PORTFOLIO (4)
BIO
Richard Rinehart is the Director of the Samek Art Gallery at Bucknell University. Previous to holding his position at Bucknell, Richard was the Digital Media Director and Adjunct Curator at the UC Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive. Richard has taught digital art studio and theory at UC Berkeley in the Center for New Media and Art Practice departments. He has also been visiting faculty at the San Francisco Art Institute, UC Santa Cruz, San Francisco State University, Sonoma State University, and JFK University. Richard sits on the Executive Committee of the UC Berkeley Center for New Media and has served on the Board of Directors for New Langton Arts in San Francisco. Richard manages research projects in the area of digital culture, including the NEA-funded project, 'Archiving the Avant Garde', a national consortium of museums and artists distilling the essence of digital art in order to document and preserve it. Richard is a new media artist whose art works, papers, projects, and more can be found at http://www.coyoteyip.com
Re: Re: what are we calling ourselves?
hi again,
I do enjoy the back and forth on this (why else join this list in the
RAW?). Of course I also buy the arguments that there are dangers in
classifying a practice like art or even life, and especially in over-
or unnecessarily classifying; that's a given. But if you take that
argument to its logical end, it yields few practical results. For
instance, I don't wake up in the morning thinking I'm a "new media
artist"; it's true - I just am. But then again, I also don't wake up
thinking I'm an artist. Why classify that realm of human activity
apart from others? I don't wake up thinking I'm human or even me most
days, so why classify my species or personal identity apart from all
life? I just am. It's so true on a deeply philosophical level (grunt,
groan, sigh, chirp), but then again, there are so many necessary
reasons for classifying. It's all about finding the right levels to
classify and then the right parameters with which to classify (many
purely practical, thus my focus on what real-world organizations are
indeed calling themselves or their programs).
So, after finishing my research, I found that "new media" "digital
media" and "digital art" were the three most used terms. I agree
again with the dangers of over-reifying an artistic practice in terms
of a medium (or media), but within a realm of practice it may make
sense. For instance, it's true you would not call boat-building or
construction "woodworking", but it is common practice within those
fields to define the "wood" tradition (see the magazine "wooden
boats" or the term "wood frame construction"). So the medium is a
useful qualifier to the larger area of practice that is boat-building
or house-building. Similarly, I think video art or digital art simply
uses a medium to clarify and specify an area of artistic practice. Of
course it should not be presumed that any given artist who works in
digital media works exclusively in those media. It's all about
context; when applying to certain grant agencies it makes sense to
declare one's self a "digital artist", but in another context perhaps
one is just an "artist" or a citizen or person.
I think it's important to be able to clarify that because, for
instance, when we describe what was happening in the late 20th
century with art, there was something a little new and different
going on - what was it? I think there's a there there. It's also
useful because these terms loosely describe communities as much as
simply media. For instance, "new media" artists are often those who
post on Rhizome and nettime, publish in Leonardo or Intelligent
Agent, and attend the Refresh conference or Ars Electronica. Now
those artists may also overlap with those in the larger art world who
publish in ArtNews and attend the Biennial and Biennale, but despite
the fact that all communities overlap, it is possible to say that
there's an identity there - however loose. Not a pure, static, or
ontological identity, but an perceptable one.
Now as to the term, I think that Computational Media Art would be the
most precise. Computation defines what is new about this technology
in question in distinction to other preceding technologies (including
video, etc). But Computation is not used that much in this sense;
it's too arcane. "New media" seems so loose as to lose all definitive
power altogether. After all, isn't polymer acrylic painting a new
medium? I would offer that the more used "Digital Media Art" is a
useful term - it lies between computation and new, and means the most
precise thing to the most people. It's not useful to always call
digital art "digital", but it's also not fair to dismiss the media as
entirely incidental (the way the mainstream marketers of Brokeback
mountain claimed it was "just a love story between two people")
because the media allow the artists to go in directions that they
simply could not with other media. If art is an interplay of artist
with medium, then the medium helps define the artwork in a way that
does not commit the "intentional fallacy" of defining it entirely in
terms of artist intent or concept.
Well, that's already more words from me than post people are likely
to read, but I'm glad for the chance to discuss with you all. Thanks,
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
>I think that it's rather a
>fruitless attempt, outside of solving pragmatic matters like making it less of
>a train wreck for people doing searches for information on the subject. Lemme
>tell ya, it's hell trying to just find a damn program to apply to if everyone
>of them calls themselves something different. That said, it turns
>out that they
>all take an -extremely- different approach, so shunting them all off
>in a corner
>together doesn't end up being nearly as useful as it might appear at first
>glance.
>
>Pragmatism aside, I think trying to pin down the topic rather misses
>its point.
>The general idea is to use something which is electrically powered and create
>something (and even then, that's not -always- true...take bio-art). That's
>pretty frigging broad. You wouldn't call all things done using wood
>"cabinetry," or even "woodworking." You can do a million things with wood,
>including shipbuilding and house building, neither of which remotely qualifies
>under the seemingly encompassing "woodworking." So why do we continue to
>presume we should, or even can, devise a single name for something that isn't
>even as limiting as using 1 medium (wood)? Seems rather like trying to
>collect the ocean in a bucket. Just as easy. Just as useful.
>
>To date, the rather generic term "new media" is probably the best(?) attempt
>so far, in that it makes no assumption about the media other than
>that it isn't
>traditional and relies (somehow) on modern technological innovation,
>nor does it
>make an assumption about the point, message, medium, or technique,
>as does much
>of the other nomenclature. To me, "new media" encompasses more specific
>flavors like "digital art," "bio art," "net.art," "hacktivism," "generative
>art," etc. We keep getting confused because we continue, sloppily, thinking
>about and using them interchangeably, and we get our panties in a wad every
>time someone comes along with a new one that we haven't thought of yet, as
>though they're being bad or something by not just lumping it in to
>an existing,
>if inappropriate, genre. They are not interchangeable, technology has
>not stopped progressing, and people have not stopped devising new things to do
>with existing tools.
>-Alexis
>
>
>On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Jerry King Musser wrote:
>
>::Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 06:07:26 -0700
>::From: Jerry King Musser <musser@musser.cc>
>::To: list@rhizome.org
>::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: what are we calling ourselves?
>::
>::I've been hearing 'integrated media' lately.
>::
>::But, a word about the responses of some others...
>::
>::I think the gentleman was asking a serious question and I believe
>we should show enough respect for his intention by simply answering
>honestly or not at all.
>::+
>::-> 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
>::
>+
>-> 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
--
I do enjoy the back and forth on this (why else join this list in the
RAW?). Of course I also buy the arguments that there are dangers in
classifying a practice like art or even life, and especially in over-
or unnecessarily classifying; that's a given. But if you take that
argument to its logical end, it yields few practical results. For
instance, I don't wake up in the morning thinking I'm a "new media
artist"; it's true - I just am. But then again, I also don't wake up
thinking I'm an artist. Why classify that realm of human activity
apart from others? I don't wake up thinking I'm human or even me most
days, so why classify my species or personal identity apart from all
life? I just am. It's so true on a deeply philosophical level (grunt,
groan, sigh, chirp), but then again, there are so many necessary
reasons for classifying. It's all about finding the right levels to
classify and then the right parameters with which to classify (many
purely practical, thus my focus on what real-world organizations are
indeed calling themselves or their programs).
So, after finishing my research, I found that "new media" "digital
media" and "digital art" were the three most used terms. I agree
again with the dangers of over-reifying an artistic practice in terms
of a medium (or media), but within a realm of practice it may make
sense. For instance, it's true you would not call boat-building or
construction "woodworking", but it is common practice within those
fields to define the "wood" tradition (see the magazine "wooden
boats" or the term "wood frame construction"). So the medium is a
useful qualifier to the larger area of practice that is boat-building
or house-building. Similarly, I think video art or digital art simply
uses a medium to clarify and specify an area of artistic practice. Of
course it should not be presumed that any given artist who works in
digital media works exclusively in those media. It's all about
context; when applying to certain grant agencies it makes sense to
declare one's self a "digital artist", but in another context perhaps
one is just an "artist" or a citizen or person.
I think it's important to be able to clarify that because, for
instance, when we describe what was happening in the late 20th
century with art, there was something a little new and different
going on - what was it? I think there's a there there. It's also
useful because these terms loosely describe communities as much as
simply media. For instance, "new media" artists are often those who
post on Rhizome and nettime, publish in Leonardo or Intelligent
Agent, and attend the Refresh conference or Ars Electronica. Now
those artists may also overlap with those in the larger art world who
publish in ArtNews and attend the Biennial and Biennale, but despite
the fact that all communities overlap, it is possible to say that
there's an identity there - however loose. Not a pure, static, or
ontological identity, but an perceptable one.
Now as to the term, I think that Computational Media Art would be the
most precise. Computation defines what is new about this technology
in question in distinction to other preceding technologies (including
video, etc). But Computation is not used that much in this sense;
it's too arcane. "New media" seems so loose as to lose all definitive
power altogether. After all, isn't polymer acrylic painting a new
medium? I would offer that the more used "Digital Media Art" is a
useful term - it lies between computation and new, and means the most
precise thing to the most people. It's not useful to always call
digital art "digital", but it's also not fair to dismiss the media as
entirely incidental (the way the mainstream marketers of Brokeback
mountain claimed it was "just a love story between two people")
because the media allow the artists to go in directions that they
simply could not with other media. If art is an interplay of artist
with medium, then the medium helps define the artwork in a way that
does not commit the "intentional fallacy" of defining it entirely in
terms of artist intent or concept.
Well, that's already more words from me than post people are likely
to read, but I'm glad for the chance to discuss with you all. Thanks,
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
>I think that it's rather a
>fruitless attempt, outside of solving pragmatic matters like making it less of
>a train wreck for people doing searches for information on the subject. Lemme
>tell ya, it's hell trying to just find a damn program to apply to if everyone
>of them calls themselves something different. That said, it turns
>out that they
>all take an -extremely- different approach, so shunting them all off
>in a corner
>together doesn't end up being nearly as useful as it might appear at first
>glance.
>
>Pragmatism aside, I think trying to pin down the topic rather misses
>its point.
>The general idea is to use something which is electrically powered and create
>something (and even then, that's not -always- true...take bio-art). That's
>pretty frigging broad. You wouldn't call all things done using wood
>"cabinetry," or even "woodworking." You can do a million things with wood,
>including shipbuilding and house building, neither of which remotely qualifies
>under the seemingly encompassing "woodworking." So why do we continue to
>presume we should, or even can, devise a single name for something that isn't
>even as limiting as using 1 medium (wood)? Seems rather like trying to
>collect the ocean in a bucket. Just as easy. Just as useful.
>
>To date, the rather generic term "new media" is probably the best(?) attempt
>so far, in that it makes no assumption about the media other than
>that it isn't
>traditional and relies (somehow) on modern technological innovation,
>nor does it
>make an assumption about the point, message, medium, or technique,
>as does much
>of the other nomenclature. To me, "new media" encompasses more specific
>flavors like "digital art," "bio art," "net.art," "hacktivism," "generative
>art," etc. We keep getting confused because we continue, sloppily, thinking
>about and using them interchangeably, and we get our panties in a wad every
>time someone comes along with a new one that we haven't thought of yet, as
>though they're being bad or something by not just lumping it in to
>an existing,
>if inappropriate, genre. They are not interchangeable, technology has
>not stopped progressing, and people have not stopped devising new things to do
>with existing tools.
>-Alexis
>
>
>On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Jerry King Musser wrote:
>
>::Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 06:07:26 -0700
>::From: Jerry King Musser <musser@musser.cc>
>::To: list@rhizome.org
>::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: what are we calling ourselves?
>::
>::I've been hearing 'integrated media' lately.
>::
>::But, a word about the responses of some others...
>::
>::I think the gentleman was asking a serious question and I believe
>we should show enough respect for his intention by simply answering
>honestly or not at all.
>::+
>::-> 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
>::
>+
>-> 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
--
what are we calling ourselves?
Hello fellow Rhizomers,
I'm sure this topic must have come up in the past here, but I haven't
seen it in a little while, so I'm going to update it. I'm doing some
research into what our field/sub-discipline/genre of
digital/newmedia/media art is being called these days. I've followed
the recent threads on whether to define a separate practice or not,
but I'm trying to find out not in what we might be ideally called in
theory, but what are organizations actually naming their programs and
how do they title their staff when they do distinguish them. I've
compiled an initial list below, and I'm wondering if anyone here
would have anything to add to it - new phrases, new examples of
existing titles, etc. I'll be happy to share the compiled fruits of
my little investigation once I'm done. The list of academic programs
on Rhizome has been helpful as it provides a tally of such phrases.
The following is in addition to that lists, and focusses more on
museums and arts organizations than academia. Anyone care to add to
the list, or comment on what our little world is being called these
days?
=========================================
NON-PROPER NAMES FOR CURATORIAL AND RELATED PROGRAMS
-----------
"Digital Media"
-----------
Curator of Digital Media, UC Riverside California Museum of Photography
Curator of Digital Media and Director of New Media Projects, American
Museum of the Moving Image
assistant curator of digital media, American Museum of the Moving Image
Curator of Digital Media and Director of Information Systems,
International Center of Photography
Digital Media Curator, Lassi Tasajarvi, Independent Curator, Australia
Digital Media Center for the Arts, Yale
Digital Media Center, School of the Arts, Columbia Univ.
----------
"New Media"
-----------
Adjunct curator of new media arts, Whitney Museum
New Media Curator, Walker Art Center
New Media Curator, Centre for Contemporary Art, Gateshead, UK
New Media curator at the DeCordova Museum
New Media Curator at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London
Curator of New Media & Public Programs at Lower Manhattan Cultural Council
Center for New Media, UC Berkeley
----------
"Digital Art"
-----------
digital art curator, Centre for Contemporary Photography
Digital Art Museum (online only)
Los Angeles Center For Digital Art
Austin Museum of Digital Art (no building)
SJSU Digital Art Lobby
Digital Arts Program, University of Oregon
UCDARNET, Univ. of CA, Digital Arts Network
----------
"Computer Art"
-----------
Museum of Computer Art
----------
"Virtual Art"
-----------
Virtual Art Curator, Athens Institute of Contemporary Art
-----------
"Art and Technology"
-----------
New Center for Art and Technology, Cleveland
Eyebeam Atelier Museum of Art and Technology, NYC
-----------
"Electronic Art"
-----------
International Festival of Electronic Art
Ars Electronica
International Society of Electronic Artists
=========================================
PROPER NAMES FOR PROGRAMS (but not curators)
Orange Lounge, New Media Website and Online Exhibition Space, Orange
County Museum of Art
ArtPort, Whitney Museum of American Art
Gallery 9, Walker Art Center
Digital Programmes (also Net Art), Tate Modern
Rhizome, Rhizome.org
RGB Gallery, HotWired
--
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
I'm sure this topic must have come up in the past here, but I haven't
seen it in a little while, so I'm going to update it. I'm doing some
research into what our field/sub-discipline/genre of
digital/newmedia/media art is being called these days. I've followed
the recent threads on whether to define a separate practice or not,
but I'm trying to find out not in what we might be ideally called in
theory, but what are organizations actually naming their programs and
how do they title their staff when they do distinguish them. I've
compiled an initial list below, and I'm wondering if anyone here
would have anything to add to it - new phrases, new examples of
existing titles, etc. I'll be happy to share the compiled fruits of
my little investigation once I'm done. The list of academic programs
on Rhizome has been helpful as it provides a tally of such phrases.
The following is in addition to that lists, and focusses more on
museums and arts organizations than academia. Anyone care to add to
the list, or comment on what our little world is being called these
days?
=========================================
NON-PROPER NAMES FOR CURATORIAL AND RELATED PROGRAMS
-----------
"Digital Media"
-----------
Curator of Digital Media, UC Riverside California Museum of Photography
Curator of Digital Media and Director of New Media Projects, American
Museum of the Moving Image
assistant curator of digital media, American Museum of the Moving Image
Curator of Digital Media and Director of Information Systems,
International Center of Photography
Digital Media Curator, Lassi Tasajarvi, Independent Curator, Australia
Digital Media Center for the Arts, Yale
Digital Media Center, School of the Arts, Columbia Univ.
----------
"New Media"
-----------
Adjunct curator of new media arts, Whitney Museum
New Media Curator, Walker Art Center
New Media Curator, Centre for Contemporary Art, Gateshead, UK
New Media curator at the DeCordova Museum
New Media Curator at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London
Curator of New Media & Public Programs at Lower Manhattan Cultural Council
Center for New Media, UC Berkeley
----------
"Digital Art"
-----------
digital art curator, Centre for Contemporary Photography
Digital Art Museum (online only)
Los Angeles Center For Digital Art
Austin Museum of Digital Art (no building)
SJSU Digital Art Lobby
Digital Arts Program, University of Oregon
UCDARNET, Univ. of CA, Digital Arts Network
----------
"Computer Art"
-----------
Museum of Computer Art
----------
"Virtual Art"
-----------
Virtual Art Curator, Athens Institute of Contemporary Art
-----------
"Art and Technology"
-----------
New Center for Art and Technology, Cleveland
Eyebeam Atelier Museum of Art and Technology, NYC
-----------
"Electronic Art"
-----------
International Festival of Electronic Art
Ars Electronica
International Society of Electronic Artists
=========================================
PROPER NAMES FOR PROGRAMS (but not curators)
Orange Lounge, New Media Website and Online Exhibition Space, Orange
County Museum of Art
ArtPort, Whitney Museum of American Art
Gallery 9, Walker Art Center
Digital Programmes (also Net Art), Tate Modern
Rhizome, Rhizome.org
RGB Gallery, HotWired
--
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
Re: Preservation of the Rhizome ArtBase
Hello Dimity, and others FYI,
First, you can check the Rhizome list archives for the recent thread
on "metadata" where we discussed the portion of preservation that
involves descriptive metadata, particularly vocabularies (search the
TextBase).
Second, there are two digital art preservation projects I'd refer you
to, both of which have extensive (and recent) online documentation:
Archiving the Avant-Garde
http://bampfa.berkeley.edu/ciao/avant_garde.html
Variable Media Initiative
http://www.variablemedia.net
I hope these help,
Richard Rinehart
At 12:02 AM -0700 5/27/06, Dimity Mapstone wrote:
>Hi there
>
>I was wondering if anyone out there can help me....
>
>I am currently studying Master of Museum Studies at the University
>of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. I am writing a research report
>on the preservation of digital heritage and I have chosen Rhizome as
>one of my case-study organisations (as I have a particular interest
>in net-art and have been a member of Rhizome on and off for the past
>5 years). I notice that you have a report "Preserving the Rhizome
>ArtBase" by Richard Rinehart dated September 2002... but I can't
>seem to find any reference to it or anything that has happened in
>this field since that date.
>
>I was wondering if anyone knows if any of the recommendations put
>forward in that report have been implemented, or what Rhizome is
>currently doing in an attempt to preserve it's digital art
>collection for future generations......
>
>Any feedback or links concerning this topic and what Rhizome is
>attempting to do in this respect would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Cheers,
>Dimity Mapstone
>
>http://www.dimity.org/digital_heritage/
>emailme@dimity.org
>+
>-> 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
--
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
First, you can check the Rhizome list archives for the recent thread
on "metadata" where we discussed the portion of preservation that
involves descriptive metadata, particularly vocabularies (search the
TextBase).
Second, there are two digital art preservation projects I'd refer you
to, both of which have extensive (and recent) online documentation:
Archiving the Avant-Garde
http://bampfa.berkeley.edu/ciao/avant_garde.html
Variable Media Initiative
http://www.variablemedia.net
I hope these help,
Richard Rinehart
At 12:02 AM -0700 5/27/06, Dimity Mapstone wrote:
>Hi there
>
>I was wondering if anyone out there can help me....
>
>I am currently studying Master of Museum Studies at the University
>of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. I am writing a research report
>on the preservation of digital heritage and I have chosen Rhizome as
>one of my case-study organisations (as I have a particular interest
>in net-art and have been a member of Rhizome on and off for the past
>5 years). I notice that you have a report "Preserving the Rhizome
>ArtBase" by Richard Rinehart dated September 2002... but I can't
>seem to find any reference to it or anything that has happened in
>this field since that date.
>
>I was wondering if anyone knows if any of the recommendations put
>forward in that report have been implemented, or what Rhizome is
>currently doing in an attempt to preserve it's digital art
>collection for future generations......
>
>Any feedback or links concerning this topic and what Rhizome is
>attempting to do in this respect would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Cheers,
>Dimity Mapstone
>
>http://www.dimity.org/digital_heritage/
>emailme@dimity.org
>+
>-> 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
--
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
Re: Call for Participation: Experimental Exhibition - "Summer of MySpace"
Hi all,
Everyone probably knows that myspace was bought by Fox (story at
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/17571) and there has been some
discussion/anxiety from music artists about the purchase and license
(see
feed://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/myspacefox-artists-beware/feed/).
Now this is an UNCONFIRMED rumor that I heard from a professor at UC
Berkeley (who will remain unnamed in case this is totally incorrect)
that Fox is either using or has plans to data-mine myspace users'
blogs and posts to discover topical and timely interests of the youth
audience that they can quickly work into Fox products like their TV
sitcoms. The license mentioned earlier of course would free
Fox/myspace from any user claiming "hey, that was my idea!", etc. The
following article does not confirm this rumor, but the last couple of
lines suggest that someone may think along these lines
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4697671.stm). Again,
UNCONFIRMED, but has anyone else on this list heard anything similar?
Besides the Fox angle above, the license is certainly not great, but
tolerable to some. I guess it would have the equivalent of a
Creative Commons license that :
a) allowed commercial use
b) allowed modification of work or creation of derivatives
b) did not require share and share-alike
c) did not require attribution...
...come to think of it, I don't think there is a CC license that
allows for non-attribution, is there?
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
At 10:54 AM -0400 5/24/06, joy.garnett@gmail.com wrote:
>I'd agree with Pall: the key term here is "non-exclusive" -- they
>basically are covering their asses so you can't turn around and sue
>them if, say, someone grabs your image off MySpace and makes a
>derivative work ;-) It's essentially a license to distribute, which
>is what you want them to do: distribute your work via the internet.
>i don't find it scary at all (just thorough legalese) and not at all
>at odds with a CC license.
>
>On 5/24/06, Pall Thayer
><<mailto:p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>Pretty scary license. Especially the part where they reserve the
>right to "sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees".
>However, I'm not sure that it's really much to worry about and
>perhaps not even unreasonable (from a very corporate point of view).
>They also say, "...and distribute such Content on and through the
>Services." This sounds to me like they are only reserving the right
>to use material on MySpace _within_ MySpace to make sure they don't
>get sued for posting your image on the splash page as one of the
>"cool new people", or something along similar lines. So, I'm not sure
>that it's quite correct to say that this license grants MySpace "all
>of the rights" to content posted there.
>
>Pall
>
>On 24.5.2006, at 10:00, Christine Hart wrote:
>
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> Although this sounds like a great idea for the exploration of
>> social networking and it's relationship to net art, I have to take
>> issue with asking people to post "art". I have had several friends
>> who are illustrators and artists remove the bulk of their art work
>> from MySpace because of a recent change to the Terms and Conditions
>> which can be found here:
>><http://collect.myspace.com/misc/terms.html>http://collect.myspace.com/misc/terms.html?
>> z=1
>>
>> Basically it grants MySpace all of the rights to any "Content"
>> posted to MySpace as long as it is on the MySpace servers.
>> Proprietary Rights in Content on MySpace.com.
>> By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content, messages,
>> text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, profiles, works of
>> authorship, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") on or
> > through the Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com, a non-
>> exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the
>> right to sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to
>> use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly
>> display, store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on
>> and through the Services. This license will terminate at the time
>> you remove such Content from the Services. You represent and
>> warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through
>> the Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set
>> forth in this section, and (ii) the posting of your Content on or
>> through the Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity
>> rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any
>> person. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other
>> monies owing any person by reason of any Content posted by you to
>> or through the Services.
>> I am a big believer in the Creative Commons lisencing and open
>> source art and code. I still maintain my profile on the site but I
>> no longer post any creative works of writing, art, or sound because
>> I feel that these terms are a bit unreasonable.
>>
>> This might make the experiment of using MySpace as an art venue
>> more interesting or posit more problems.
>>
>> How does this list feel about soical networking sites and lisencing
>> issues of creative works and images associated with them?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Christine
>>
>>
>> On 5/21/06, patrick lichty <<mailto:voyd@voyd.com>voyd@voyd.com> wrote:
>> Call for Participation:
>>
>> "The Summer of MySpace" - an online exhibition
>>
>> Curated by Patrick Lichty - The Curator of MySpace
>>
>> <http://www.myspace.com/summercurator> http://www.myspace.com/summercurator
>>
>> <mailto:myspace@voyd.com>myspace@voyd.com
>>
>>
>> Friend Request Dates - 5/21/06 - 8/31/06
>>
>>
>> MySpace is a cultural phenomenon. Millions of people have poured
>> their lives into this online community, making it the most
>> successful to date, surpassing Friendster, Xuqa, and Facebook.
>> Millions of hours of creative time by its users, aspiring bands,
>> models, and magazines have been placed into this online agora. But
>> is MySpace a creative space?
>>
>> "Summer of MySpace" asks a number of questions about this
>> burgeoning hang-out haven:
>>
>>
>> Has MySpace become a new art medium or New Media/Net artform, or
>> can it be used as one?
>>
>> Can the selection of 'friends' and their spaces be called a form of
>> curation?
>>
>> In making profiles, do we make ourselves into art objects?
>>
>> What does it mean to ask to be a 'friend'? Is a form of curation?
>>
>> Is MySpace merely a space for the colonization of youth culture by
>> corporations and consumer culture?
>>
>> Is MySpace's success representative of a truly new form of community?
>>
>> What other questions about relationships, society, art, and culture
>> does MySpace present?
>> Is MySpace limited by the way it's made, or can we subvert the
>> profile for our own desires?
>>
>>
>> "Summer of MySpace" fires a probe into this unknown territory,
>> asking all these questions, and setting up a stage for the Internet
>> Summer of Love of the 00's.
>>
>>
>> Come, be my friend. Let me show you as a shiny new piece of art.
>> Let us curate and be curated, befriend and be befriended in this
>> brave new land of joy and irony.
>>
>>
>> Let's see what happens. Get on the magic bus.
>>
>>
>> Submission Procedure:
>>
>> All you need to do is to set up a profile, make it into an
>> 'artwork', make yourself into an 'artwork', make a place for your
>> 'artwork', and ask me to be your friend. That's what curation is
>> all about, isn't it? The rest is up to us!
>>
>>
>> Peace, all!
>>
>> -Patrick Lichty
>> (The Curator of MySpace)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Pall Thayer
><mailto:p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
><http://www.this.is/pallit>http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>
>+
>-> post: <mailto:list@rhizome.org>list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: <mailto:info@rhizome.org>info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe:
><http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz>http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: <http://rhizome.org/support>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://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>
>--
>530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
><http://joygarnett.com>http://joygarnett.com
--
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
Everyone probably knows that myspace was bought by Fox (story at
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/17571) and there has been some
discussion/anxiety from music artists about the purchase and license
(see
feed://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/myspacefox-artists-beware/feed/).
Now this is an UNCONFIRMED rumor that I heard from a professor at UC
Berkeley (who will remain unnamed in case this is totally incorrect)
that Fox is either using or has plans to data-mine myspace users'
blogs and posts to discover topical and timely interests of the youth
audience that they can quickly work into Fox products like their TV
sitcoms. The license mentioned earlier of course would free
Fox/myspace from any user claiming "hey, that was my idea!", etc. The
following article does not confirm this rumor, but the last couple of
lines suggest that someone may think along these lines
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4697671.stm). Again,
UNCONFIRMED, but has anyone else on this list heard anything similar?
Besides the Fox angle above, the license is certainly not great, but
tolerable to some. I guess it would have the equivalent of a
Creative Commons license that :
a) allowed commercial use
b) allowed modification of work or creation of derivatives
b) did not require share and share-alike
c) did not require attribution...
...come to think of it, I don't think there is a CC license that
allows for non-attribution, is there?
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
At 10:54 AM -0400 5/24/06, joy.garnett@gmail.com wrote:
>I'd agree with Pall: the key term here is "non-exclusive" -- they
>basically are covering their asses so you can't turn around and sue
>them if, say, someone grabs your image off MySpace and makes a
>derivative work ;-) It's essentially a license to distribute, which
>is what you want them to do: distribute your work via the internet.
>i don't find it scary at all (just thorough legalese) and not at all
>at odds with a CC license.
>
>On 5/24/06, Pall Thayer
><<mailto:p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>Pretty scary license. Especially the part where they reserve the
>right to "sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees".
>However, I'm not sure that it's really much to worry about and
>perhaps not even unreasonable (from a very corporate point of view).
>They also say, "...and distribute such Content on and through the
>Services." This sounds to me like they are only reserving the right
>to use material on MySpace _within_ MySpace to make sure they don't
>get sued for posting your image on the splash page as one of the
>"cool new people", or something along similar lines. So, I'm not sure
>that it's quite correct to say that this license grants MySpace "all
>of the rights" to content posted there.
>
>Pall
>
>On 24.5.2006, at 10:00, Christine Hart wrote:
>
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> Although this sounds like a great idea for the exploration of
>> social networking and it's relationship to net art, I have to take
>> issue with asking people to post "art". I have had several friends
>> who are illustrators and artists remove the bulk of their art work
>> from MySpace because of a recent change to the Terms and Conditions
>> which can be found here:
>><http://collect.myspace.com/misc/terms.html>http://collect.myspace.com/misc/terms.html?
>> z=1
>>
>> Basically it grants MySpace all of the rights to any "Content"
>> posted to MySpace as long as it is on the MySpace servers.
>> Proprietary Rights in Content on MySpace.com.
>> By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content, messages,
>> text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, profiles, works of
>> authorship, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") on or
> > through the Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com, a non-
>> exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the
>> right to sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to
>> use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly
>> display, store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on
>> and through the Services. This license will terminate at the time
>> you remove such Content from the Services. You represent and
>> warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through
>> the Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set
>> forth in this section, and (ii) the posting of your Content on or
>> through the Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity
>> rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any
>> person. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other
>> monies owing any person by reason of any Content posted by you to
>> or through the Services.
>> I am a big believer in the Creative Commons lisencing and open
>> source art and code. I still maintain my profile on the site but I
>> no longer post any creative works of writing, art, or sound because
>> I feel that these terms are a bit unreasonable.
>>
>> This might make the experiment of using MySpace as an art venue
>> more interesting or posit more problems.
>>
>> How does this list feel about soical networking sites and lisencing
>> issues of creative works and images associated with them?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Christine
>>
>>
>> On 5/21/06, patrick lichty <<mailto:voyd@voyd.com>voyd@voyd.com> wrote:
>> Call for Participation:
>>
>> "The Summer of MySpace" - an online exhibition
>>
>> Curated by Patrick Lichty - The Curator of MySpace
>>
>> <http://www.myspace.com/summercurator> http://www.myspace.com/summercurator
>>
>> <mailto:myspace@voyd.com>myspace@voyd.com
>>
>>
>> Friend Request Dates - 5/21/06 - 8/31/06
>>
>>
>> MySpace is a cultural phenomenon. Millions of people have poured
>> their lives into this online community, making it the most
>> successful to date, surpassing Friendster, Xuqa, and Facebook.
>> Millions of hours of creative time by its users, aspiring bands,
>> models, and magazines have been placed into this online agora. But
>> is MySpace a creative space?
>>
>> "Summer of MySpace" asks a number of questions about this
>> burgeoning hang-out haven:
>>
>>
>> Has MySpace become a new art medium or New Media/Net artform, or
>> can it be used as one?
>>
>> Can the selection of 'friends' and their spaces be called a form of
>> curation?
>>
>> In making profiles, do we make ourselves into art objects?
>>
>> What does it mean to ask to be a 'friend'? Is a form of curation?
>>
>> Is MySpace merely a space for the colonization of youth culture by
>> corporations and consumer culture?
>>
>> Is MySpace's success representative of a truly new form of community?
>>
>> What other questions about relationships, society, art, and culture
>> does MySpace present?
>> Is MySpace limited by the way it's made, or can we subvert the
>> profile for our own desires?
>>
>>
>> "Summer of MySpace" fires a probe into this unknown territory,
>> asking all these questions, and setting up a stage for the Internet
>> Summer of Love of the 00's.
>>
>>
>> Come, be my friend. Let me show you as a shiny new piece of art.
>> Let us curate and be curated, befriend and be befriended in this
>> brave new land of joy and irony.
>>
>>
>> Let's see what happens. Get on the magic bus.
>>
>>
>> Submission Procedure:
>>
>> All you need to do is to set up a profile, make it into an
>> 'artwork', make yourself into an 'artwork', make a place for your
>> 'artwork', and ask me to be your friend. That's what curation is
>> all about, isn't it? The rest is up to us!
>>
>>
>> Peace, all!
>>
>> -Patrick Lichty
>> (The Curator of MySpace)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Pall Thayer
><mailto:p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
><http://www.this.is/pallit>http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>
>+
>-> post: <mailto:list@rhizome.org>list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: <mailto:info@rhizome.org>info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe:
><http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz>http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: <http://rhizome.org/support>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://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>
>--
>530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
><http://joygarnett.com>http://joygarnett.com
--
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
Re: Metadata
Thanks Marisa,
That's a great summary, and I totally agree that we can have our cake
and eat it too. As a digital or net.artist, I often feel I want to
defend/promote/identify what is unique about digital practice in
contrast to the larger art or cultural worlds.
[In an interesting aside about language; at UC Berkeley we had a long
debate about what to call this "genre" for our campus Center for New
Media and decided that 'computational media' was the most accurate at
defining what is unique about these media and separate them from
other artistic media and separate this artistic practice to some
extent because computation affords functions and opportunities that
are new and unique - BUT in actually naming the Center in a way that
is not too geeky and is understandable to campus administrators, we
went for 'new media'. Ironic, eh?]
But in my day job at a museum, I don't want to see digital media
continue to be ghetto-ized the way
performance/conceptual/installation art still is (let's face it,
museums never really solved the problems inherent in collecting those
genres either). I agree that we can develop our own vocabulary and at
the same time deploy a parallel standardized one. I also hadn't
thought of it, but of course the existing artbase terms are perhaps
the beginnings of the new folksonomy.
As to Type/Genre/Keywords specifically; I still feel that type and
genre are distinct ideas: one is more general and conceptual
(Genre=Impressionism), whereas the other is more about the format of
the work (Type=painting). If we wanted to simplify things (not a bad
idea) it would be important to define what we mean by Category if
it's to be a useful metadata element. And, if indeed a folksonomy is
used, then Keyword, however, becomes obsolete. Just my 2c again, and
to echo Marisa, it would be great to hear from more people on this
list; we're talking about creating the historic record here and this
can't be the purview of just a few people (well, shouldn't anyway!)
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
At 9:13 AM -0700 5/17/06, marisa@rhizome.org wrote:
>Dear Rhizomers,
>
>I've really appreciated your comments, in this thread. I wanted to take
>some time to observe and absorb before jumping into the conversation. Of
>course, I bump up against Metadata issues every day, as Editor & Curator,
>because these tags are used to describe not only ArtBase entries but also
>TextBase pieces--i.e. posts to Raw that get filtered into Rare. I'll be
>the first to point out the datedness or frustrating aspects of the current
>language, but I would also err on the side of caution before totally
>discarding the system.
>
>It seems obvious to me that we can't throw out all of the old terms, because:
>
>* They are attached to so many works;
>* Whether or not they were excited by the terms, artists have previously
>used them to describe their work, so we're in the domain of artistic
>intention; and
>* The terms are a historical reflection upon the evolving discourse of new
>media, and as such they index not only texts and artworks, but other
>historically important things like trends, vernaculars, etc.
>
>In my opinion, they should be augmented with additional terms and then the
>architecture of these options could be improved. There is currently some
>redundancy--perhaps even some contradiction, between the tags offered in
>the type, genre, and keyword categories, which I believe can be easily
>smoothed out. David Chien pointed this out, here, when he suggested that
>these all be collapsed under the heading "category."
>
>But, backing up, we would really like to hear from *you* what terms you'd
>like to see added. Perhaps we can think of this as a preliminary form of
>folksonomy, as it will clearly be generated by you folks! And then I think
>that the tagging system can be opened up to additional, simultaneous
>self-tagging.
>
>The concerns many have expressed over the practice of choosing from an
>existing menu of tags, or a "controlled vocabulary," I think relate to
>larger concerns that many of us have about the insider vs. outsider nature
>of the field. When I look back over some of the more memorable Raw threads
>related to the criticism and historiography of new media art, I see a
>tension between those who want to rebel against existing aesthetic models
>(and all that they imply, from art stardom to the military industrial
>complex), and those who see a need to situate work in relationship to
>these models. I also know that the notions of hierarchy and control often
>get pitted against those of collaboration and sharing, but I think that
>there is a need for both--and that they need not be mutually exclusive.
>
>I personally think that a dual-model in which ArtBase contributors and
>Site Editors can engage with the controlled vocabulary while also
>augmenting it with their own expressions is the best way to reach a happy
>medium.
>
>This really gets to Rick's question as to the audience of the ArtBase and
>TextBase. I tend to imagine a future-tense audience looking back on works
>and texts and trying to take them not only for face value, but also to
>understand them in relationship to other works and texts of that time
>period and/or of that self-identified genre. This is a scenario in which
>an existing, shared vocabulary is extremely helpful. It would also
>enrichen the study of a work's context, as Rick pointed out when he said:
>
>"Although, if one did use a hybrid model, then that would itself create
>the mapping (each work would have both standardized terms and folksonomic
>terms applied, so averaging among many works, you'd be able to tell what
>terms mapped to each other."
>
>I would like to conclude with one more plea for you to contribute
>constructive suggestions for "category" tags to include among our
>Metadata. I would also say that our collectively-authored "shared
>vocabulary" has potential not only to impact the preservation and
>interpretation of works and texts in our own archives, but that it can
>also be shared with the field at large. This is an incredible opportunity
>for us to share our insights with the field.
>
>I thank you for continuing to share your thoughts.
>
>Marisa
>
>
>+ + +
>Marisa Olson
>Editor & Curator at Large
>Rhizome.org at the
>New Museum of Contemporary Art
>
>+
>-> 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
--
That's a great summary, and I totally agree that we can have our cake
and eat it too. As a digital or net.artist, I often feel I want to
defend/promote/identify what is unique about digital practice in
contrast to the larger art or cultural worlds.
[In an interesting aside about language; at UC Berkeley we had a long
debate about what to call this "genre" for our campus Center for New
Media and decided that 'computational media' was the most accurate at
defining what is unique about these media and separate them from
other artistic media and separate this artistic practice to some
extent because computation affords functions and opportunities that
are new and unique - BUT in actually naming the Center in a way that
is not too geeky and is understandable to campus administrators, we
went for 'new media'. Ironic, eh?]
But in my day job at a museum, I don't want to see digital media
continue to be ghetto-ized the way
performance/conceptual/installation art still is (let's face it,
museums never really solved the problems inherent in collecting those
genres either). I agree that we can develop our own vocabulary and at
the same time deploy a parallel standardized one. I also hadn't
thought of it, but of course the existing artbase terms are perhaps
the beginnings of the new folksonomy.
As to Type/Genre/Keywords specifically; I still feel that type and
genre are distinct ideas: one is more general and conceptual
(Genre=Impressionism), whereas the other is more about the format of
the work (Type=painting). If we wanted to simplify things (not a bad
idea) it would be important to define what we mean by Category if
it's to be a useful metadata element. And, if indeed a folksonomy is
used, then Keyword, however, becomes obsolete. Just my 2c again, and
to echo Marisa, it would be great to hear from more people on this
list; we're talking about creating the historic record here and this
can't be the purview of just a few people (well, shouldn't anyway!)
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
At 9:13 AM -0700 5/17/06, marisa@rhizome.org wrote:
>Dear Rhizomers,
>
>I've really appreciated your comments, in this thread. I wanted to take
>some time to observe and absorb before jumping into the conversation. Of
>course, I bump up against Metadata issues every day, as Editor & Curator,
>because these tags are used to describe not only ArtBase entries but also
>TextBase pieces--i.e. posts to Raw that get filtered into Rare. I'll be
>the first to point out the datedness or frustrating aspects of the current
>language, but I would also err on the side of caution before totally
>discarding the system.
>
>It seems obvious to me that we can't throw out all of the old terms, because:
>
>* They are attached to so many works;
>* Whether or not they were excited by the terms, artists have previously
>used them to describe their work, so we're in the domain of artistic
>intention; and
>* The terms are a historical reflection upon the evolving discourse of new
>media, and as such they index not only texts and artworks, but other
>historically important things like trends, vernaculars, etc.
>
>In my opinion, they should be augmented with additional terms and then the
>architecture of these options could be improved. There is currently some
>redundancy--perhaps even some contradiction, between the tags offered in
>the type, genre, and keyword categories, which I believe can be easily
>smoothed out. David Chien pointed this out, here, when he suggested that
>these all be collapsed under the heading "category."
>
>But, backing up, we would really like to hear from *you* what terms you'd
>like to see added. Perhaps we can think of this as a preliminary form of
>folksonomy, as it will clearly be generated by you folks! And then I think
>that the tagging system can be opened up to additional, simultaneous
>self-tagging.
>
>The concerns many have expressed over the practice of choosing from an
>existing menu of tags, or a "controlled vocabulary," I think relate to
>larger concerns that many of us have about the insider vs. outsider nature
>of the field. When I look back over some of the more memorable Raw threads
>related to the criticism and historiography of new media art, I see a
>tension between those who want to rebel against existing aesthetic models
>(and all that they imply, from art stardom to the military industrial
>complex), and those who see a need to situate work in relationship to
>these models. I also know that the notions of hierarchy and control often
>get pitted against those of collaboration and sharing, but I think that
>there is a need for both--and that they need not be mutually exclusive.
>
>I personally think that a dual-model in which ArtBase contributors and
>Site Editors can engage with the controlled vocabulary while also
>augmenting it with their own expressions is the best way to reach a happy
>medium.
>
>This really gets to Rick's question as to the audience of the ArtBase and
>TextBase. I tend to imagine a future-tense audience looking back on works
>and texts and trying to take them not only for face value, but also to
>understand them in relationship to other works and texts of that time
>period and/or of that self-identified genre. This is a scenario in which
>an existing, shared vocabulary is extremely helpful. It would also
>enrichen the study of a work's context, as Rick pointed out when he said:
>
>"Although, if one did use a hybrid model, then that would itself create
>the mapping (each work would have both standardized terms and folksonomic
>terms applied, so averaging among many works, you'd be able to tell what
>terms mapped to each other."
>
>I would like to conclude with one more plea for you to contribute
>constructive suggestions for "category" tags to include among our
>Metadata. I would also say that our collectively-authored "shared
>vocabulary" has potential not only to impact the preservation and
>interpretation of works and texts in our own archives, but that it can
>also be shared with the field at large. This is an incredible opportunity
>for us to share our insights with the field.
>
>I thank you for continuing to share your thoughts.
>
>Marisa
>
>
>+ + +
>Marisa Olson
>Editor & Curator at Large
>Rhizome.org at the
>New Museum of Contemporary Art
>
>+
>-> 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
--
