neil jenkins
Since the beginning
Works in Bristol United States of America

PORTFOLIO (2)
BIO
networked technology as a focal point for (live) creative discourse, production and events. online studio and host spaces for collaborative projects

http://www.devoid.co.uk/
http://www.furtherfield.org/
http://www.furtherstudio.org/
http://www.herenorthere.org/
http://www.visitorsstudio.org/
Discussions (82) Opportunities (0) Events (1) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Words on the Rhizome Artbase


I have to say i agree with Alena's perspective on the artbase and don't
have any problems with the 'inordinately high' number of projects added
to it - whilst some of the pieces may not appear to be 'historically
significant' to everyone (I'm sure they are to the artists who created
them - I was over the moon when work I created was included), the
result is a very rich and inspiring collection of work.

I work at several universities and colleges, teaching both practical
skills and theory in new media and the artbase is a fantastic resource
to show students the diversity of work being created, lets face it the
number of artists working in this field has grown as exponentially as
the net itself.

there has been much critiscism for the lack of discussion and critique
on work presented via the artbase and _raw, surely this is an opportune
moment to really kick start such dialogue, before half the community
disappears in a $5 huff

so, while we're at it can Eryk's recent infoslut plunderphonics be
added :)

cheers
neil

On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 05:38 pm, Alena Williams wrote:

> Hello Eryk:
>
> While the number 415 may seem inordinately high, the amount of
> submissions
> we've received each month has increased significantly over the past
> year.
> Just to give you some perspective on the statistics--in May 2001, we
> received 68 submissions, and by October 2002, this number nearly
> doubled to
> 129. The expansion of the archive's scope, which was enacted this time
> last
> year, is another factor to keep in mind. We now not only include net
> art,
> but also other forms of new media, which has allowed us to cast our net
> wider and accept projects which would have at one time been declined.
>
> Moreover, the ArtBase is not a curated collection. Our primary concern
> in
> admitting projects into the ArtBase is whether or not they meet the
> definition of new media art as described in the selection criteria. As
> Mark
> already mentioned, the potential value a project might have for future
> historians of new media art is the most important when considering a
> work's
> "historical significance."
>
> Needless to say, processing these objects is certainly not a task I
> take
> lightly. I find myself coming back to projects repeatedly--sometimes
> the
> decision whether or not to include an object into the archive develops
> into
> a discussion between myself and the artist, and even with other
> members on
> staff. The admission of projects into the ArtBase represents a
> commitment of
> time and resources which will continue into the future, long past their
> initial acceptance. As such, many of your points are well-taken.
>
> Thanks,
> Alena
>
> + + +
>
> Alena Williams
> ArtBase Coordinator
> Rhizome.org
>
>
>> This is why I said that there are too many works in the art base. 415
>> pieces added, was it? That means that at least once a day, and
>> sometimes
>> twice, a piece of net.art with "historical significance" was created,
>> many of which I have never heard of or had seen discussed.
>>
>> When I was an intern on the artbase a few years back, we had a careful
>> process- pieces were looked at at least 3 or 4 times, we looked for
>> discussions that had taken place about the work- instead of adding
>> them
>> to the artbase, and then announcing the additions to the artbase in
>> order to start a discussion of the work, which, if you notice, is what
>> they are doing now- and still no one is talking!
>>
>> I believe that now the process is to add anyone and anything that asks
>> to be stored on the artbase. My job as intern was to review every
>> piece
>> submitted to the artbase and make a decision based on the merit of the
>> piece artistically and historically [which is less subjective than it
>> seems to be, I had added pieces by artists who I have massive personal
>> dislike for, simply because I knew the work was discussed and because
>> the artists had made "contributions" for better or for ill.] On top of
>> that, however, I was also supposed to scour the web for pieces that
>> were
>> not submitted, to keep an eye on mailing lists and blogs for pieces
>> that
>> were being discussed.
>>
>> In the end, I think I added maybe 45 to 60 pieces at most, in the
>> couple
>> of months I was an intern, and this included a historical backlog
>> because we were adding "heroic era" net art at the same time. Now, any
>> time a piece gets announced to rhizome it gets into the artbase.
>>
>> As an intern I had wanted to add a discussion from my perspective of
>> why
>> the piece was added to the artbase, since I knew the reasons for my
>> decisions would be lost when the piece was there, and the historical
>> context would be lost as well- and also had asked if possibly they
>> could
>> cross reference pieces with discussions of the pieces that took place
>> on
>> rhizome, interviews with the artist, etc. Even something as simple as
>> clicking on the name, or the artists name, and sending a search query
>> through the textbase. When I left my internship after going back to
>> school, I lost touch with the process, but I do believe that no one is
>> "running" the artbase anymore. The problem isn't money either, since I
>> had a paid internship that cost rhizome about pennies a day for my
>> work
>> (and I accepted the internship under the assumption that it was
>> strictly
>> voluntary.)
>>
>> I would volunteer 15 hours a week [again, unpaid] to overlook the
>> rhizome artbase if rhizome's administration and rhizome membership
>> agreed that some discernment and critical perspective was needed (and
>> that the discernment needed was mine, which is obviously an assailable
>> point.) As it is now, it does precisely the same thing as "the way
>> back
>> machine" or googles "cached copy" archive, except with a narrower
>> focus.
>>
>> I don't believe in snobby exclusivity, but I don't believe that
>> everyone
>> who submits a piece of work to the artbase is "historically
>> significant"
>> either- particularly when you consider 415 entries were submitted in
>> 2002, and I can name maybe one or two pieces that stick out to me this
>> past year as being discussed- not a personal decision of like/dislike,
>> just observances of discussions. They're fewer than you would assume,
>> and I think maybe because we can limbo a little lower than we are.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -e.
>
>> Daniel Young wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2. Rhizome Artbase Standards
>>>
>>> The Rhizome ArtBase includes works of new media art--including net
>>> art,
>>> software art, computer games, and documentation of new media
>>> performance and
>>> installation--that are of potential historical significance. We
>>> define new
>>> media art as contemporary art that uses emerging technologies in
>>> significant
>>> ways. Online displays of work that does not meet this definition are
>>> not
>>> included in the ArtBase.
>>>
>>> In order to evaluate potential historical significance, we look at:
>>>
>>> the work's aesthetic innovation, conceptual sophistication or
>>> political
>>> impact
>>>
>>> the work's relevance to the discourse of new media art
>>>
>>> any discussion of the work itself on Rhizome.org or other relevant
>>> networks
>>> or publications
>>>
>>> the work's place in the artist or artists' oeuvre
>>>
>>> the work's provenance, including commissions, exhibitions and
>>> collections
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>> -> 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
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>

DISCUSSION

Re: any suggestions?


Hi marc
here's a good starting point...
http://www.theyrule.net/

On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 12:37 pm, marc.garrett wrote:

> Hi there everyone,
>
> I am doing a new Net Art piece about horrible rich people (as opposed
> to
> nice rich people) - any suggestions?
>
> names - sites - companies - you know those nasty ones.

DISCUSSION

Re: Some random thoughts on the state of the art...


and if you look at keywords recently,
everybody keeps saying generative...

(hmmm... text and maybe not vectors)

i kind of noticed this more with your reference to people going back to
video imagery (mark); tools like flash are useful but they're very
clinical, my own work included (and maybe you too Pall) ...if you have
to pigeon hole it... lots of interesting things happen when the work
uses a connected medium and media, [and/but] you still can't beat a
good photograph or a live gig...

thought about hampster dance too, and thought maybe rhizome should host
a hampster[*.*]ance raw festival, maybe not...

>>> 3. When looking at net art as well as art in general
>>> of late, I've been trying to use the America movie
>>> rating system.

you'll have to remind me how it works.. we only have a poodle over
here, but he seems to think war is fine...

On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 08:43 am, Pall Thayer wrote:

> pall@fa.is

DISCUSSION

Re: say no to BABYCHEEKS


this yawning is incredibly infectious

Wally Keeler wrote:
>
> From: "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
> To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
> >
> > Yawn....
>
> doubleplus
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Tisma's Flatline - Bush's greetings: Warry Christmas!


Wally Keeler wrote:
>
> Andrej Tisma posts:
> >They are all here, with names, data, autopsy results, images
> >http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/yugoslavia/milosevic/bela/bela/index.htm
>
> I would recommend that the artists of Rhizome check out this web site. Mr
> Tisma apparently places all his faith in this documentation.

there are plenty more stats here if you'd like to add them up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/340966.stm

and plenty of video evidence from NATO itself
http://www.nato.int/kosovo/video.htm