Re: New Media Art in the New York Times

Dear Steven,

I think probably someone should respond to your beef; I didn't know what
it referred to so I did a Rhizome search and came up with the orginal
post from Feb. 1999–as you say, this is ancient history. Interesting to
read what we were thinking about then:

http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread61&text84

In any case, had it been me and not you who had written the article/s
referred to in this post, I would have been miffed too. Your point about
no one here having the publishing/editing experience to understand what
it takes is all too true.

In any case, I'm sorry you came across a post about your article only to
be insulted, especially when it was part of a wave of groundbreaking
pieces and publications in this area. It is truly horrible to come across
negative comments made without one's knowledge about one's work, when one
can no longer intervene and defend one's viewpoints. I have to say, it's
strange to realize that things typed into "the ether" pop up
years–decades–later, in another context or as a point of irritation to
others, the thread no longer viable, the trail no longer fresh.

You must realize this was and still is a relatively private, sequestered
list, without even an RSS feed, and in those days it was more so. It felt
more like we were all sitting in someone's backyard shooting dice and
eating Doritos. It was (and is) an un-selfconscious place, a back room
for blundering through arguments, sometimes badly, sometimes erupting into
flame wars and insults, sometimes dwindling into babble. And then there
are the intelligent exchanges; but always there is a lot of raw
information and ideas put out there haphazardly, usually with plenty of
attitude. Rarely are any of the loose ends tied. People come and go; there
is a hardcore. This would describe Raw.

The posturing and hubris you point out probably had more to do with our
relationships to one another at the time than to the articles being
dissed/discussed. The comments were made in all innocence, with no real
awareness they would ever be read by others, least of all by you and your
colleagues… just a small-ish group of artists and riffraff irreverently
hammering some thoughts out. Worse things have been said (but not
recorded) elsewhere I'm sure. Had you or the other writers been a part of
the hammering out, it would have been a very different game indeed. Maybe
there's still a chance for that, I mean in the future. Or unfortunately,
maybe not.

I don't know who else from that conversation is even still here on
Rhizome so I guess it fell to me to respond, or else to remain silent.
Once again, very very sorry.


–Joy


> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:19:51 -0700
> From: Steven <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: New Media Art in the New York Times
>
> I've just happened on this post, which seems to do nothing but dump on what I
> wrote, as well as what the others wrote long ago on what was then a new
> subject. In fact, I wrote the first piece for the Times about art and new
> media (and rather than knowing nothing about new media as some people
> suggest, I was one of the early publishing people involved, working on the
> first publishing portal, Pathfinder at Time Inc., and then creating the
> content for the first cable modem service anywhere, Road Runner). So I take
> affront to the cheeky response, and to the ignorance of it. Since the
> respondents would not seem to have any knowledge of what it is like to
> introduce a brand new subject to a huge publishing organ like the Times (who
> didn't at the time know what "www" was), it's easy to throw stones. What
> there was room to include and what the focus could be were a matters of the
> editors' focus. At the time, the piece got a huge response from general
> readers who wanted to know more. !
> This is now ancient history. But happening on this round of snobbish,
> ignorant responses was too much to let pass for something that was
> groundbreaking at the time. It's always easier to criticize than to do.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

It was gracious of Joy to make the response she did.
as someone who values criticism from both sides, i feel the need to
respond even though i wasn't part of the original discussion.
After reading the post Steven responded to, I don't see the vitriolic
criticism or "ignorance" claimed, only a small group of posters who
found specific things they saw lacking in the article (i didn't notice
any personal attacks). And just because the article was
"groundbreaking" shouldn't shield it from criticism - especially from
those with an investment in the matter, as those on Rhizome would have
been. Criticism has a symbiotic relationship (when it's good) with
what's being criticized, usually in an attempt to point out other
perspectives that have been overlooked. Even in this instance, where it
was more of a back-room discussion, the writers were discussing from a
position of involvement. If a journalist, or any writer, can't take
that kind of criticism, what the hell are they doing writing anything
in a public forum? If the criticism misses/misinterprets something,
then respond with a rebuttal. But don't cry foul.
best,
ryan

On Oct 27, 2004, at 2:04 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:

> Dear Steven,
>
> I think probably someone should respond to your beef; I didn't know
> what it referred to so I did a Rhizome search and came up with the
> orginal post from Feb. 1999–as you say, this is ancient history.
> Interesting to read what we were thinking about then: