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: Historically Significant Imitations


> TS can copy what he prefers, how many times he wants. The only problem is
> that ArtBase that (i was thinking) should have an historicization
> function,
> accepted it.
> So following your idea next year I can take the ascii works by eryk,
> change
> 1 color and then this wonderful reinterpretation will be listed as a new
> work? Everything in this digital age can be copied and restyled and that's
> the reason why people's brains in valuating things (artworks, songs,
> poetries and so on.) are so important today .

Yes, if you were undertake a project to copy, deliberately, Eryk's work,
he (Eryk) might not *like it,* but it could constitute a project. In that
case, since you had made it clear that you were interested in making a
work about copying and plagiarism, I think the Eryk-copies would be read
in the historical context of those modes.

I didn't suggest that TS intended to copy your work -- I think that is how
you're interpreting it, but that is your call. I have no idea.

>
> Perhaps you believe in djing. i don't.
>
> so thank you for your time Rachel,
>
> all the best,
> carlo zanni
>
> "As a friend, as a friend, as an old enemy
> Take your time, hurry up
> The choice is your, don't be late
> Take a rest as a friend as an old memoria"
>
> come as you are, nirvana
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Rachel@rhizome.org>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
> Cc: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>; <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>;
> <rachel@rhizome.org>; "RHIZOME" <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 7:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Historically Significant Imitations
>
>
>> To me there are obvious similarities and differences with the works. In
>> both, the use of two image fields represents the twin towers. Carlo's
>> work
>> uses color however, to suggest the passage of time, and I think, an
>> emotional range.
>>
>> But even if the Scarpino piece uses imitation or derivation, I don't
>> think
>> that precludes its inclusion in the artbase, or invalidates it as a
>> work.
>> Imitation, derivation and appropriation have been established practices
>> for centuries. Artists would often compete and dialogue with one another
>> by painting the same landscape, or mythical scene, using the same
>> conventions -- pushing the limits of painting a particular building or
>> church -- seeing what happened when the building was painted by
>> different
>> hands with unique techniques. In contemporary discourse, appropriation,
>> re-photography, plagiarism are de rigeur. Examples include Sherry Levine
>> (After Walker Evans), and Rauschenburg's piece when he erased a de
>> Kooning
>> to make his own work (I think it was de Kooning.). As you point out
>> Eryk,
>> online, authorship is even more slippery (01's), and net artists have
>> had
>> to go so far as to foreground url data to render a web work unique
>> (Lialina's Agatha Appears).
>>
>> Carlo, I think if I were you, I would try to think of Scarpino's piece
>> in
>> dialogue with yours -- perhaps a tribute, perhaps a response. Maybe it
>> comes out of a totally different context that renders it an important
>> expression (e.g. Scarpino's relationship to 9.11, his work in
>> architecture, his all white oeuvre -- I am making these up, but you see
>> my
>> point). I find your work more interesting in light of the fact that
>> there
>> is other, similar work being made -- it makes one want to dig deeper.
>>
>> Finally, there isn't anything "new" or "original" about using forms for
>> web compositions, (and I don't even know if "new" or "original" makes
>> work
>> valuable anymore) as I am sure you are aware. If you think you've been
>> ripped off in the mean-spirited sense of the word, I would encourage you
>> contact Alena about it. But given the trauma of 9-11, and people's need
>> to
>> respond and react to it, I personally doubt that is a dominant factor of
>> Scarpino's project.
>>
>> I will leave the artbase policy for Alena to address.
>>
>>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Historically Significant Imitations


To me there are obvious similarities and differences with the works. In
both, the use of two image fields represents the twin towers. Carlo's work
uses color however, to suggest the passage of time, and I think, an
emotional range.

But even if the Scarpino piece uses imitation or derivation, I don't think
that precludes its inclusion in the artbase, or invalidates it as a work.
Imitation, derivation and appropriation have been established practices
for centuries. Artists would often compete and dialogue with one another
by painting the same landscape, or mythical scene, using the same
conventions -- pushing the limits of painting a particular building or
church -- seeing what happened when the building was painted by different
hands with unique techniques. In contemporary discourse, appropriation,
re-photography, plagiarism are de rigeur. Examples include Sherry Levine
(After Walker Evans), and Rauschenburg's piece when he erased a de Kooning
to make his own work (I think it was de Kooning.). As you point out Eryk,
online, authorship is even more slippery (01's), and net artists have had
to go so far as to foreground url data to render a web work unique
(Lialina's Agatha Appears).

Carlo, I think if I were you, I would try to think of Scarpino's piece in
dialogue with yours -- perhaps a tribute, perhaps a response. Maybe it
comes out of a totally different context that renders it an important
expression (e.g. Scarpino's relationship to 9.11, his work in
architecture, his all white oeuvre -- I am making these up, but you see my
point). I find your work more interesting in light of the fact that there
is other, similar work being made -- it makes one want to dig deeper.

Finally, there isn't anything "new" or "original" about using forms for
web compositions, (and I don't even know if "new" or "original" makes work
valuable anymore) as I am sure you are aware. If you think you've been
ripped off in the mean-spirited sense of the word, I would encourage you
contact Alena about it. But given the trauma of 9-11, and people's need to
respond and react to it, I personally doubt that is a dominant factor of
Scarpino's project.

I will leave the artbase policy for Alena to address.

>
> Simply put; I think Carlo has a problem that a piece of work that is
> highly
> derivitive and possibly an imitation of his original piece is in the
> artbase, which is supposed to be reserved for "historically significant"
> works of internet art. How can an imitation be historically relevant?
>
> But this is an interesting conceptual question, as well, in that it also
> raises some issues concerning authorship. For example,
> 01010101010101.org's
> archive of hell.com, could that go into the artbase?
>
> Cheers,
> -e.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>
> To: <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>; <rachel@rhizome.org>
> Cc: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>; "RHIZOME" <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 5:42 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Does the artbase have an historicization
> function?
>
>
>> Dear Rachel,
>>
>> >>> you seemed to be comparing your work to someone else's. Reading your
>> posts I am more confused. You don't like a project that was accepted
>> into
>> the artbase?
>>
>> I'm not comparing my work to someone else's. The fact is that TS's work
>> is
>> the SAME I did 2 years ago and the problem is that ArtBase listed it.
>> There isn't a duty to know my 2001 work (even if it passed through the
> list)
>> but once this thing has been emphasized, I think artbase people have to
> pay
>> attention because this fact hides two key issues : memory and
>> authorship.
>>
>> I just want to defend my work. It's not possible to historicize a work
>> already done by another artist 2 years before.
>> Simple and Clear.
>>
>> cz
>>
>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>> -> 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

Re: Does the artbase have an historicization function?


Hi

I will forward these emails to Alena our artbase coordinator. She might
be abroad however. I personally have little experience with the
Artbase, and don't follow its policy.

Carlo, I got your email from two days ago, but didn't understand it --
you seemed to be comparing your work to someone else's. Reading your
posts I am more confused. You don't like a project that was accepted
into the artbase? It's too similar to yours? You want to know how
projects are selected, and what the quality control process is -- have
you looked here -- http://rhizome.org/artbase/policy.htm -- if you have
a particular question about why one work was chosen and not another,
you will have to wait for Alena to respond, I am afraid.

Generally speaking though, I think to expect Rhizome staff, or any list
subscriber for that matter, to have the same reading/response strategy
would be specious. Your expectations will not be met. These days I
rarely read Rhizome Raw emails sequentially, for example.

This might seem obvious, but not everyone responds to emails as quickly
as one would like. Frankly, that is par for the course, and not likely
to change. I hope you can hang on.

On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 11:34 AM, marc.garrett wrote:

>> what is the reason for submitting an artwork to the artbase?
>
> so an 'in-house' converted, paying audience can see it of course ;-)
>
> marc
>
>
>>>> Did you send copies to the artbase people
>>
>> I sent an email to Mark and Rachel
>>
>>>> I think you are mistaken, it is more of an automatic process than a
>> curational one
>>>> I don't think they are interested in quality or originality all that
> much.
>>
>> I was thinking the opposite... if so: bad political choice..
>> what is the reason for submitting an artwork to the artbase?
>>
>> cz
>>
>>
>>
>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>> -> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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

question about net art venues, physical spaces


hi -- i am trying to understand how the collapse of the economy
affected the exhibition possibilities for net artists. my thesis is
that besides a slew of museums +orgs, tate, whitney. sfmoma, sarai,
eyebeam, physical exhibition spaces have been limited (i mean places
where art is consumed socially, in groups -- not private consumption at
the home cpu). what to people think? what places come to mind? i live
in new york, and don't travel much so i really appreciate the input.
thanks, rachel

DISCUSSION

Radical Software


Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> From: Davidson Gigliotti <davidson@davidsonsfiles.org>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:35:46 +0200
> To: Early Video List Two:;
> Subject: Radical Software
>
> Two years ago, Ira Schneider and I began planning to put all the
> issues of Radical Software on the Internet. We are very happy to
> announce that, with help from the Daniel Langlois Foundation of
> Montreal, our project has been realized.
>
> There were eleven issues of Radical Software from 1970 to 1974, and
> during that period it was the only periodical devoted to the subject
> of video and video art. Founded by Beryl Korot, Phyllis Gershuny
> (Segura), and Ira Schneider in 1970, it became an important voice of
> the video community nationwide and internationally.
>
> Read the Introduction


CURATED EXHIBITIONS (1)