Sal Randolph
Since the beginning
Works in Brooklyn, New York United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
Sal Randolph lives in New York and makes art involving gift economies, social interactions, public spaces and publishing, including Opsound, an open exchange of copyleft music, the Free Biennial and Free Manifesta, a pair of open, internet-mediated "biennials," Free Words, a book infiltrated into bookstores and libraries, and Money Actions, an ongoing series of interventions in which she has given away several thousand dollars to members of the public. She is currently investigating games, recipes, algorithms, codes, and texts. http://salrandolph.com
Discussions (55) Opportunities (3) Events (2) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Commissions


just would like to say that strangely enough I've enjoyed the chance
to look at all 195 -- of course I don't like them all equally or
anything, but it's been interesting to get an overview of what people
are thinking about and doing, the current set of ideas and
assumptions about what "internet art" is. Eye-opening, actually.
Useful to me.

it would be interesting to hear more specific discussion of proposals
and ideas, i would certainly welcome that, but I suspect many of us
are under the discussion ban because we have proposals in the pile.

S

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


I second rob & david's arguments about why folksonomies are great,
and I think they would mix amazingly well with rhizome membership
(all members would get to tag the artbase as they like). tag cloud
of the artbase indeed!! It would naturally evolve as the field of
inquiry evolves. Also as someone who has implemented a tagging system
with freetag recently, it's *really* easy to do (freetag is php, and
I know rhizome's using ruby, but it doesn't look all that hard to
write one either, just from surveying the code).

Personally I would advocate for a double system, as some have done:
free folksonomy tagging by everyone, and then a layer of curated
language for either genre or keyword. multiple points of
intellectual access are a good thing.

On Apr 26, 2006, at 7:51 AM, 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

DISCUSSION

Re: I have a suggestion for Rhizome...


On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Alexis Turner wrote:

> There is already a non-filtered, non-curated archive for storing
> artworks. It's
> called the Internet.

In a way of course you're right, but the internet as a whole contains
every possible kind of content -- the ArtBase (curated or not) would
be for internet art specifically. This would be 'special' in and of
itself, as in 'specialization'.' As Lee mentioned elsewhere, when
I've run open projects, I find that people do a remarkably good job
of curating themselves.

S

DISCUSSION

RAW missing messages?


Just checking in to see if anyone else is getting a lot of very
delayed or missing RAW messages.... Is RAW still having a bit of
technical trouble?

S

DISCUSSION

Re: I have a suggestion for Rhizome...


Respectfully, I would disagree about your distinction between a
sharing system and an archive. I don't think selectitivity is an
essential aspect of 'archiveness.' The Internet Archive, for example,
is an open system. The only thing required for it to be an archive
is a commitment on the part of the hosting organization to keep the
work (in some way) over the long term (this brings us back to the
preservation discussion as well). There is a resource question, but
I don't actually think the universe of internet art is so absolutely
gigantic that Rhizome's database couldn't handle it. To be a useful
archive (which is something else altogether, I realize) requires some
way for users to find what they are trying to find - but I think that
tagging/open curating would offer that.

I'm personally not so much interested in a more democratic selection
process as a solution (in the sense you mean, of asking members to
review the work). I don't submit things to the current ArtBase -
not because I don't like our curators, but because I'm really
interested in more open systems. Member review doesn't really
address what I'm thinking about.

Sal

On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> Hi Sal,
> I don't agree. I don't think the Artbase should be opened up any
> more than it is. I'm sure there already exist such open systems
> where anyone can upload whatever they want but the Artbase is not
> just a vehicle for sharing. The original idea behind the Artbase
> was to create an archive, which means that you have to be
> selective. It's impossible to archive everything. Anyone is free to
> submit work.
>
> On a more democratic selection process. Perhaps we could try asking
> the Rhizome community if they would be willing to take the time to
> review Artbase submissions and vote on them. I personally don't
> really see this as working in the long-term.
>
> But what it comes down to is this, open systems such as Flickr,
> Vimeo, Blogger, MySpace, etc. are more about sharing content than
> preserving it. The Artbase is more about archiving content.
>
> Pall