nettime's_digestion on Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:17:31 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Rhizome [3x] |
Table of Contents: Rhizome: Institution Lite Version Cary Peppermint <mint77@restlessculture.net> Rhizome♣ ♥ Nettime♠ ♥ 7-11♦ eyescratch <eyescratch@terminal.cz> Re: <nettime> Rhizome "Don Cameron" <donhome@mudgeeab.com.au> ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 22:14:29 -0500 From: Cary Peppermint <mint77@restlessculture.net> Subject: Rhizome: Institution Lite Version I think the attacks and unnecessarily harsh criticism of Mark Tribe and Rhizome is way lame and off the target of what could potentially be a real discussion concerning the sorry "conditions of possibility" & support available for art here in the US. In this country and especially in NYC it would be impossible to run a non-profit purely off the kindness families on Madison Avenue and government support in the way that some organizations I have witnessed in Europe seem to be operating. This is the land where capitalism (even further accelerated along by George Bush's version of America) is "killing" art first and foremost. NYC is most certainly on the front lines. Sometimes here it all that we can do just to hang on and/or exist at all in any creative-cultural incarnation. Rhizome seeks to be and is becoming an "Institution Lite Version." Here in NYC/America artists need entities to help interface the public and generate and distribute their ideas. Notice I say "Lite." I have had my criticisms of Rhizome just as I have had of all Lite Institutions with which I have interfaced... criticism is a way of working toward keeping an institution "lite" and in a sense always in a state of becoming, never fully in charge, never having fully arrived, in complete control or enjoying hegemony over and beyond the artist or the public (ideally). "Institution lites" I have successfully interfaced in the past, include but not limited to Rhizome, Franklin Furnace and The Kitchen. They have all allowed me to maintain a creative positioning and simultaneously have exposed my work to a larger audience of people that otherwise would not have been possible. This makes sense to me because my art (and I believe most art in this western system) is in many ways about distribution. "Institution-lites" are not the only networks through which I disseminate information nor are they always the most "cutting-edge", energetic, raw, restless or ideal spaces for executing my work however they are a necessary and important part of the cultural landscape of this system. Here in NYC Rhizome must now charge their subscribers in order to exist and this is a stark reality of the system within which we are immersed. When I want to opt out of this system I have the (serious) privilege of leaving NYC and going to my other home in the remote woods in the state of Maine. Art is free there, isolated, beautiful, quite, alone and it does happen but no one sees it except for me. I always end up going back to New York. VIVA LA RHIZOME through all its difficult & varied incarnations. - -Cary Peppermint ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 22:33:38 -0500 From: eyescratch <eyescratch@terminal.cz> Subject: Rhizome♣ ♥ Nettime♠ ♥ 7-11♦ I guess it's time to chip in on this debate. Rhizome, as the title taken, has long existed as the culture of the copy and the review. Even the $5 cover echos the Fugazi record sale at Tower. Rhizome, looking for street credibility in pricing, still disregards the larger contingency of those not living with the credit card that makes paying rhizome so easy. "Fill in the digits and culture jam with the rest of us!" Many of us live with the duality of nettime and rhizome, contributing that to this and this to that. Listening to the stream of consciousness of artists and the carefully worded criticism of writers gives a certain depth to this nebulous place. The incessant modeling of places in the datasphere on the service industry means we are traveling the boulevard and not the alleyways, with no chance to put up a barricade on any particular issue. I remember a model for exchange formulated to be a stock-market of ideas. We see this with the publishing sites that rate writers by proxy. This model is to a certain extent practiced by nettime through it's moderation. Geert Lovink disinterest in that elusive quality that is net.art contributed to the success of rhizome to a certain extent. Early on many net.artists migrated to rhizome to express their voice because they felt they had no recognition of their voice on nettime. Of course it also saw the birth of 7-11. So, if we boil it down to functionality, the innocent vocation of nettime is a kind of publishing forum of academic texts and rhizome is a hype generator of html art. Of course sublime things show through the cracks of both and that's why we tune in. Now, in terms of majordomo this or that, we have to look at the functionality of both. Only members are allowed to post on rhizome while nettime takes all and tries to construct through moderation and filters a discourse which can be openly referenced. One is kind of scene, while the other is a reflection in a strict sense. Both are current in their output but the picture painted is obviously very different. Are we really witnessing the death of both? Can someone come up with the perfect package that would give credibility to the exchange of monetary value to some well funded institution? At the base of the names nettime and rhizome lies a Deleuzian quality, which in his final moments, recognizing the cancer, topples from the third story window. Which wings to grow in this philosophical conundrum? Can cancer in the virtual be so forgiving? Even as a thousand plateaux rush up at us? Possibly reach out to the next tree structure is the first thought. If we begin to think of those that might come after, those just stumbling upon these discourses, wouldn't it be nice to leave something behind, unfinished for sure, that might inspire further creative efforts? Something with use. Just listening to James Brown and coming to realize in a small way that nettime and rhizome are not very accessible. Building this access definitively is worth a grant from some avid reader. This, to a certain extent should be a demand of the newly anointed customer, the omnivore, gobbling both free and paid content. The adage of "Isn't paying for the machines and maintaining their upkeep to view the content enough?" reaches the next level, which is not subscription, but more like "We create with it!" Can we agree that we are not just looking for a series of plugs to content? http://www.dancekk.com http://share.dj/oblaat http://share.dj/kmlive ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:11:18 +1100 From: "Don Cameron" <donhome@mudgeeab.com.au> Subject: Re: <nettime> Rhizome Domiziana, (you wrote) "I am terribly sorry to read people don't understand that to make Rhizome going, costs working hours which it means money". As someone who questioned the methodology of charging all users access to Rhizome (contributors, members as well as new and existing guests to the site); I doubt the answer is as simple as citing a lack of understanding of business realities amongst the larger Internet masses. For my part; I understand only too well the economics of running an NFP, just as I understand some of the numerous methods available for achieving financial sustainability - not all of which relate to increasing income through applying charges or through the receipt of Government or corporate contributions; just as many relate to reducing significant overheads (through utilising the contributions of volunteers or moving e-groups to free hosting servers etc.). In my reading of various responses the issue seems to be not so simplistic... 1/ $5.00 is undoubtedly nothing to a New Yorker; although how does this amount of US currency equate to a South American or African citizen? - Perhaps Rhizome is designed to be "US-Centric" in which case this hardly matters... however if not; if Rhizome is designed to be global in reach and delivery; the matters of currency conversion and the available spending power of participants are highly pertinent to any charges applied by the NFP administrators. 2/ Rhizome seemingly has developed a fairly solid community-base; and assuming that amongst this community $5.00 doesn't matter, the community is likely to remain fairly constant - however is Rhizome seeking to grow and develop? - Charging for access to a web site is hardly likely to foster new visitations, for who would pay to visit something completely unknown amongst the myriad of competing (and free) alternatives? 3/ Artists whose works appear on Rhizome are presumably seeking wide exposure (otherwise they would not place art on the 'net) - yet by charging a viewing fee I suggest that a great many casual visitors will now abandon Rhizome... artists will no longer have access to the main-stream viewing public... Placing a charge on public access severely restricts the size of the available audience. Once again this may be something that is desired (to reduce bandwidth overheads etc.) however without a clear explanation of the reasons behind these new costs, who is to know? I'm sure there are a great many additional concerns to these... yet lacking a clear explanation of the underlying policies and the alternatives sought to achieve financial sustainability, how is anyone to know if the charge has any basis other than to increase the wages of the NFP administrators? (and of course we are all entitled to ask because this is a registered charity we are talking about) - IMHO we will all have to make up our own minds and choose to use the service (or not) depending on our own determinations. ... or have I totally missed the plot and is Rhizome not a registered charity? Best rgds, Don ------------------------------ # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net