Peter Luining on Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:39:07 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> One year After Rhizome

Dear Vladimir Kovacevic,

Vladimir> Another point of critique is derived from a recent article Peter
Vladimir> Luining wrote for netartreview. Here Luining compares the
Vladimir> Computerfineart's collection with Rhizome's artbase. But where Luining
Vladimir> still sees something positive in Rhizome's artbase "Rhizome's artbase
Vladimir> offers a lot of additional information with it's linked artworks
Vladimir> [which is worth paying for]" I only can see negative points. This
Vladimir> because 1. you have to pay to get access to the artbase that is made
Vladimir> out of freely delivered content by it's participants, information that
Vladimir> in almost all cases can also be found with some googling for free 2.
Vladimir> the artbase is a collection of links that is subjected to rot. And why
Vladimir> would you pay for a service that is not even trying to preserve the
Vladimir> most interesting part, which is the artworks.

What you do here is read something ("[which is worth paying for]") that I
don't write, and next you attack it with an argument I use in my article
as critical comment on Rhizome's artbase: "... Rhizome offers a collection
of links. Links that make it's artbase vulnerable to linkrot (= dead
links), which in fact is annoying, especially when you keep in mind that
you have to pay to get access to this resource."

My whole article centers around the idea of a starting point for people
who are interested in net art. My conclusion is: "Here (=Computerfinearts)
you find artists and works that are important to netart history, besides
that you'll find links to all individual sites of artists presented. If
you need to do deep research you're in the end probably better off with
Rhizome's artbase and the Rhizome site as a whole because it really offers
a vast amount of information."

Vladimir> Another point that I
Vladimir> missed in Luining's analysis is that of the status of the work.

As said above my article is about a starting point for people interested
in net art. For this I don't see the point in writing something about the
status of the work, though it is of course an interesting subject from the
artist's point of view.


#  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: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: