Hi All,
I've been checking the discussion board lately trying to find a good opportunity to discuss my new book and recent ideas, kind of like the good old days. It's been a little troubling to notice that there is really no discussion to speak of here anymore. There used to be a very great deal of it, so I wonder what this means or if it is even a negative. Discussion can't fix everything, but it isn't pure evil either.
Therefore I will be posting on this and related topics until the end of January. Please feel free to discuss or disagree at will. If anyone has major, national-security-type concerns please feel free to contact me via regular e-mail.
Roughly speaking, I'll be posting about the decline of discussion on Rhizome and similar developments elsewhere, and how my recent book Le Cafe and new proposed art-historical period, Networkism, may relate to this issue and offer context and possible solutions.
Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Le Cafe online now
www.geocities.com/genius-2000
+++
Constructive criticism of Rhizome?
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Sorry for the double-post, my machine was working very slowly. Thanks!
Hello All,
As to the discussion problem, most of the items posted in the Discussion section are just announcements, not even meant to be discussed. These should all be posted to the Calendar or Opportunity section, if we go by logic. Yet rightfully people might gravitate more to the Discussion area because that is what they are actually interested in, and hence that gets viewed more. So if you want people to see your announcement you might be inclined to post it in the Discussion area.
To fix this, suppose we could go by the idea that if you post your announcement in the discussion area, and no one else comments on it, you have to post at least three additional comments yourself. Then you have to take your own responsibility for posting something to the Discussion area. Also, other users could help you out by posting a response to an announcement bringing the total up to four.
I would also hazard to say that the New Museum and Rhizome leadership obviously can't create the discussion content on their own and this falls to the user and membership community. Hence also the users would have to not post things that force the leadership to take action such as closing down the discussion list, a thing which Rhizome has a pretty proud tradition of not having done though I am not sure if the TextBase really does contain every single post from day one since some were very objectionable if I recall. It certainly contains a lot of them.
Given that the New Museum has really invested in the New Media vision of art, it would make sense they would permit a discussion of a new art-historical period on this discussion board and even benefit greatly in their mission and reputation by permitting this. Rhizome's contribution to the New Museum's mission would also be incredibly validated if progress toward a new art-historical period originated from Rhizome, and the discussion aspect could also be maintained by such an activity even if it were not widely viewed as successful or conclusive.
I would also say that Rhizome and the New Museum are far from the only areas in which discussion of art is rather sluggish right now. I think this is characteristic of any time when one period is ending and another has not yet begun. In such cases it is much more prevalent to go along producing and working under the completely mature and established framework, in which setting discussion can often breed ill-will or highlight the difficult need for a new period.
I would also definitely say it is a good thing for Rhizome to do both, and this is perfectly within its mission and capacity. Rhizome can build bridges to the existing academia/museum/gallery system which focuses on Postmodernism, while also allowing discussion of the new art-historical period which the former system due to its maturity would be slower to articulate and understand. Neither track has to jeopardize the other beyond what is healthy creative tension. And, being too nervous about allowing both would be a disservice to both over the long run I think.
Hence, does anyone think that people posting an announcement to the discussion area should have to follow it up with three more comments if no one else replies? This could be an important measure to protect against the onset of "blurbism," or what in Das Glasperlenspiel is called "feuilletonism."
Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Le Cafe online now
http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000
+++