Richard Rinehart
Since the beginning
r.rinehart@bucknell.edu
Works in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania United States of America

PORTFOLIO (4)
BIO
Richard Rinehart is the Director of the Samek Art Museum 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
Discussions (28) Opportunities (4) Events (14) Jobs (8)
DISCUSSION

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

DISCUSSION

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

DISCUSSION

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

--

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Hi Patrick, Rhizomers,

Here are some thoughts on the second part of your proposal:

This portion of your proposal deals with "cloned" works in the
ArtBase. One thing to clarify is that this is more of a storage
solution than a preservation solution. It's important to draw a
distinction to set up realistic expectations in the community. One
difference is that a preservation solution would require that the
files be stored in an archival or semi-archival format and from what
I've heard, compressed files or compressed file groups are the worst
for archival storage. But perhaps compression is just for the initial
upload, whereupon they are unpacked and stored in "raw" form. But a
more important distinction is that preservation would require that
upon ingest into the ArtBase, the files are checked for file validity
and that, in perpetuity, they are periodically checked so that
obsolete formats can be migrated to new formats in addition to
migrating the files themselves to newer storage solutions.

BUT, even if a true "preservation repository" is too expensive to
achieve initially, I agree that Rhizome could prove invaluable to the
community by taking some early steps such as offering a storage
solution. Then future grants, funding, and staff could be sought to
flesh out the thornier, more labor-intensive preservation issues.

In relation to source code, I guess it would also make sense to
ask/prod the submitting artist to include the original source code
and/or editable/extractable versions of the files too. For instance,
when uploading C-based works; they would upload source as well as
compiled programs and For Flash-based works they would upload .fla
files as well as .swf. The closer to the source; the easier to
preserve because you can generate new copies.

Anyway, I think the idea of having a level of service at Rhizome that
is storage (and not committing to keeping the project running online
forever) would be a good move and a huge help to a growing community.
And you've suggested two good ways to improve the workflow, thus
allowing Rhizome to collect/ingest/store even more works.

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

>
>
>>You mention an interesting note about ArtBase including licenses
>>for commercial software as having the original software (or better
>>yet, source code, see previous post) is helpful for preservation. I
>>do rememeber that Howard Besser at NYU had mentioned a couple years
>>ago the idea of convincing Congress to give software companies a
>>tax break to release their old software into the public domain
>>because it has little value for them, but great value for
>>preservation. Does anyone else know about this project and what
>>became of it. It might be relevant here......
>
>This does not directly relate to metadata, but I'd like to make
>suggestion about Artbase preservation techniques. At present we
>"clone" an artwork onto our server. This requires a review of the
>artworks being cloned, making the cloning process more
>time-consuming. I think we could have a smoother process by
>focusing just on "preservation":
>
>+ The artist could upload an archive ( zip / sit / tgz / etc ) of the project.
>+ The archive would be preserved for future reference.
>+ If the original link goes dark, either Rhizome or other interested
>parties could choose to clone the project
>
>This would allow us to preserve more artworks, including those which
>do not match Rhizome's hosting environment. I'm sure on the
>internet there are artworks created in LISP that are worth
>preserving :-)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Patrick
>
>
>--
>Patrick May
>Director of Technology
>Rhizome.org
>phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
>AIM: cyclochew
>+ + +
>
>>At 12:51 PM +0100 4/26/06, rob@robmyers.org wrote:
>>>Quoting Richard Rinehart <rinehart@berkeley.edu>:
>>>
>>>>I'm curious about the statement you made below Rob, that any
>>>>folksonomy can be made compatible with standards using a good
>>>>thesaurus. Do you have an example of this?
>>>
>>>I don't have an example I'm afraid. It's more a strategy I had in mind for
>>>paintr (http://paintr.robmyers.org/). Folksonomies and taxonomies are both
>>>formalisations of human language, so if my RDF doesn't contain the
>>>word "blue"
>>>but it does contain the word "color" I can locate my tag in the RDF using
>>>wordnet or a thesaurus.
>>>
>>>>Your note on the AAT is very (VERY) well taken. Yes, the AAT is
>>>>not yet a good resource for terms for new media art, yet it is
>>>>the single standard used most by museums and other organizations
>>>>collecting new media art. So, one strategy would be to ignore the
>>>>AAT as irrelevant; but another might be to work with the Getty to
>>>>update and improve the AAT with relevant terms so that (digital)
>>>>community-specific practice becomes (museum) community specific
>>>>practice rather than creating a ghetto (though I'm not sure
>>>>which is the ghetto of the other here :) In the past, the Getty
>>>>unit that had maintained the AAT had expressed interest in
>>>>updating the AAT based on feedback from the relevant community
>>>>(us).
>>>
>>>Yes I think that might be a very good project.
>>>
>>>Possibly collaborating to make AAT net.art aware and having a process to add
>>>more terms relatively quickly as they come up? So in artbase have a list of
>>>terms you can choose followed by an "other" checkbox that people could add
>>>terms they felt weren't in the taxonomy. We (the Rhizome
>>>community) could then
>>>keep an eye on those and see if they should go into AAT.
>>>
>>>A folksonomy might be more democratic & easier to implement though. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>On the subject of proprietary software it might be an idea for
>>>Rhizome to get
>>>licenses for Windows, ASP, IIS and so on so that software
>>>unfortunately written
>>>for them can still be run in the future. In a few years time
>>>having this stuff
>>>available for galleries to hire might actually provide a revenue stream. ;-)
>>>
>>>- Rob.
>>>
>>>+
>>>-> 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
>>+
>>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


I would propose that the artist be able to choose/select if they want
their entire archive to be downloadable. Some of these submitted
works will include multi-purpose source code, etc. and I know from
collecting such work into a museum that some artists are skittish
about giving such code away. But I also agree that having an open
archive of digital works would be a boon to the community of working
artists and educators too. If you default to giving everything away,
then you might lose some people from participating/submitting, but if
you allow the option then you are able to include the skittish as
well as the generous and everyone can play. no?

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 7:06 PM +0200 5/16/06, anniea wrote:
>This does not directly relate to metadata, but I'd like to make
>suggestion about Artbase preservation techniques. At present we
>"clone" an artwork onto our server. This requires a review of the
>artworks being cloned, making the cloning process more time-
>consuming. I think we could have a smoother process by focusing just
>on "preservation":
>
>+ The artist could upload an archive ( zip / sit / tgz / etc ) of the
>project.
>+ The archive would be preserved for future reference.
>+ If the original link goes dark, either Rhizome or other interested
>parties could choose to clone the project
>
>This would allow us to preserve more artworks, including those which
>do not match Rhizome's hosting environment. I'm sure on the internet
>there are artworks created in LISP that are worth preserving :-)
>
>
>This might be a very good idea.
>I hope this does include that everybody can download these archives?
>
>Annie Abrahams
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Patrick
>
>
>--
>Patrick May
>Director of Technology
><http://Rhizome.org>Rhizome.org
>phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
>AIM: cyclochew
>+ + +

--