Hello, this is a belated follow-up to the thread from October 2013 regarding my work. I tried to time this with Rhizome's 7x7 watch party last month which I suspected was the final London event they needed to get the rest of their Arts Council money, but I couldn't get everything together. I appreciate very much the discussion that happened here and am sorry that I wasn't able to participate at the time but below are my responses to Marc, Ana and Simon. I will start another thread with a full description of the project + new download links in a minute. All the best JIGGAWEBZ93
Marc: >If we deconstruct too much what other individuals & groups are doing >without looking at the bigger picture, we are in danger of being >oppositional with the wrong things for the wrong reasons. And creating >the conditions of what the left (in the UK) used to do a lot, which was >pull each other down and lose sight of the greater issues that they >could collaborate on, and collectively critique. I share the opinion of Rob Myers: Rhizome IS the Starbucks of this community. If it wasn't clear before my work makes it clear now and that is a helpful frame for discussion. Further example: emails I saw which broke down to HTC the number of HTC phones Rhizome "seeded" with art world "VIPs". Going even further, HTC was particularly keen that Rhizome seed their phones with journalists. Rhizome duly obliged, probably because HTC is by far Rhizome's largest source of income. Maybe it's an unavoidable reality/necessarily evil of being an American arts organisation. But maybe it's not, and these are specific choices that Rhizome makes. Marc I agree with you generally but I also believe that we can make better choices about our relationship to an organisation, whether they deserve UK public funding, how UK artists might want to collaborate with them either individually or as a community, etc, when we know what that organisation does. Ana: >But Rob, is Rhizome a part of the etablishment? Yes in that they differentiate themselves from something called "New Media" that is not. Quoting an email amongst Rhizome staff that discussed Furtherfield specifically: "we have broken down barriers between the "New Media" circles and the "Art World" circles in ways that orgs that haven't outgrown the "New Media" mentality (i.e. Furtherfield) never could. I know the old guard thinks that the art world is the devil, but I mean come on...grow up." I assume this is well travelled territory and they could be correct, but the question of establishment should be self-evident. Simon: >I don't think you can describe Rhizome as large. It's two and a half >people, basically - and survives in main part from donations, as US >state arts funding is so poor. I think it gets some money from the >Warhol Foundation charity too. This is wrong. Rhizome is least 5 full timers + a ton of freelancers, and they thrive in main part from corporate support. As HTC's support shows this isn't in the form of "donations" either and I think it's foolish to assume it comes without consequences, curatorial or otherwise. >It's a question of principle. For the first 20 years I lived in the UK I did >so on an Australian passport. During that time I received a number of >Arts Council grants. I once asked one of their people whether it >bothered them I was Australian. They replied that they never looked at >the colour of people's passports. It's good to work in an inclusive >environment so I'm not bothered about Rhizome being funded, so long >as it is transparent. The difference is that no principle was broken in your case. Unlike Rhizome you likely used your actual address on any application and even if on an Australian passport you were a UK resident. Rhizome Communications Inc. is not and neither is their Executive Director, and they were given Arts Council money that required them to be. Those are the Arts Council policies that were violated and the principle in question. That Rhizome employs high level ACE staff who were involved in the application in a background role makes the whole thing feel a bit gross. >The more important question is about quality. Was this the best use of >limited public funding to assure the best artistic outcomes? I'm in no >position to make that judgement. I'm not sure who is. I'm not either and for me it wasn't about that sort of judgement. As I wrote to all Rhizome staff and Mark Tribe in the immediate aftermath: "I'm sure there is constant pressure on your funding streams but to make a fraudulent application for UK public arts funds when they are being cut so heavily and then use those funds to hold an exclusive event where you sell £60 tickets and return back to NY with the profits was deeply offensive to me as an EU citizen."
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
