Re: Re: Re: more resentment...

Lewis LaCook wrote:

> Francis Hwang wrote:if that's not ideal than we can hope that a)
> > Rhizome gets more funding so I can hire help or b) Francis gets
> > less
> > incompetent. Either way, the lack of sig generation was not a
> > conscious
> > policy decision. Sometimes code rots.
> don't be so hard on yourself, francis—-
> yes, sometimes code DOES rot—it's not political, and it's not
> indicative of any desire for hegemony (like much of this discusssion
> is)–
> bliss
> l

Dear Rhizomers

Perhaps the role of rhizome has changed, perhaps there is a sense that a simplistic reductionism has found its way into the focus of the discussion about its role and our collective access to the decision making process.
I have never found the lack of any democratic constitution or stake holding rights with rhizome to have been problematic, I have always understood the club type make up of the organisation/service to be fairly explicit and straightforward.
I have also continued to contribute to the continuation of it, despite the change from donation to subscription, and while I still have reservations about the accessability of subsciption based organisations, I still do not expect to be more involved in the driving forward of the organisation/service than I was before.
I suggest that whilst there may well be greater attention paid to the arts by state apparatus during times of greater political unrest, (though considering the levels of imperialist expansionism we are seeing at the moment, the level and potency of any organised resistance is laughable), the suggestion that it is political coercion which is leading the political agenda at rhizome is overly reductionist and quite honestly over stating the extent to which rhizome has ever been politically active, in any sense or that it is, or has ever been a coherent voice against dominant cultural ideology, be that American, US/UK, Nato, Western, Capitalists…. based. I have always percieved rhizome to be a rather nice but cosy liberal, bourgeois, organisation and there is nothing wrong with that, its just that it seems to be a much bigger and probably futile task to change it (how do you storm a site/sever?) rather than form a seperate body, with a constitution and open organisation from its inception instead. This would hopefully allow a new structural form to develop which would not have the percieved failings of rhizome and also would not allow this to drift into a strange war of words which never quite seems to explicitly find its voice,… or something, perhaps