followed your link. it appears to be broken, at least from my netscape 7 browser.

Eric Dymond wrote:

> but you know, Brad Brace and Judy Malloy and any number of web
> veterans can confirm:
>
> In 1996 when I created the doorway image applications were primitive.
> Cutting up an image and placing the various parts in table cells was a
> new idea.
> Fireworks and Image Ready were on the distant horizon.
> Judy Malloy called this procedure cross-images.
> I wish I had patented the idea at the time:
> http://web.idirect.com/~artseen/door.htm
> was the first example of this mediums ability to slice and dice.
> It dates to March 26th 1996.
> Just a note to correct the bad information,
> Eric Dymond.

this is an interesting issue to consider. paid members can post.unpaid members can consume but not post. $5.00 is a small price to pay. less than the cost of almost anything worth having. $5.00 mandatory fee does not mean there is no grassroots. $5.00 mandatory fee means that the paying members agree that at least some aspect of the endeavor is worth supporting.

how many participants are listed in the community directory? rough estimate: 3000(?) x $5.00/year each = $15,000/year to provide network infrastructure and content organization/distribution? a small price to pay.

before i discovered rhizome.org, i knew nothing of Joy Garnett's paintings. now i do. i may not buy her work but she is known to one more person who may reference her work in a conversation, article or catalog, etc. i'll bet Joy Garnett would be happy to fork over $5.00 to expand her reputation to a community of 3000. let's say that maybe only 5% of the community has shown some interest in the aesthetic values of her work -excellent!

for $5.00 or, the price of a tasty sandwich, a mid-day matinee, or one and a half hour's post-tax wage as a museum guide, one can be informed of Joy's artwork/ideas or engage in a stimulating conversation, workshop concepts, market themselves/their works and be informed of income opportunities in fields they are truly interested in. for 365 days.

geez, i don't know about you all but 5 bucks is a meager requirement to maintain and even expand the capabilities our network and all it has to offer.

MERITOCRACY

A small but significant spat has erupted in Britain recently about the meaning of the word meritocracy. It's especially interesting because not only do we know who coined it, but he's still very much around to argue about it.

The current furore began with the recent British General Election, in which Tony Blair, the Labour Prime Minister, made much of his commitment to what he regularly described as meritocracy. This word is very widely used, even more so in the United States than in Britain. It is usually employed in the sense in which Mr Blair seems from his speeches to have meant it

Hi Joy,

Depending on how long ago you surfed the anarchist site, and how long a period you have your browser's 'history' function set to retain, you may find the link there. (in netscape under 'go:history:(x) days ago'. in IE under 'go', click the day/date)

good luck!

Hi Pall,

The reason i created the image of the 'mega painting' was to make the argument as difficult as possible to resolve. perhaps you've heard of the famous lawsuit threatened by the 'mega band' U2 against the 'micro band' Negativeland over the latters titling their album "U2". even though the album cover was a photo of the notorious spy plane of cold war fame. the point is, when an individual or entity is riding high they will jealously, even vindictively protect their empire. even to the degree of squashing tertiary references to their 'brand name', in this case.

you may say that painting and photography are 'different' and i may say that film & video are 'different' but what's really at stake is the relative impact of the images/sequences and the reactions they evoke.

i am aware that video and film are different. entirely different post optical processes, one a chemical exposure, the other a radio signal,
one delivered through reflected light one delivered through direct light. (of course with current technological developments, the distinction is blurred by the arrival of HDTV, digital encoding and the deployment of liquid crystal or plasma displays, etc.)
but these are largely 'back end' concerns. most independent 'film makers' are actually 'video makers' but everyone accepts the terminology without much fuss.

they are so similar to the perceiver, that the medium becomes transparent. what is important are the intellectual and emotional responses the 'film' evokes.

similarly, painting and photography consist of different materials and processes yet the end result of both are still images which evoke certain intellectual and emotional responses. the respective mediums are secondary concerns.

(and i'm not trying to debase anyone's religion here)

obviously, someone recognized the 'essence' of the 'sampled' photo or
we wouldn't have any legal wrangling here. so this case is based on something much akin to the notion of 'intellectual property'.

in my example of the 'mega painting', i am pointing out the sampler's
interest in specific images s/he has chosen, not because they care about
bringing to light the individual 'still images'(or taking credit for the works of others) but to share her/his insight into the inter-relationships between the 9 paintings. if we are to accept an artist's 'intent' as 'valid', then can we not accept the fact that the individual images of which the 'mega painting' is comprised are in and of themselves of secondary importance in the recontextualizing? the recontextualizing being the sampler's primary concern?

Pall Thayer wrote:

> As in Niall's case, you're not talking about the same thing. You're
> talking
> about sampling an entire painting as a painting. Yes, if one of those
> paintings were mine, I would probably want credit (although I wouldn't
> say
> anything if I didn't get it). The difference between your example and
> Joy's
> case is that she's not using an entire image and she's reproducing a
> photograph as a painting, adding some of her own elements along the
> way.
> It's entirely different. Before you know it we'll have landscape
> architects
> sueing painters for copying their landscapes.
>
>