Rachel Greene
Since the beginning
Works in New York, Nebraska United States of America

BIO
Rhizome is friends and family for Rachel, who has been involved with the org. in one capacity or another since 1997 when it was rhizome.com!!
Rachel wrote a book on internet art for thames & hudson's well-known WORLD OF ART series: it was published in June 2004. She was a consultant and catalogue author for the 2004 Whitney Biennial. She has also written for publications including frieze, artforum, timeout and bomb.
Discussions (824) Opportunities (20) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: NEWS: conceptual art chatterbot to be launched in Liverpool.


has anybody tried this with success? wittbott71 has been on my buddy list
but i haven't seen it online yet -- maybe i have to wait til nov. 7th? --
rachel

> ANNOUNCEMENT:
>
> Was there ever a time when you wished you could get automated assistance
> and/or guidance about the rules and benefits of conceptual art? Finally,
> there is an autonomous agent online to help you.
>
> Canadian New-Media Artist Jeremy Owen Turner will be unveiling his new
> chatterbot "wittbott711" that he made using the free bot-maker software on
> www.runabot.com
>
> He has co-opted the publically mediated soul of the Classic conceptualist Sol
> LeWitt and has compiled LeWitt's "Sentences on Conceptual Art" (1969) into the
> brain-banks of his new bot.
>
> All you have to do to chat with this bot is to download a free version of
> AOL's Instant Messenger software available at www.aim.com and then save
> "wittbott711" to your buddy list and then wait for him to appear.
>
> Wittbott711 may also make some cameo appearances on the occasional chat room
> about art. Be on the lookout for this sneaky screen-name.
>
> The witty one will make his first official appearance on November 07, 2002 on
> behalf of the Liberarti Free Art Festival that is part of the Liverpool
> Bienniale curated by Karen Eliot. www.liberarti.org
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> 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
>

DISCUSSION

problems on Rhizome Raw


Dear Rhizome Raw Subscribers:

There have been some serious problems on the list recently. A number of
people have been engaging in personal attacks, abusive emails and
high-volume posting. We have received many emails from raw subscribers who
feel frustrated and demoralized by what is seen as an abuse of a community
resource. We are concerned that Rhizome Raw is no longer able to function
as an inclusive community resource.

We share these feelings of frustration, but find the problem a difficult
one to address. While rules and limits can help a public sphere function,
the policing of public speech is not something to be taken lightly. With
one brief exception, Raw has never been moderated. Until recently, Raw has
somehow managed to function as a total free-for-all, a funky mix of serious
discourse, banter, announcements, identity pranks, ASCII art and other
things. There have always been off-topic posts, but somehow the community
managed to function without any interference from Rhizome workers.

Instead of putting Raw into moderated mode, or unsubscribing people who
abuse the list, we propose to reinstate the Rhizome Rare email list as a
moderated version of Raw. Previously, Rare consisted of four channels that
were filtered by an editorial intern. The new Rare would be a single
channel that consists of texts selected by superusers. Raw would remain an
unfiltered list. Those who are tired of the current tenor and activity on
Raw could migrate to Rare. Those who can take the heat can stay in the fire.

We'd like to get the new Rhizome Rare going by early October.

What do people think about this model?

In the meantime, we encourage you to conserve your Rhizome time and energy
by using the filtering features of your email software.

Best,

Rachel

DISCUSSION

Re: net art stickers


these are so funny!! how do i get stickers.... i know gifs are ephemera
but....!!

> Net art stickers
>
> http://www.linkoln.net/stickers
>
> Brought to you by the web

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Not for the Squeamish


i am involved here. i didn't see joy's declaration of intent about her
work... but i edited helen's NAN and rewrote the closing sentence.

please feel free to disagree with what i wrote -- i did write that last
sentence -- helen was much more struck by aspects of the project she found
"beautiful" -- she had a different register of interpretaion, a more
aesthetic one. but my reaction differed -- i didn't see how one can avoid
the extremity of the project, of its contents and despite its casual format
-- that is why i talked about it as a 'reality check.' which to me isn't
super moralizing... tell me why you think i took an aggressive stance?

or am i confused... is all this directed at another post? or at rhizome NAN?
between web and list, i am not sure what/who all these subjects refer to...
thanks, rachel

> not following the logic here..
>
> JOY writes the first quote, JAMIESON writes the blurb on the "Bomb
> Project" which is moralizing in tone. i don't remember joy
> specifically endorsing this review as correct therefor she's not
> being inconstant. *unless* one reads her silence on the review as
> endorsement; an unreasonable conclusion imo. *or* there is moralizing
> happening on the bomb project site (which i didn't notice after a
> quick look-see). *or* one concludes that the bomb project ITSELF is
> somehow placing "moralizing" judgements on non-politically engaged
> artists (tho it makes no explicit judgements) which is also an
> unreasonable conclusion.
>
> since joy has said nothing regarding the review, it's unreasonable
> for you to assume she thinks it's "moralizing judgements" are OK. if
> you simply wanted to ask joy her response to the blurb you could have
> done so without the accusatory and (imo) aggressive stance.
> (aggressive in that you presuppose she is in agreement with the blurb
> and *foist* that upon her for no good reason)
>
> On July 12, 2002 Joy Garnett wrote on a Rhizome Post:
>
>
>
> It's important to deal with the full spectrum of responses here, and to
> refrain from moralizing judgements-- they only serve to inhibit, and to
> produce more shame.
>
> JG
>
>
> A review on Joy Garnett's "Bomb Project" on September 6, 2002:
>
>
> The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered
> in an art context points at issues of information decentralization,
> and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or
> politically disengaged artists. - Helen Varley Jamieson
>
> <http://www.thebombproject.org>http://www.thebombproject.org
>
>
> The review seems contrary to an earlier statement made by Joy Garnett
> on the Rhizome list. Please explain why its OK to make a "moralizing
> judgement" in one case and not another. Thanks.
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Not for the Squeamish


net art news coverage doesn't really constitute a review from rhizome's
point of view... it's a descriptive, subjective blurb service -- we call it
news -- not just because there is a new one each day but because we like to
think we cover a wide range of topics, events, projects. and because it
reaches people who are art enthusiasts, interested in the field but not
interested in lengthy, or maybe even critical, discourse. a wider net than
would be on raw, which seems for people very interested in new media art on
a more micro level.

of course, there are implied endoresements in the coverage in something with
such an upbeat, editorial tenor. especially in the context of a list with
artists in attendance who are actively seeking press and critical engagemnt
for their work. however, until i read your post, the idiom of 'review' never
occured to me. interesting... -- rachel

> Too bad we never heard from Joy Garnett. It would have been
> interesting to read her viewpoint on "moralizing judgements" within
> the context of a favorable "review" about her.
>
>> i was replying to seth thompson's pointing out perceived inconstancy
>> on joy's part. my apologies, i didn't read the NAN item as
>> aggressive towards joy.
>>
>> in the meantime, seth's made clearer the point of this original post.
>>
>> and where is the mysterious joy today? hiding out somewhere? let's
>> hear from her ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> At 10:55 -0400 9/6/02, Rachel Greene wrote:
>>> i am involved here. i didn't see joy's declaration of intent about her
>>> work... but i edited helen's NAN and rewrote the closing sentence.
>>>
>>> please feel free to disagree with what i wrote -- i did write that last
>>> sentence -- helen was much more struck by aspects of the project she found
>>> "beautiful" -- she had a different register of interpretaion, a more
>>> aesthetic one. but my reaction differed -- i didn't see how one can avoid
>>> the extremity of the project, of its contents and despite its casual format
>>> -- that is why i talked about it as a 'reality check.' which to me isn't
>>> super moralizing... tell me why you think i took an aggressive stance?
>>>
>>> or am i confused... is all this directed at another post? or at rhizome NAN?
>>> between web and list, i am not sure what/who all these subjects refer to...
>>> thanks, rachel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> not following the logic here..
>>>>
>>>> JOY writes the first quote, JAMIESON writes the blurb on the "Bomb
>>>> Project" which is moralizing in tone. i don't remember joy
>>>> specifically endorsing this review as correct therefor she's not
>>>> being inconstant. *unless* one reads her silence on the review as
>>>> endorsement; an unreasonable conclusion imo. *or* there is moralizing
>>>> happening on the bomb project site (which i didn't notice after a
>>>> quick look-see). *or* one concludes that the bomb project ITSELF is
>>>> somehow placing "moralizing" judgements on non-politically engaged
>>>> artists (tho it makes no explicit judgements) which is also an
>>>> unreasonable conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> since joy has said nothing regarding the review, it's unreasonable
>>>> for you to assume she thinks it's "moralizing judgements" are OK. if
>>>> you simply wanted to ask joy her response to the blurb you could have
>>>> done so without the accusatory and (imo) aggressive stance.
>>>> (aggressive in that you presuppose she is in agreement with the blurb
>>>> and *foist* that upon her for no good reason)
>>>>
>>>> On July 12, 2002 Joy Garnett wrote on a Rhizome Post:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's important to deal with the full spectrum of responses here, and to
>>>> refrain from moralizing judgements-- they only serve to inhibit, and to
>>>> produce more shame.
>>>>
>>>> JG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A review on Joy Garnett's "Bomb Project" on September 6, 2002:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered
>>>> in an art context points at issues of information decentralization,
>>>> and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or
>>>> politically disengaged artists. - Helen Varley Jamieson
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.thebombproject.org>http://www.thebombproject.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The review seems contrary to an earlier statement made by Joy Garnett
>>>> on the Rhizome list. Please explain why its OK to make a "moralizing
>>>> judgement" in one case and not another. Thanks.
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> <twhid>
>> http://www.mteww.com
>> </twhid>
>> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
>> -> 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
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> 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
>


CURATED EXHIBITIONS (1)