About Rhizome...

—– Original Message —– >
> I appreciate the criticism that Rhizome seems to be making moves be an
> 'imperial monopoly'. I remember when Michael mentioned on this list
> a few days ago his disquiet about Rhizome moving to Europe but not
informing
> the list and its members before hand, and asking people who give money &
> their time to making rhizome via user function what it is today. Rhizome
> does not offer a 'nurturing' emphasis, which is I believe what generally
> everyone seems to demand.


I must have signed up after this announcement, but European expansion seems
a far cry from the hibernation mode that forced rhizome to charge us a fee
out of neccessity, doesn't it?

> Rhizome is no longer part of our dreams
> - it has grown up now. Become a parent, not a peer, not a lover, not a
> fellow
> artist and not our savior. Rhizome is going through the very natural
process
> of becoming institutionalized, it has been this for a while now. We were
all
> probably denying it subconsciously, but if you judge Rhizome by its actual
> functions and not by our needs, and our interpretations of those needs
onto
> it,
> the becomes much clearer.

Who are institutions built to serve? And who builds them? The people who put
very real energy into the creation of this place voluntarily, did not create
it so that the Rhizome brand could live on as banner for all things new
media in the 21st century. It was created to facilitate the discussion and
dissemination of work, later changing an emphasis to facilitating the
creation of new work.

Under this guise, I had participated with the idea that I was building an
archive- an archive of work, dialogue, and ideas. The end result is that it
is now a closed community where ideas are moderated through a litany of
pre-approved censors ("superusers") chosen from the community who volunteer
and select works and discussions to be selected by thier own tastes. The
irony is that these people serve the top level rhizome admins but don't
actually profit themselves in any way.



> More honest even - the delusion is our own, we
> are not being conned. It is a fact of life. And it is a positive thing for
> we are
> now no longer being fed by our own delusory desires to expect it to be
> different.

Arbeit Macht Frei. There is a difference between expecting something to be
different because you were conned, and demanding that something changes
because it has been attempting to con you.



> The bitterness that I have witnessed regarding Rhizome's actions has
amazed
> me. I have always declared my own misgivings about various issues on this
> list, but not with hate. Not like I would feel about someone as empty as
> Bush,
> Sharon, Hitler, Jane Seymour (don't you just hate Jane Seymour - yuk!).

There isn't much difference between Bush, Sharon, Hitler and anyone on this
list, or any list, or inside of any home in any nation.


They
> are of their own making, their own missions and agendas, individuals, they
> cannot in anyway satisfy the impossible desires that have been demanded on
> them. It just ain't fair, and it is childish to expect it. Of course the
> needs and
> questions that everyone has asked or discussed regarding changes to
Rhizome
> were great, not just for the development of Rhizome but also ourselves.


Speak for yourself. I have invested my own time and energy into Rhizome as a
space I wanted to perpetuate. It was asked of me. There is a mailing list
for the discussion of ideas; I discussed ideas. I did interviews. I
generated content. I created work. Now the community built upon that work
has no place for me, and I cannot get my questions answered or my ideas
listened to. This is not great for the development of rhizome, or for
myself. It was extortion.

In the end it is inevitably my decision to do what I want concerning
rhizome. I have given up on the expectation of having my questions answered
or my ideas listened to, in return, Rhizome will continue to survive solely
on discussions of what Rhizome is and where it is taking us. Now that I have
an internal locus of control, this is simply not good enough for me.


>
> How often do you get a chance to experience actual change in an
organization
> as
> interesting as Rhizome?

Constantly.


All those people (unlike me) who went and studied at
> college - probably got close to it in their student unions, but here, we
> have
> learnt and developed by seeing and have shared a discourse, seen
> compassionate
> creativity via fluid imaginations - it has been a privilege - do not
cheapen
> the
> better moments and cloud them with insecure resentment. For a lot of very
> special things have been born from here that some might not be too brave
to
> admit
> to the many.

This again strikes me as a sentimental overture to the acceptance of death
within the "community" of rhizome, with the suggestion that we simply
prepare for what will pass for "life" of the institutional incarnation.
Perhaps you are relieved that the field is closing off, but I am not. I am
"institutionalized" just before the trigger was getting pulled, but what
about new media artists in 7 years? Look at fluxus if you don't believe a
thriving sect of the arts can't wilt under its institutionalization.

It was not a privilidge to view the connections and idea exchanges on this
list. It was Rhizomes privilidge for us to allow them to be the spot that
facilitated it. The moment we believe otherwise we begin to believe in
museums instead of artists. Perhaps I am being unreasonable, to me, the
above quotation is unreasonable, and simply calls that we surrender the life
of an art form over to people who gave us the honor of letting them take it
and close it off when it best served them to do so.


>
> Many of the people who have used this list and showed their work on
Rhizome,
> have put great links to their work here, I have valued all their energy;
> even if I do
> not immediately appreciate some of the comments, the styles. I have been
> lucky to
> know of them, sometimes be a part of them, shared issues around them -
here.

And without those people, what would be here? Without me, what would be
here? Without you, what would be here? Without us, what would Mark Tribe be
getting his "resonable" salary for? Is this it, are we settling to be a
culture of hobbyists, grateful to the forum leader for giving us a chance to
play?


> It has
> been magical - if we rush too quickly to condemn Rhizome, we will also
kill
> some of
> the brilliant themes, discussions - some even legendary.

I do not understand why you assume that rhizome was some sort of readymade
collective. The ideas and discussions did not come from "rhizome", they came
from the individuals on rhizome. Many of the strongest threads in the past
were lead by people who are nowhere to be found. Why do you think that is?

>
> Rhizome the 'entity' has become its contributors. This is why many are
> disturbed by
> Rhizome's more recent actions.


But Rhizome is not us. We are rhizome. There is a difference.


> I know that the Rhizome crew will not fulfill my demands, there is loads
> that I can offer from my own experience but they are moving in a different
> direction,
> a more statesman/stateswomanship era, for themselves. But that does not
mean
> that they are
> not human.

Organizations, such as corporations and non profit entities, are not human.
They are run by humans, and those humans are accountible for how they use
thier time and energy. If that time and energy is dedicated to generating
possibility then it is well spent, if it used to strangle possibility it
then becomes irresponsible. The current movements Rhizome is engaging in are
aimed at reducing the pool of possibility to a smaller number of people. I
believe we will see this continue until what is currently an unending supply
of possibility is slowly manipulated into a controlled, regulated system
where demand is worth paying for. I expect this literally.



It means that there is more room for ourselves to get our own
> alternative
> adventures going out there and have a piece of the action on our own
terms.


This much is true, but if we are just building more institutions that are
aimed at "monopolizing" an imaginary fixed portion then we are doing what
rhizome has done. If we are going to be serious about building possibility
for internet art then we have to look at how this model failed. I feel like
Mark Tribe and Rachel Greene need to take stock on this issue and understand
that Rhizome is failing, and come clean with themselves that they do not
know how to fix this. How they can be oblivious to the current rhizome
backlash is one thing, but mostly I am concerned with how they can be
oblivious to the crushing of possibility that the current direction they are
taking is leading to.



>
> There are other things going on that we can all get involved in, the true
> isolationists will
> snub the notion of real collaboration, say that they want it but at the
same
> time go through
> the habitual process of creating divides; not reevaluating their own
> situation as critically.
> We all do it. But we all must start becoming aware of it. Stop attacking
the
> wrong people to
> satisfy our comforts in wishing to lash out on others just because they
are
> not doing what
> we want them to do - that's what Bush is doing. We don't want to turn into
> that sap do we
> now.

I find this to be a decent way of seeing it, but why does it only apply to
one half of the collaborators?



>
> I now, I have many a time declared my misgivings about many institutions,
> but this is the
> first one where I have been aloud to have a voice.


You're allowed to speak, now that you paid your dues [and I don't mean the
five dollars.] Why settle for that?



-eryk

>
NOTE:
i punlished this to the front page to help get eryk's concerns heard…while I don't neccessarily agree with him, they are valid points, and should be discussed….

bliss
l

HI Eryk,

Good to chat again,

I see that Rhizome has kind of privatized itself. Moved away from a
democratic idea of things and has regrouped, centralized everything. And
yes, it is predictable and a very unimaginative thing to do, especially when
they have got so much information on how to do alternatives in their
databanks.

> I must have signed up after this announcement, but European expansion
seems
> a far cry from the hibernation mode that forced rhizome to charge us a fee
> out of neccessity, doesn't it?

Yes, I agree.
I believe that it is a political motivation and personally do not wish for
them to exploit the European talents.
And yes, I am disappointed (I am sure that I have said this somewhere
already) that they have not been more imaginative in their actions. I have
experienced a similar example when I used to run an arts studio with 2 other
people in the East end of London about eight years ago. That's why Ruth and
I left immediately and formed furtherfield, because we wanted to do
something that was special and not the same as all the art 'colonial has
beens who spend most of their time telling people what to do from top down.
It is boring and offers no real progressive solution to human interaction -
by example or by inspiration.

> Who are institutions built to serve? And who builds them? The people who
put
> very real energy into the creation of this place voluntarily, did not
create
> it so that the Rhizome brand could live on as banner for all things new
> media in the 21st century. It was created to facilitate the discussion and
> dissemination of work, later changing an emphasis to facilitating the
> creation of new work.

I have never believed that institutions were put in place to serve people. I
have never experienced such a thing other than when we had a decent Health
service in the UK, before (turd face) Thatcher privatized things over here,
now we have a rail and tube system that kills, and stops and starts due to
under funding and dodgy companies not wanting to invest.

Where there are people - there is exploitation.

I was watching an excellent program last night about Nelson Mandela, and his
ways of getting around issues. And I kind of warm to that sort of thinking,
not going for the obvious solution because the obvious solution usually
tends to be the lowest denominator. So privatizing Rhizome is not good for
Net Art and many of the artists who contributed, because it has denied to
creative and positive context of what it was all about. So in the ranks
upstairs a denial of what was of value has occurred so to make that
psychological shift themselves, justifying their decisions and actions.

> Under this guise, I had participated with the idea that I was building an
> archive- an archive of work, dialogue, and ideas. The end result is that
it
> is now a closed community where ideas are moderated through a litany of
> pre-approved censors ("superusers") chosen from the community who
volunteer
> and select works and discussions to be selected by thier own tastes. The
> irony is that these people serve the top level rhizome admins but don't
> actually profit themselves in any way.

Again, what you say is very true - I myself find it hard to swallow that
they have excellent Net Art writers and they are not looked after as well as
they could be, and are no longer paid for great writing. Centralizing again,
not generous.

But as usual this is what institutions do, boss people around and give
nothing in return.

There are new people here who have not experienced what you and I have here,
the productive, intuitive, imaginative and friendly mutualism that we feel
is important for a better world all round. Rhizome as I mentioned before is
no longer a nurturing entity. This is not good, but the way it is now.

> > More honest even - the delusion is our own, we
> > are not being conned. It is a fact of life. And it is a positive thing
for
> > we are
> > now no longer being fed by our own delusory desires to expect it to be
> > different.
>
> Arbeit Macht Frei. There is a difference between expecting something to be
> different because you were conned, and demanding that something changes
> because it has been attempting to con you.

I agree again, yet I meant (I suppose) that we could be conning ourselves to
expect anything different from those who wish for something different, and
they just so happen to be twiddling the knobs upstairs. We are not.

> > The bitterness that I have witnessed regarding Rhizome's actions has
> amazed
> > me. I have always declared my own misgivings about various issues on
this
> > list, but not with hate. Not like I would feel about someone as empty as
> > Bush,
> > Sharon, Hitler, Jane Seymour (don't you just hate Jane Seymour - yuk!).
>
> There isn't much difference between Bush, Sharon, Hitler and anyone on
this
> list, or any list, or inside of any home in any nation.
>
>
> They
> > are of their own making, their own missions and agendas, individuals,
they
> > cannot in anyway satisfy the impossible desires that have been demanded
on
> > them. It just ain't fair, and it is childish to expect it. Of course the
> > needs and
> > questions that everyone has asked or discussed regarding changes to
> Rhizome
> > were great, not just for the development of Rhizome but also ourselves.
>
>
> Speak for yourself. I have invested my own time and energy into Rhizome as
a
> space I wanted to perpetuate. It was asked of me. There is a mailing list
> for the discussion of ideas; I discussed ideas. I did interviews. I
> generated content. I created work. Now the community built upon that work
> has no place for me, and I cannot get my questions answered or my ideas
> listened to. This is not great for the development of rhizome, or for
> myself. It was extortion.

I understand, I was there with you. Discussing with you various ideas and
with others.
Your concerns are being heard, of course not by the knob twiddlers, for they
are safe and cozy from revolution now that it has all been officially privat
ized, and we have no shares in its growth.

> >
> > How often do you get a chance to experience actual change in an
> organization
> > as
> > interesting as Rhizome?
>
> Constantly.

Fair enough - I should of slipped in a past tense…


> This again strikes me as a sentimental overture to the acceptance of death
> within the "community" of rhizome, with the suggestion that we simply
> prepare for what will pass for "life" of the institutional incarnation.
> Perhaps you are relieved that the field is closing off, but I am not. I am
> "institutionalized" just before the trigger was getting pulled, but what
> about new media artists in 7 years? Look at fluxus if you don't believe a
> thriving sect of the arts can't wilt under its institutionalization.

You are right again, it is not sentimental, but an acceptance of death of
what Rhizome once was and probably (sadly) never will be again. But that's
their problem - the Internet world knows the deal now, the Rhizome team have
declared their colors and are not interested in its users needs at all. But
I have known this for a while and have emotionally adapted to redirect my
desires and needs elsewhere. It is their loss, not ours.

>
> It was not a privilidge to view the connections and idea exchanges on this
> list. It was Rhizomes privilidge for us to allow them to be the spot that
> facilitated it. The moment we believe otherwise we begin to believe in
> museums instead of artists. Perhaps I am being unreasonable, to me, the
> above quotation is unreasonable, and simply calls that we surrender the
life
> of an art form over to people who gave us the honor of letting them take
it
> and close it off when it best served them to do so.

It was a privilege for me to meet people like yourself online here, Eyrk,
not to be a Rhizome member but to meet interesting dudes who I believe are
real kool and creating some exceptional work. That is my real gist, sorry
for not being clearer…


> > Many of the people who have used this list and showed their work on
> Rhizome,
> > have put great links to their work here, I have valued all their energy;
> > even if I do
> > not immediately appreciate some of the comments, the styles. I have been
> > lucky to
> > know of them, sometimes be a part of them, shared issues around them -
> here.
>
> And without those people, what would be here? Without me, what would be
> here? Without you, what would be here? Without us, what would Mark Tribe
be
> getting his "resonable" salary for? Is this it, are we settling to be a
> culture of hobbyists, grateful to the forum leader for giving us a chance
to
> play?

You've got it - without those people Rhizome is nothing. We are the blood,
the food, the nourishment. No way am I settling to be a grateful hobbyist,
you have declared a valid pinot - but, I am with others creating
alternatives and I suggest you do the same. For our real futures reside
elsewhere, not here - this will end up a bulletin board with occasional
arguments, but nothing that special, for it will soon turn into that
traditional place where self-seeking artists get offended by explorative
ideas. Yes, we all want more - but it is not here.

>
>
> > It has
> > been magical - if we rush too quickly to condemn Rhizome, we will also
> kill
> > some of
> > the brilliant themes, discussions - some even legendary.
>
> I do not understand why you assume that rhizome was some sort of readymade
> collective. The ideas and discussions did not come from "rhizome", they
came
> from the individuals on rhizome. Many of the strongest threads in the past
> were lead by people who are nowhere to be found. Why do you think that is?
>
> >
> > Rhizome the 'entity' has become its contributors. This is why many are
> > disturbed by
> > Rhizome's more recent actions.
>
>
> But Rhizome is not us. We are rhizome. There is a difference.

No Eryk, we were Rhizome - this is the difference, it is privatized now.

> Organizations, such as corporations and non profit entities, are not
human.
> They are run by humans, and those humans are accountible for how they use
> thier time and energy. If that time and energy is dedicated to generating
> possibility then it is well spent, if it used to strangle possibility it
> then becomes irresponsible. The current movements Rhizome is engaging in
are
> aimed at reducing the pool of possibility to a smaller number of people. I
> believe we will see this continue until what is currently an unending
supply
> of possibility is slowly manipulated into a controlled, regulated system
> where demand is worth paying for. I expect this literally.

I agree, but I say again - we should use this place for what it has left,
and not for what it should and could be, now it makes no difference. For
they do not give a toss what we think, remember when Karei was let lose in
here? That was deliberate, a strategy - whether it was conscious or not does
not matter, they were happy to let it damage what we had, this was the start
of the rot.


> It means that there is more room for ourselves to get our own
> > alternative
> > adventures going out there and have a piece of the action on our own
> terms.

> This much is true, but if we are just building more institutions that are
> aimed at "monopolizing" an imaginary fixed portion then we are doing what
> rhizome has done. If we are going to be serious about building possibility
> for internet art then we have to look at how this model failed. I feel
like
> Mark Tribe and Rachel Greene need to take stock on this issue and
understand
> that Rhizome is failing, and come clean with themselves that they do not
> know how to fix this. How they can be oblivious to the current rhizome
> backlash is one thing, but mostly I am concerned with how they can be
> oblivious to the crushing of possibility that the current direction they
are
> taking is leading to.

Yes - look at how this model failed - exactly, I have made personal notes &
discuused with those concerned about Rhizome and its ways that we feel do
not benefit the users and their creative needs. And also what Rhizome has
not actively or positively supported, espeacially more recently.

Rule number 1 - it must be free!


> > I now, I have many a time declared my misgivings about many
institutions,
> > but this is the
> > first one where I have been aloud to have a voice.
>
>
> You're allowed to speak, now that you paid your dues [and I don't mean the
> five dollars.] Why settle for that?


I agree with you again, I am not settling for anything, I am adapting and
making changes and not relying on others to create what I believe should
happen. We know the deal now - we are fodder here for consumption, I have
been saying this for a while here, even before privatization. This is not a
positive situation, others don't mind this sort of thing because they are
used to being as such and do not know or wish for it to be different, such
as yourself and myself. But like Nelson Mandela said 'In the office
institution of I could only do so much', it is the same here. It is no
longer a public facility…more a simple business transaction.

The creative Revolution will not happen here - it was here once for a little
but it has been killed and reevaluated as part the 'Heroic Period'. There's
you answer…

much respect from marc

I read this typo >punlished< as punished, may be there is a subconscious
need for such an action by all who feel betrayed.

marc


> >
> NOTE:
> i punlished this to the front page to help get eryk's concerns
heard…while I don't neccessarily agree with him, they are valid points,
and should be discussed….
>
> bliss
> l
>
> + 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
>

> hi marc and everyone,
i wasn't "here" for the "good ol' days" but i can make out some of the changes that eryk and marc mention, and can sympathize with the sentiments. but i think marc's position presents a healthy adaptation (not to say it's for everyone) to the development. this discussion is an old one for sure for non-profits, especially cultural institutions. the tendency towards bureaucratic ossification is strong for any organized effort. like marc, i would say one approach is to make use of the bureaucracy as much as possible to further the agenda you believe in. i don't meant subversion (i don't really believe the concept is viable, thanks to Mel Chin), but certainly reappropriation is possible. and revolutions are utopic fantasies (in my opinion) that usually lead to authoritarianism.
the banner reads, "Rhizome: The New Media Art Resource"
one doesn't have to say it's all or nothing here.
and if nothing else, this should at least provide a case study for those who want to do something different.
there's been alot of discussion on nettime as well regarding rhizome. so it's getting people thinking and acting…
somewhere i read an adapted Henri Lefebvre quote, "Seize the space! Space is not made by great men!"
best,
ryan