monetizing net.art ... don't sell it ... rent it!

received some strange replies to the original post so i'll try to clarify .=
..

most net.artists spend weeks, months or more on their projects … for an a=
rtist to sell the creation (and make a decent living) the buyer would have =
to pay thousands of dollars. worse still … the buyer may not leave it on=
line for others to see.

instead of selling it for thousands of dollars … make it affordable. ren=
t access to your werks for a few days for a few bucks.

in effect … there is no real difference between "selling" and "renting" i=
n the digital world … it is a matter of semantics (or marketing). consum=
ers are used to renting videos for a few bucks (instead of buying). beside=
s content (net.art, hollywood movies, etc.) is coming and going at light sp=
eed. personally, i don't want to buy any of it if i can rent it (video gam=
es, movies, etc) and then return it. i can rent four movies for the price =
of buying one … why would i buy one experience when i can rent four for t=
he same price.

owning content is becoming an outdated concept!!! (caveat: i still buy boo=
ks). besides even when one buys content … you don't really OWN it. the =
copyright holder is the one that really OWNS it!

rhizome (or some other clever third party) should develop a kind of "newmed=
ia access pass" (akin to the blockbuster video membership card) that RENTS =
net.art.

i truly hope that net.artists figure out a way to get paid for their effort=
. it would really help the genre grow and develop.

david goldschmidt
—– Original Message —–
From: David Goldschmidt
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:05 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: monetizing net.art … don't sell it … rent it!


Over the past couple of years I have followed several threads about gener=
ating revenue from net.art. I would like to offer my ideas for your consid=
eration. I have a decent business background and, more importantly, a love=
and respect for the net.art community.

1) Positioning Net.Art in the Marketplace
The first thing to keep in mind is that 99% of people CANNOT afford to bu=
y your work! And of the 1% that can afford it … 99% of them DON"T GET IT=
! (note: this is a good thing. most people understand that they cannot aff=
ord to buy quality artwork … but they do want to see it!!!)

STOP TRYING TO SELL YOUR WORK

Instead of selling it … RENT IT!

Rent access to your premier werks for 30 days for a few bucks. Better ye=
t, partner with two or three of your peers, build a common splash page and =
allow someone to rent access to your werks for $4.99 for 30 days. DRM and =
Micropayment services can easily handle/manage the transactions.

I have a ton of ideas for this approach. Let me know what you guys think.

david goldschmidt

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> instead of selling it for thousands of dollars … make it affordable.

Cheap. Fast + kitsch. make it a #4 superSize.

> rent access to your werks for a few days for a few bucks.

Allow the artwork to be mistreated for cheap often.

Tak.

The "uncreative" wrote.

> in effect … there is no real difference between "selling" and "renting" in the digital world

Actually there is. Huge difference.
There is no 'digital world'.
And 'art" does not revolve around "the digital world".

In effect, you are so luvlungly suggesting that art be
MOVED BY (passive, inactive, impotent) rather than MOVE
or EXIST INDEPENDENTLY of 'the digital world".

> … it is a matter of semantics (or marketing).

No it isn't.

> consumers are used to renting videos for a few bucks (instead of buying).

Consumers are accustomed. For a few bucks.

> besides content (net.art, hollywood movies, etc.) is coming and going at
> light speed.

Net.art, hollywood movies.. it'z just the same.
Cheap + easily "rentable" "for a few bucks" "to consumers"
+ "easily replaceable".

> personally, i don't want to buy any of it if i can rent it (video
> games, movies, etc) and then return it.

And so net.art should "personally" "satisfy" "you"
"for rent" for a "few bucks".

> i can rent four movies for the price of buying one …

Two picassos for the price of one!. Hurrah.

> why would i buy one experience when i can rent four for the same price.

Why would you, indeed. Insatiable voyerism for increasingly
cheaper trash.

> owning content is becoming an outdated concept!!!

No it isn't!!! No matter how much you scream it does!!!
You are even so ignorant to realize that the issue you are
addressing has been going on for 2000 years!!! Factually!!!
And there have been always_ "those who say" that it's
"becoming like this"!!! But it's all interlocked in a
balancing mechanism!!!

> (caveat: i still buy books).

It'z much cheaper to watch. Thinking ist god. Voyeristic
energy sapping ist king. The more you read, the more
energy you need to "feed your brain" because you are running
it inappropriately, too much, WAY TOO MUCH. So you muzt consume
lotz of energy so you may read more so you must conzume more energy
fazter + fazter + fazter.. Personally I do enjoy "renting"
two whores for the price ov one.

> besides even when one buys content … you don't really OWN it.
> the copyright holder is the one that really OWNS it!

That's horrible. Kill the copyright laws, now!
And the copyright owner. Now!!! Two murders for the price of one!!!

We rent guns, cheaply!!!

> rhizome (or some other clever third party) should develop a kind of "newmedia access pass" (akin to the blockbuster video membership card) that RENTS net.art.

Blockbuster as a Joseph Beuys. Someone run with it. Make a "career".

> i truly hope that net.artists figure out a way to get paid for their effort. it would really help the genre grow and develop.
>
Me too. Like maybe the audience waking up
and finally realizing that art is not Blockbuster entertainment,
and that one GETS what one PAYS FOR.

And maybe the audience who hasn't learned to appreciate life + reality
on levels beyond hamburger consummation and cheap self-destructive
"rebellious" "kill daddy" 2 for the price of one
pornographic magazine reproductive diarrhea sex would stop
attempting to dictate to art and LISTEN.

And maybe you personally would acquaint yourself with a good and
expensive Ladies Salon so that you don't get your desires confused,
and learn not to expect humans to degrade themselves in order to
"survive".

But thena gain, so many ladies, so little time, and they are ALL EQUAL
after all.

Bleat.

Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:

> And maybe you personally would acquaint yourself with a good and
> expensive Ladies Salon so that you don't get your desires confused,
> and learn not to expect humans to degrade themselves in order to
> "survive".
>
> But thena gain, so many ladies, so little time, and they are ALL EQUAL
> after all.
>
> Bleat.

Another fine missive from that MALE YANG LEADER who plans to whore is wife.
Tell us again how right you are.

joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]







> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> > instead of selling it for thousands of dollars … make it affordable.
>
> Cheap. Fast + kitsch. make it a #4 superSize.
>
> > rent access to your werks for a few days for a few bucks.
>
> Allow the artwork to be mistreated for cheap often.
>
> Tak.
>
> The "uncreative" wrote.
>
> > in effect … there is no real difference between "selling" and "renting"
> in the digital world
>
> Actually there is. Huge difference.
> There is no 'digital world'.
> And 'art" does not revolve around "the digital world".
>
> In effect, you are so luvlungly suggesting that art be
> MOVED BY (passive, inactive, impotent) rather than MOVE
> or EXIST INDEPENDENTLY of 'the digital world".
>
> > … it is a matter of semantics (or marketing).
>
> No it isn't.
>
> > consumers are used to renting videos for a few bucks (instead of buying).
>
> Consumers are accustomed. For a few bucks.
>
> > besides content (net.art, hollywood movies, etc.) is coming and going at
> > light speed.
>
> Net.art, hollywood movies.. it'z just the same.
> Cheap + easily "rentable" "for a few bucks" "to consumers"
> + "easily replaceable".
>
> > personally, i don't want to buy any of it if i can rent it (video
> > games, movies, etc) and then return it.
>
> And so net.art should "personally" "satisfy" "you"
> "for rent" for a "few bucks".
>
> > i can rent four movies for the price of buying one …
>
> Two picassos for the price of one!. Hurrah.
>
> > why would i buy one experience when i can rent four for the same price.
>
> Why would you, indeed. Insatiable voyerism for increasingly
> cheaper trash.
>
> > owning content is becoming an outdated concept!!!
>
> No it isn't!!! No matter how much you scream it does!!!
> You are even so ignorant to realize that the issue you are
> addressing has been going on for 2000 years!!! Factually!!!
> And there have been always_ "those who say" that it's
> "becoming like this"!!! But it's all interlocked in a
> balancing mechanism!!!
>
> > (caveat: i still buy books).
>
> It'z much cheaper to watch. Thinking ist god. Voyeristic
> energy sapping ist king. The more you read, the more
> energy you need to "feed your brain" because you are running
> it inappropriately, too much, WAY TOO MUCH. So you muzt consume
> lotz of energy so you may read more so you must conzume more energy
> fazter + fazter + fazter.. Personally I do enjoy "renting"
> two whores for the price ov one.
>
> > besides even when one buys content … you don't really OWN it.
> > the copyright holder is the one that really OWNS it!
>
> That's horrible. Kill the copyright laws, now!
> And the copyright owner. Now!!! Two murders for the price of one!!!
>
> We rent guns, cheaply!!!
>
> > rhizome (or some other clever third party) should develop a kind of
> "newmedia access pass" (akin to the blockbuster video membership card) that
> RENTS net.art.
>
> Blockbuster as a Joseph Beuys. Someone run with it. Make a "career".
>
> > i truly hope that net.artists figure out a way to get paid for their
> effort. it would really help the genre grow and develop.
> >
> Me too. Like maybe the audience waking up
> and finally realizing that art is not Blockbuster entertainment,
> and that one GETS what one PAYS FOR.
>
> And maybe the audience who hasn't learned to appreciate life + reality
> on levels beyond hamburger consummation and cheap self-destructive
> "rebellious" "kill daddy" 2 for the price of one
> pornographic magazine reproductive diarrhea sex would stop
> attempting to dictate to art and LISTEN.
>
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

> Another fine missive

Yes just fine indeed.

> from that MALE YANG LEADER who plans to whore is wife.

Dearest, yes. ALL MALE LEADERS ARE YANG.
What a HORROR. YANG is EVIL.
MUST KILL YANG.

There you have it: imbalanced unconscious yin
paired with masochism, turns destructive (+vampiric).

You were warned, love.

As for your cheap "character assassination trick" again:

We do not plan to whore our wife out.
We merely pointed out that YOU whore your wife out.
And you do. You whored your wife out. Tra le la.
And you do it continuously. Repeatedly.
And when you have sex with her, you rape her
energetically.

We have never made any statements about any intentions
with regards to our "wives". Like the sinmpleton idiot
that you are you attempt to misuse our words as devices for slander.

We assure you that we are perfectly lovely with ladies.

And in fact, we have pointed out to you that all females are
automatically superior to you (earlier) and you threw a fit
as well :)

> Tell us again how right you are.

We are babycheeks. We are. Accurate and precise. And RIGHT.
Are you squirming? Or are you all frothing at the mouth
just ready to kill? Oh you loving imbalanced,
unconscious self-destructive idiot you :)

Why don't you ADDRESS what was written about your POST?
Or can you only throw back cheap character assassination
attempts and evil boogeyman male tall tales? :)

We just love that "kill all powerful males" stuff
coming from marc and you.. it isn't at all
driven by infantile masturbatory male
behavior desiring "females".. not at all..

Nor is it driven by a masochistic MALE of WESTERN
CULTURAL PROGRAMMINg who is idiotic to abuse his
yang energy.

Programmed to "self-destruct".

Did you learn that from your sensei, by the way? :)

In your karate class? :)

(Shh. karate is a post ww2 invention).

xoxo.

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> What a surprise … the anti-capitalist

Anti-capitalist? We are the most famous conservative Bush lover.
There is nothing 'anti' about us dear.
We are neither anti- nor pro-.
You are indeed an idiot knee-jerked from its brain,
but we are not.

> fuck doesn't like my idea for monetizing net.art.

The only "fuck" here is you, dearest.
Nevertheless:

We don't "like" nor "dislike" your idea.
It is simply trash.

Nor do we "dislike" monetizing net.art.

What we wrote was that net.art should be expensive and you should quit
whining, attempting to cheapen it and pay. We possibly even suggested
developing some sort of discernment and investing your money in
artwork of value.

There is nothing "purist" about what was written to you.

Art is NOT entertainment. Art is NOT hamburgers.
If you want those, go buy those.
If you want cheap titillation and entertainment,
go buy those.

Did we pass judgement on the above? No.

Your statements that the "content" of net.art is cheap
and replaceable–at a lightning speed–which is simply
reflective of your own lack of taste, and tv-induced
lack of attention are attempts to degrade "art" to
"service" your needs.

> Your art-is-art purist mentality has inspired me little KAREI.

It's too bad that we have no "art-is-art purist" mentality.
We don't have a MENTALITY. We don't function from our BRAINS.

We are not the cardboard cutouts your brain knee-jerks.
Nor are you inspired. But the fact that you suggest and feel
"inspired" by some "perceived" purity "destroyed" is
quite supportive of what we wrote with regards to your
real impulses. You are not "insulting us" personally either.
You're simply self-debasing in public, and fancying that "tough".

And even so:
Purity dearest is not something to be despised and smashed.

Your level of existence is that of an amoeba who wants to
subject children to sadism in order to toughen them up.

> Your music clearly demostrates that you are just a thief sampling music created by real artists.

You have never heard any of our music David.
What are you talking about? What music?
Additionally, you're not capable of discernment.
Your opinion on matters artistic matters not.
You're simply throwing about empty labels.

> However, lucky for you I have decided to give you an opportunity to
> truly express your artistic genius.

Yes, lucky for "that person" david has decided to lash out
like the passive-aggressive masochist that he is.
Just so lucky that David fancies justified murder so witty.

How lucky. One should be so lucky to have David Goldshmidt
attempt to push the self-destructive ego button.

That would be because you are a "buddhist."
Are you sure you're not a PURE LAND buddhist?
Buddhists valued purity tremendoously you know (as would anyone
with any (not brain) intelligence).

Such a horror to have standards isn't it.
Anyone who would have standards should be killed.
That's so witty. And funny. Isn't it?
And tough. Don't forget. Tough.

Anyone who won't debase themselves for a few bucks for rent
is a "purist". Anyone who dares to try and do something REAL
will be subjected to labeling, guilt tripping, peer pressure
and brutality.

That's exactly what Buddhism is about.

Or wait. Are you, like most Westerners just using "Buddhism" as an
excuse to be an asshole?

Funny. Brief examination of Buddhism reveals the 4 noble truths
one of which states: yes humans can overcome hell.
And also: the Eight fold path : right speech, right livelihood,
right effort, right mindfulness.

HOHUM.


> Go into a dark room, shower yourself with gasoline and light a match. The experience will be all yours. Pure and true (just like you).

How nice. Did you DELIGHT in writing out this DESTRUCTIVE
self-debasing thought? Did your mind wallow in it?
Or do you actually thinkthat doing this is harmless to yourself?

> Bring no audience, take no pictures, make no statement … just one brief act of artist purity.

Purity is not a concept that you understand, idiotic ape.
Did you pick that one up from TV? Or from highschool?
Or from your neighbourhood?
Attempting to knee-jerk humans?
None of us here are teenagers.
We are not going to feel "bad" because you did the above.

But maybe you could tell us how many of your peers you've pushed
and abused around emotionally with the above.

Ah that's right. You're a BUDDHIST.
You push them to suicide "with compassion".

> And may you squeal like little pig you are.

The only pig here is you babycheeks.
And you are squeling rather loud self-destructing in public.

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> wrong AGAIN asswipe

No babycheeks. Wea re not wrong.
The only 'asswipe" here is you.

Tell us again how we are 'anti-capitalist'
because we asked you to pay EXPENSIVELY for net.art?

dearest David goldsschmidt, you are myopic.
Blind. weak. Strapped to your unconscious mask
that knee-jerks you whenever and however it pleases.

Have you found an expensive, very expensive ladies
dominatrix services club yet?

:)
k