someone suggested charging a membership fee.
> This idea has been
> > proposed before, and I have always opposed it.
> Rhizome is for everyone, I
> > argued, not just for those who can afford it. I
> argued that we'd lose
> > thousands of members and that our community would
> become less diverse.
> >
> > Then we looked at the numbers. The gap between our
> expenses and what we
> can
> > raise from foundations, the government, earned
> income and other sources is
> > about $100,000. That's about $5 per member. If
> every member gave $5,
> > Rhizome would be financially stable. We could
> continue to grow and serve
> > the community.
> >
> > The board argued that we pay to subscribe to
> magazines, to enter museums
> > and to see performances. We pay to attend
> festivals and conferences. Why
> > shouldn't we pay for Rhizome? Because it's online?
> >
> > Consider this hypothetical scenario. Let's say we
> introduced a
> > sliding-scale membership fee starting at $11 per
> year with "thank you
> > gifts" (T-shirts, etc.) at higher levels. By
> paying $11 a year (or more if
> > you could afford it), you get access to
> everything: Raw, Rare, Digest, Net
> > Art News, the Calendar, Opportunity Listings,
> ArtBase, Commissions, etc.
> > Maybe we'd keep Raw free. Maybe we'd give new
> memebers a free trial period
> > so they could check out the goods before they have
> to pay.
> >
> > Would you pay the fee?
> >
> > What do you think about the idea of a
> sliding-scale membership fee for
> > Rhizome.org? Good idea? Bad idea?
> >
> > Do you think it would be better to go into
> hibernation?
> >
> > I am eagerly awaiting your responses.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > + new media rugby
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> 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
> >
>
> + new media rugby
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> 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

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

DISCUSSION

death- terminally boring & a racist to boot.


I blocked the deeply tedious death some way back.
Unfortunately however I still occasionally have to
read his drivel second hand as I try to keep up with
with the many posts that are worth reading.
In general I'm in favour of free speech and would
still be unhappy for this list to be moderated.
I do wonder if there isn't a case however for the
collective blocking of the perpetrator of this sort of
racist shit.

<And in general, you're more
asleep than a bunch of
illiterate mexicans.>

michael

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: Iraqi Agent of Influence on RHIZOME, Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Postcards from Iraq


Of course it's entirely possible to dispute the
statistics.
Its interesting to observe however the selective use
of the UN and it's bodies by those in favour of
sanctions/war: useful as a fig leaf for the defence of
US oil interests ,to be derided when one of those
bodies comes close to telling the truth about the
effect of sanctions.
What is indisputable though is that the following
exchange took place :

Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million
children have died (as a
result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is
more children than died
in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price, we
think the price is worth it."

-- A CBS Sixty Minutes interview between Leslie Stahl
and U.S. Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright, on 12 May 1996

you'll notice no attempt to deny the figure of 500,000
given ( and this is 6 years ago).

When it comes down to it when I compare a country that
has actually used nuclear weapons twice,which
possesses over a thousand nuclear weapons on hundreds
of intercontinental ballistic missiles, which dropped
17,000,000 gallons of a chemical agent containing
dioxin on a peasant economy in South East asia, that
refuses to sign up to an international criminal court
and further refuses proper independent inspections of
it's own chemical and biological stockpiles, which has
intervened violently in the internal affairs of other
nations over 30 times in the last century, with a
nation that has been starved beck to the stone age by
sanctions and which even at the height of it's
military preparedness in the early nineties was unable
to effectively use it's "WMDs" to target Israel, a few
hundred kilometres away, it's clear to me which one
comprises the threat to world peace.
michael

Oh yes- and of course Hussein is a villain but which
nation armed and encouraged him as a counterweight to
Iran in the first Gulf War, even attempting to
suppress UN condemnation of his use of chemical
weapons against the Kurds ?

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: simon pope: art for networks


Does anyone understand this?
michael
--- matthew fuller <matt@axia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> The following interview is carried out in connection
> with opening of
> a show 'Art for Networks' starting now at Chapter
> Arts Centre,
> Cardiff, Wales. (It tours afterwards.) The show
> includes work by:
> Rachel Baker, Anna Best, Heath Bunting, Adam
> Chodzko, Ryosuke Cohen,
> Jeremy Deller, Jodi, Nina Pope and Karen Guthrie,
> Radio Aqualia,
> Stephen Willats, Talkeoke, Technologies to the
> People.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 6 Questions in search of a network
>
> 1. Matthew Fuller: In the original Art for Networks
> project you state
> that one of the motivations of the work was to
> discover another set
> of relations for art on the internet. What was
> argued against was
> the idea that network art could be categorised
> according to a certain
> chronology. This chronology slotted certain works
> into a history
> primarily on the basis of how closely they married
> themselves to
> technological developments. What was suggested
> instead was that there
> was a whole wider sense of networks that are being
> made and used by
> artists. Do you think that this statement of an
> alternate set of
> trajectories still holds true or polemically
> necessary?
>
> Simon Pope: The Art for Networks project was
> initially devised as a
> way of making sense of, and investigating how to
> move beyond,
> so-called 'net.art'. This definition was, as Heath
> Bunting (1) has
> said, 'a joke and a fake' anyway, but held sway in
> some circles.
>
> 'Net.Art' signified a technical art of the Internet
> or, more
> specifically, the Web. It was defined as a
> progression through
> clearly defined stylistic and technical phases: from
> an Avant Garde,
> through 'high period' Web-based net.art and
> interminable Mannerist
> replays, all the while waiting for the emergence of
> the new Avant
> Garde...
> This lame art historical approach denies wider or
> longer views of how
> artists and their work operate.
>
> The demand for a neat, linear art history becomes a
> real problem for
> anyone it implicates. As Jodi are quoted as saying
> "We never choose
> to be net.artists or not."(2) Pinned onto this
> restrictive and
> arbitrary time-line, artists have their destinies
> plotted for them.
> It was time to take Stewart Home's cue (3) and begin
> a process of
> 'self-historicising'. The exploration of more
> expansive definitions
> of 'network' is part of this, at first through
> interviews and
> presentations in 2000 and now through this
> exhibition.
>
> 2. MF: If the show works through various uses and
> creations of
> networks as art, were there any ways in which this
> focus inflected
> the way in which the show was curated? Can we
> imagine a curation for
> networks?
>
> SP: 'Network' isn't used here as an 'ideal concept'
> (4). It remains
> open to interpretation and ongoing enquiry by the
> participating
> artists. The network becomes a field, terrain or
> environment through
> which to operate on, in or through.
>
> Networks have been described in many ways, often at
> the moment where
> some phenomenon eludes an accepted form of
> classification: Landow
> reminds us that Foucault adopts the network when
> describing the means
> "...to link together a wide range of often
> contradictory taxonomies,
> observations, interpretations, categories, and rules
> of observation."
> (5). Jeremy Deller's work often exemplifies this,
> for example.
>
> Josephine Berry noted that "The term 'networks' has
> nearly become a
> cipher for saying 'everything' with the proviso that
> 'everything' be
> framed by technology" (6).
> Jodi's 'Wrong Browser' project continues their
> scrutiny of the
> conventions of the most popular of these
> technologies that link
> 'everything', the Web Browser. (7).
>
> Others artists are not concerned with technology as
> such. They
> investigate social networks, distributed knowledge
> or social
> protocols, for example.
>
> Together, all of the artists in this show help us
> speculate, with the
> widest possible scope, on what an art for networks
> might be.
>
> 3. MF: Perhaps it is useful to think about two of
> the modes of
> network that currently exist. There's the
> development of systems that
> take heterogeneous material and connect it through a
> unifying,
> reductive, measurable protocol. Another might be
> informatisation -
> that everything can be transposed into a
> transmissable and calculable
> numerical 'equivalent'. Perhaps these kinds of
> networking
> technologies are linked to the idea of a discovery
> of an ur-language,
> a code that precedes all codes.
> A different kind of network might be that which
> is deliberately
> non-compressible, that generates its own terms of
> composition as it's
> enacted; rather than reducing one thing to its
> intermediary, it
> focuses on inventing new connections, proximities,
> conjunctural
> leaps.
>
> SP: The unifying system forces homogeneity onto
> previously
> heterogeneous material and has plenty of historical
> precedents such
> as systematic classification in Zoology, the Dewey
> decimal system.
> Objectified matter is ordered, processed - the
> system aims for
> closure, completeness.
> In your second example, the subject resists
> classification or
> reduction to a cipher. For example, in
> organizations, there's always
> tension between structure - invariably hierarchical
> - and those who
> work within it. Despite the most ruthless
> line-management, the
> subject - individual or group - will find ways of
> subverting the
> structure. A common form of resistance is the
> 'gossip network'.
> Rachel Baker's 'Art of Work', for example, has
> previously inserted
> itself into this context. (8)
>
> I think Manuel De Landa's model (9) of meshworks and
> hierarchies is
> useful here and relates, (at least in my
> understanding of it), to the
> relationship between networks, hierarchies, agency
> and structure.
>
> Meshworks (networks) and hierarchies exist as a
> mixture. The meshwork
> formed as an aggregate of dissimilar, heterogeneous
> material, the
> hierarchy from similar, homogeneous material,
> forming strata. They
>
=== message truncated ===

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: New Net.Art: "Protest Pieces 1-5."


Hi Eryk
<Protest Pieces, 1-5>
These are very effective -I especially like #2&3, the
ones which are b&w.

< so you have to explore the scene in the photograph
> on your own, as if it >
& this works in one way very well-I quite like the
unusual 'interactivity'(much more hands on and fun
than clicking) but part of me wondered whether it
might have been effective to crop back just to the
faces, so that in a way the part then stands for the
whole.
It's been a day of protest- I just got back from the
fantastic 400,000 strong London anti war demo.
Michael.

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

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com