BIO
Re: Community
::Ideas on how to make Rhizome more communal are valuable, and I look forward
::to having conversations about different possibilities. One of our main
::questions relates to Rhizome discussion and how this should be maintained
::and enhanced (this is a question that has long been at the heart of
::Rhizome). Do people think lists remain an appropriate form of discussion? Or
::are there are other ways you'd like to converse with members on the site?
::One idea is enabling comments on the reblog, another is integrating blogs or
::linking to blogs on member pages.
::
::Are there thoughts on this?
How about splitting RAW into a minimum of two lists - one for discussion and one
for notices (announcements, events, openings, calls for submissions, etc.)
-Alexis
::to having conversations about different possibilities. One of our main
::questions relates to Rhizome discussion and how this should be maintained
::and enhanced (this is a question that has long been at the heart of
::Rhizome). Do people think lists remain an appropriate form of discussion? Or
::are there are other ways you'd like to converse with members on the site?
::One idea is enabling comments on the reblog, another is integrating blogs or
::linking to blogs on member pages.
::
::Are there thoughts on this?
How about splitting RAW into a minimum of two lists - one for discussion and one
for notices (announcements, events, openings, calls for submissions, etc.)
-Alexis
RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Community
Eric, I'm copying this to the list. It seems relevant.
My previous comments about community, and lack thereof, reflect my belief that
people must communicate about a shared interest in order to maintain a community
(shiiiit...they even use the same root in the words, so I can't be too far off
base here). Communication implies a give and take, as well as a level of
understanding and/or dialogue. It also implies a common ground (holy shit,
there's that root again), or, in other words, a targeted, (self)selected group.
Above all, it requires engagement and active participation.
As a newcomer, I am agreeing with your assessment that Rhizome currently
seems to have little community. I can't speak for the good old days, because
I wasn't here for them, but I -can- tell you that if you want the good old days,
marching forward with the new things that have fucked Rhizome since then seems
like a rather ironic choice. Those things would include anything that makes it
easier for non-interested or half-assed participants to take part, or anything
that does not encourage participation. I'm not figuring out where nepotism and
self-reference fit in that scheme.
There is one other thing you're right about, too - I'm not planning on paying
for membership next year. I'm not even planning on participating anymore. Life is
too short to delete 80 piece of shit e-mails a day in the hopes that once
every 3 months something interesting might come along. So far, it's been a year
and a half and I still am waiting for something, anything, interesting. There
were a couple of exchanges about 8 months back (thanks Curt - in spite of the
ocassional snide remark it was quite fruitful), but that feels a little dry for
what'll end up being two years.
So that's the background that informs the naive little newcomer statements I
keep making. To be honest, it seems for this discussion there's only thing we
don't agree on: that the thing Rhizome is lacking is a brain, not another (albeit
touchier-feelier) way for people to pimp their work and "get their money's
worth." The signal to noise ratio here is simply too fucked already, and I
don't see how having one more gimmick will correct that. Bigger, splashier,
and more is a way to fake community, not create it. Strip away the bullshit
and put in a couple of targeted, moderated forums, a few well chosen links, and
nothing else. Separate the wheat from the chaff. Stop trying to be all things
to all people. Retain the elements who actually give a fuck and participate.
And stop seeing Rhizome as a "PROVIDER" - providers are businesses, not communities.
Then we'll talk.
-Alexis
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 dymond@idirect.ca wrote:
::Alexis for all yoour bluster you display a newcomers view of Rhizome.
::It was not that long ago that Rhizome offered unique opportunities to
::paying members and engaged a community. [...]
::
::I doubt that Rhizome will be able to continue on a membership paid
::business model if the current distance between audience and provider
::continues.
::Would you pay for membership next year?
::Eric
::
My previous comments about community, and lack thereof, reflect my belief that
people must communicate about a shared interest in order to maintain a community
(shiiiit...they even use the same root in the words, so I can't be too far off
base here). Communication implies a give and take, as well as a level of
understanding and/or dialogue. It also implies a common ground (holy shit,
there's that root again), or, in other words, a targeted, (self)selected group.
Above all, it requires engagement and active participation.
As a newcomer, I am agreeing with your assessment that Rhizome currently
seems to have little community. I can't speak for the good old days, because
I wasn't here for them, but I -can- tell you that if you want the good old days,
marching forward with the new things that have fucked Rhizome since then seems
like a rather ironic choice. Those things would include anything that makes it
easier for non-interested or half-assed participants to take part, or anything
that does not encourage participation. I'm not figuring out where nepotism and
self-reference fit in that scheme.
There is one other thing you're right about, too - I'm not planning on paying
for membership next year. I'm not even planning on participating anymore. Life is
too short to delete 80 piece of shit e-mails a day in the hopes that once
every 3 months something interesting might come along. So far, it's been a year
and a half and I still am waiting for something, anything, interesting. There
were a couple of exchanges about 8 months back (thanks Curt - in spite of the
ocassional snide remark it was quite fruitful), but that feels a little dry for
what'll end up being two years.
So that's the background that informs the naive little newcomer statements I
keep making. To be honest, it seems for this discussion there's only thing we
don't agree on: that the thing Rhizome is lacking is a brain, not another (albeit
touchier-feelier) way for people to pimp their work and "get their money's
worth." The signal to noise ratio here is simply too fucked already, and I
don't see how having one more gimmick will correct that. Bigger, splashier,
and more is a way to fake community, not create it. Strip away the bullshit
and put in a couple of targeted, moderated forums, a few well chosen links, and
nothing else. Separate the wheat from the chaff. Stop trying to be all things
to all people. Retain the elements who actually give a fuck and participate.
And stop seeing Rhizome as a "PROVIDER" - providers are businesses, not communities.
Then we'll talk.
-Alexis
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 dymond@idirect.ca wrote:
::Alexis for all yoour bluster you display a newcomers view of Rhizome.
::It was not that long ago that Rhizome offered unique opportunities to
::paying members and engaged a community. [...]
::
::I doubt that Rhizome will be able to continue on a membership paid
::business model if the current distance between audience and provider
::continues.
::Would you pay for membership next year?
::Eric
::
Re: Re: Community
Ehhhhhh....I often wonder why we fetishize community so much right now. Perhaps
because, at least in the states, there is so little of it. I wish it would
stop, frankly.
That said, it really is just that - a fetishization. Are we really so divorced
from it, is it such a fascinating otherness/exotic that we have so little idea?
We try to force community by offering things and trinkets, "interactivity."
But, really, can community be created by -lowering- the bar? No. That is
exactly the problem the Rhizome list has right now - any dipshit can send in an
announcement. Hell, even a spider can send in an announcemnet. But real
engagement takes effort, which by definition requires work on the part of
participants. Making it *easier* to participate, giving one more thing to
simply be consumed by visitors, will destroy the community that
much further. You allude to this re: noise.
Consider the nostalgic days (yes, I know they had their problems, but if all
community-drum-bangers cite this as an example, I might as well do it too) way
back when when we were all stuck with BBSes. The thing that created a community
was precisely the exclusionary factor - there were distinct silos (message
boards) within the larger BBS, and users could choose to participate in the silo
of their interest. It created much smaller, but more effective, microclimates.
-Alexis
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:
::Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:35:17 -0700
::From: Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Community
::
::Eric Dymond wrote:
::
::> This is sort of a reply to Alexis, but it seems pertinent to other
::> threads as well.
::> Why not make the Rhizome commisions contribute to the Rhizome
::> community?
::> In other words, rather than spending money on individuals
::> individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome
::> Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
::> It would go something like this:
::> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works that
::> enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
::> get involved in the online community."
::> That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
::> I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for the
::> service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would create a
::> really interesting and creative environment.
::> Eric
::But maybe the rest of the world is right. With the onslaught of new media works, unattended and unfiltered, on the Rhizome front page, coming 5 or 6 times a day, maybe great art is now unnatainable. Only the noisy will survive. Or maybe noone survives.. we just keep smiling.
::So many new works, so little to say, so much to announce.
::" It will be a gay world. There will be lights everywhere except in the mind of man, and the fall of the last civilization will not be heard above the incessant din".
::Herbert Read "The World in 1984" edited by Nigel Calder.
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::
because, at least in the states, there is so little of it. I wish it would
stop, frankly.
That said, it really is just that - a fetishization. Are we really so divorced
from it, is it such a fascinating otherness/exotic that we have so little idea?
We try to force community by offering things and trinkets, "interactivity."
But, really, can community be created by -lowering- the bar? No. That is
exactly the problem the Rhizome list has right now - any dipshit can send in an
announcement. Hell, even a spider can send in an announcemnet. But real
engagement takes effort, which by definition requires work on the part of
participants. Making it *easier* to participate, giving one more thing to
simply be consumed by visitors, will destroy the community that
much further. You allude to this re: noise.
Consider the nostalgic days (yes, I know they had their problems, but if all
community-drum-bangers cite this as an example, I might as well do it too) way
back when when we were all stuck with BBSes. The thing that created a community
was precisely the exclusionary factor - there were distinct silos (message
boards) within the larger BBS, and users could choose to participate in the silo
of their interest. It created much smaller, but more effective, microclimates.
-Alexis
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:
::Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:35:17 -0700
::From: Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Community
::
::Eric Dymond wrote:
::
::> This is sort of a reply to Alexis, but it seems pertinent to other
::> threads as well.
::> Why not make the Rhizome commisions contribute to the Rhizome
::> community?
::> In other words, rather than spending money on individuals
::> individual-centric work, make the paramters enhance the Rhizome
::> Community. No more new media for new medias sake.
::> It would go something like this:
::> "Rhizome Commissions are looking for interactive new media works that
::> enable the Rhizome community to interact, communicate and otherwise
::> get involved in the online community."
::> That would be a first step towards evolvong into something new.
::> I know, members are going to complain, but really, we all pay for the
::> service, and have an interest in its evolution. This would create a
::> really interesting and creative environment.
::> Eric
::But maybe the rest of the world is right. With the onslaught of new media works, unattended and unfiltered, on the Rhizome front page, coming 5 or 6 times a day, maybe great art is now unnatainable. Only the noisy will survive. Or maybe noone survives.. we just keep smiling.
::So many new works, so little to say, so much to announce.
::" It will be a gay world. There will be lights everywhere except in the mind of man, and the fall of the last civilization will not be heard above the incessant din".
::Herbert Read "The World in 1984" edited by Nigel Calder.
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
Being too tired to really get into this right now (damn 6am language class
bitch. Coffee, why are you failing me right now?), I will simply posit the
following single thought and leave it at that:
You want community. Community made up of many and that caters to
(all|many|broad) interests.
You complain about the average as the ideal.
I ponder this conundrum.. or Oxymoron? Paradox? Oversight? Unexpected
optimism?
-Alexis
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:
::I hate to bring this topic up again, but in light of the dearth of new and interesting conversations feel that it is time.
::Marc rightly felt that the community he was a part of had ignored his efforts.
::This brings to the forefront the reality of community or lack of it in what is designated as Rhizome.
::I myself have gone elsewhere for commissions and community.
::I believe that Rhizome has lost its edge re. new media.
::How can Rhizome expect to proceed when the members/posters/curators don't support the very members that contribute on an a vital and ongoing basis???
::In the *golden days* of art, artists supported their confreres without heavy judgement or criticism. (see de Kooning and Johns and Warhol and a million others). The deal was that you helped out the users, and makers in their efforts.
::Today, community means very little.
::The Cedar Bar can't exist in a mediated environment that requires new "hits" (like heroin hits, chase it baby from the suburbs, its gonna be cheap this year, record harvest in Afghanistan).
::Could any community ever survive the art worlds need for "NEW HITS>>!!!!!"
::I doubt it.
::Can we actually go forth knowing that all we do ends up in vapour?
::Rhizome now needs new hits, discussion falls to the wayside, and the average becomes the ideal.
::Nothing left to talk about , only static to observe, an endless feed of noise.
::Still smiling ( as the endtrails hit the floor),
::Eric
bitch. Coffee, why are you failing me right now?), I will simply posit the
following single thought and leave it at that:
You want community. Community made up of many and that caters to
(all|many|broad) interests.
You complain about the average as the ideal.
I ponder this conundrum.. or Oxymoron? Paradox? Oversight? Unexpected
optimism?
-Alexis
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:
::I hate to bring this topic up again, but in light of the dearth of new and interesting conversations feel that it is time.
::Marc rightly felt that the community he was a part of had ignored his efforts.
::This brings to the forefront the reality of community or lack of it in what is designated as Rhizome.
::I myself have gone elsewhere for commissions and community.
::I believe that Rhizome has lost its edge re. new media.
::How can Rhizome expect to proceed when the members/posters/curators don't support the very members that contribute on an a vital and ongoing basis???
::In the *golden days* of art, artists supported their confreres without heavy judgement or criticism. (see de Kooning and Johns and Warhol and a million others). The deal was that you helped out the users, and makers in their efforts.
::Today, community means very little.
::The Cedar Bar can't exist in a mediated environment that requires new "hits" (like heroin hits, chase it baby from the suburbs, its gonna be cheap this year, record harvest in Afghanistan).
::Could any community ever survive the art worlds need for "NEW HITS>>!!!!!"
::I doubt it.
::Can we actually go forth knowing that all we do ends up in vapour?
::Rhizome now needs new hits, discussion falls to the wayside, and the average becomes the ideal.
::Nothing left to talk about , only static to observe, an endless feed of noise.
::Still smiling ( as the endtrails hit the floor),
::Eric
Re: Money + Audience
Roy,
Holy crap, I started to dash off a reply but realized halfway through that
you've given me about 80 things to think about. So, forgive this e-mail, it'll
really be a bunch of disconnected things that you just sort of brought forth
(and thanks, by the way - I get so frustrated with hearing the same things on
the list that I forget sometimes why I am on it. And the answer is so that now
and then I get a good e-mail like yours that just plainly asks what needs to
be asked.)
-----------------------
Absolutely. NMA is one of the first arts to be infinitely replicable - and not
just by the artist. Printing 1000x prints off a negative allows duplicates to
be made, but the prints need to be made by the artist herself. NMA (generally)
being in digital form allows the USER to duplicate the work. Pull. Push. In
that regard, the commodification quotient is far lower that previous art.
But - and it's a shame, really - NMA is the first type of art that really has
the ability to move away from the traditional models of patron/artist/*sole
Collector*, yet art has become so entrenched with the idea that that is "how it
works" that NMA is still clinging to vestiges of the system. It still believes
(in its heart, though it echoes hollow words to the contrary) that the only way
art can be Art is by being selective, rare, expensive, and unobtainable -
available only to those select few with the proper
breeding|taste|money|education. The way that such a system is justified is
through the whole romantic "lone, misunderstood genius" phenomena, the idea
being that our art is simply too brilliant for the common person to understand,
but other brilliant souls like ourselves will "get" it and it will thus have a
silent but pervasive influence on all society as it imbues the work of all
these other creative thinkers...in this quiet, humble (but steady) way, it
matters and makes a difference and does what it is supposed to do.
It's crap,
of course - creating the idea that art can only be appreciated by the finest is
the shill we use to sell it (because, despite my complaints that art does not
use the ways of the showman to perpetuate itself, it HAS taken this single
con-mans' lesson very, very, very deeply to heart - owning and understanding
my product makes you a better, smarter, more well-bred person, and we can sell
that backwards and forwards. Read the great classic 'The Emperor Has No
Clothes' if in doubt.)
And then, well, then I couldn't finish it because, after all, what IS the next
system to replace it?
------------------------------------------------
NMA has the ability to move away from existing systems of patronage, but to
what? A few thoughts (by no means complete):
The Music Industry scenario - anybody can copy NMA who wants to, so nobody pays
anything for it. In vain, artists try to implement a $0.05 per view system, but
people just laugh in their faces and copy blithely away.
The Rogue Technological Upstart scenario - The art is actually good,
and/or manages to garner interest from a crowd (The Nickelodeon, Ubuntu, $100
laptop, FOSS, dooce, shareware, paper clips to houses, Snakes on a
(motherfuckin) Plane). Many people copy blithely away, as above, (we'll call
these Users) but others become rabid, devoted fans (Supporters). Viral
marketing and/or just damn good art thus generates a base of admirers who
support the art, either monetarily or otherwise, and thereby make it
sustainable.
The Poor Starving Artist scenario - with no one paying for art, making it
becomes a pastime for many and a way of life for few. Those that do it for a
living rely on government grants. Government grants flow like wine. Hell freezes over.
The Out of Left Field/Nothing Ever Changes scenario - Certain techniques/venues
are found to make art non-replicable (Second Life) and individual patrons can
continue to purchase art for themselves at ridiculous sums of money (Second
Life). The status quo is thus maintained.
-----------------------------
Is there a difference, capitalistically speaking, between measuring the success
of something by the money it brings in vs the size of the (non-paying) audience
it brings in?
---------------------------
My own personal measure of success is by how well a piece of art "affects" the
viewer. Would that fall into the market-driven mode you describe? My leaning
is to strict interpretation, which would be no, but I can see how it would be
argued yes using a looser reading.
------------------------------------------
My complaint about the unsuccessfulness of NMA is two-fold:
+ in many cases the only "effect" it has is boredom...which, really, is a non
effect and therefore it is unsuccessful
+ in the other cases the effect it has is revulsion (this is large scale, not
individual...hence the problem), which, while successful in garnering an
effect, becomes unsuccessful taken on the whole because it turns people away
from the art, thus making FUTURE works less successful.
--------------
Apologies.
-Alexis
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Roy Pardi wrote:
::Interesting discussion that has only teetered a bit over the line at times.
::To add something to the mix that has only been referenced indirectly: what
::about the impact of MONEY (or lack thereof) on NMA since there is little or
::nothing that can be bought and sold (there are exceptions of course but
::speaking in general). We have a market driven culture - both high + low -
::and the money generated by cultural production is news and fuels further
::consumption: film revenues are reported as if we all owned stock in
::production companies, auction prices are reported as benchmarks of an
::artist's worth and influence curatorial choices for museum exhibits, often
::underwritten by collectors of those artists.
::
::That's a thumbnail sketch but no doubt recognizable. I'd be interested to
::hear what people think about the commodification quotient of NMA and it's
::impact on audience.
::
::--Roy
Holy crap, I started to dash off a reply but realized halfway through that
you've given me about 80 things to think about. So, forgive this e-mail, it'll
really be a bunch of disconnected things that you just sort of brought forth
(and thanks, by the way - I get so frustrated with hearing the same things on
the list that I forget sometimes why I am on it. And the answer is so that now
and then I get a good e-mail like yours that just plainly asks what needs to
be asked.)
-----------------------
Absolutely. NMA is one of the first arts to be infinitely replicable - and not
just by the artist. Printing 1000x prints off a negative allows duplicates to
be made, but the prints need to be made by the artist herself. NMA (generally)
being in digital form allows the USER to duplicate the work. Pull. Push. In
that regard, the commodification quotient is far lower that previous art.
But - and it's a shame, really - NMA is the first type of art that really has
the ability to move away from the traditional models of patron/artist/*sole
Collector*, yet art has become so entrenched with the idea that that is "how it
works" that NMA is still clinging to vestiges of the system. It still believes
(in its heart, though it echoes hollow words to the contrary) that the only way
art can be Art is by being selective, rare, expensive, and unobtainable -
available only to those select few with the proper
breeding|taste|money|education. The way that such a system is justified is
through the whole romantic "lone, misunderstood genius" phenomena, the idea
being that our art is simply too brilliant for the common person to understand,
but other brilliant souls like ourselves will "get" it and it will thus have a
silent but pervasive influence on all society as it imbues the work of all
these other creative thinkers...in this quiet, humble (but steady) way, it
matters and makes a difference and does what it is supposed to do.
It's crap,
of course - creating the idea that art can only be appreciated by the finest is
the shill we use to sell it (because, despite my complaints that art does not
use the ways of the showman to perpetuate itself, it HAS taken this single
con-mans' lesson very, very, very deeply to heart - owning and understanding
my product makes you a better, smarter, more well-bred person, and we can sell
that backwards and forwards. Read the great classic 'The Emperor Has No
Clothes' if in doubt.)
And then, well, then I couldn't finish it because, after all, what IS the next
system to replace it?
------------------------------------------------
NMA has the ability to move away from existing systems of patronage, but to
what? A few thoughts (by no means complete):
The Music Industry scenario - anybody can copy NMA who wants to, so nobody pays
anything for it. In vain, artists try to implement a $0.05 per view system, but
people just laugh in their faces and copy blithely away.
The Rogue Technological Upstart scenario - The art is actually good,
and/or manages to garner interest from a crowd (The Nickelodeon, Ubuntu, $100
laptop, FOSS, dooce, shareware, paper clips to houses, Snakes on a
(motherfuckin) Plane). Many people copy blithely away, as above, (we'll call
these Users) but others become rabid, devoted fans (Supporters). Viral
marketing and/or just damn good art thus generates a base of admirers who
support the art, either monetarily or otherwise, and thereby make it
sustainable.
The Poor Starving Artist scenario - with no one paying for art, making it
becomes a pastime for many and a way of life for few. Those that do it for a
living rely on government grants. Government grants flow like wine. Hell freezes over.
The Out of Left Field/Nothing Ever Changes scenario - Certain techniques/venues
are found to make art non-replicable (Second Life) and individual patrons can
continue to purchase art for themselves at ridiculous sums of money (Second
Life). The status quo is thus maintained.
-----------------------------
Is there a difference, capitalistically speaking, between measuring the success
of something by the money it brings in vs the size of the (non-paying) audience
it brings in?
---------------------------
My own personal measure of success is by how well a piece of art "affects" the
viewer. Would that fall into the market-driven mode you describe? My leaning
is to strict interpretation, which would be no, but I can see how it would be
argued yes using a looser reading.
------------------------------------------
My complaint about the unsuccessfulness of NMA is two-fold:
+ in many cases the only "effect" it has is boredom...which, really, is a non
effect and therefore it is unsuccessful
+ in the other cases the effect it has is revulsion (this is large scale, not
individual...hence the problem), which, while successful in garnering an
effect, becomes unsuccessful taken on the whole because it turns people away
from the art, thus making FUTURE works less successful.
--------------
Apologies.
-Alexis
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Roy Pardi wrote:
::Interesting discussion that has only teetered a bit over the line at times.
::To add something to the mix that has only been referenced indirectly: what
::about the impact of MONEY (or lack thereof) on NMA since there is little or
::nothing that can be bought and sold (there are exceptions of course but
::speaking in general). We have a market driven culture - both high + low -
::and the money generated by cultural production is news and fuels further
::consumption: film revenues are reported as if we all owned stock in
::production companies, auction prices are reported as benchmarks of an
::artist's worth and influence curatorial choices for museum exhibits, often
::underwritten by collectors of those artists.
::
::That's a thumbnail sketch but no doubt recognizable. I'd be interested to
::hear what people think about the commodification quotient of NMA and it's
::impact on audience.
::
::--Roy