On 9 June 2014 12:00:58 GMT+01:00, Greg Silva <[email protected]> wrote: >Reposting as original seems not to have made it... > >Rhizome Collaboration Redux > >1. I gained access to the administrative account of Rhizome's servers >and >made 2 posts on rhizome.org titled “Owning Online Art” > >2. I gained access to the administrative Rhizome email account and the >email account of Rhizome's Executive Director, and I released a number >of >emails and documents related to Rhizome receiving funding from the Arts >Council of England. > >I've uploaded the emails and documents and screenshots along with an >essay >detailing what I think they mean http://we.tl/jysnfUW1n5. I recommend >downloading and sharing it ASAP before the cat and mouse game of >takedown/re-upload kicks in. Please be aware that it is written with an >anti-Rhizome voice. I may be opinionated, but I think Rhizome's >behaviour >regarding their ACE funding was disgusting. I also think their TED Talk >vision for the future of digital art represents an extremely >conservative, >corporate, and sad face of what might be in store for art in the UK. I >made >this artwork partially as some small attempt at electronic resistance >(I'd >heard that the 90s are back). > >I called the first part of the work Owning Online Art because in >computer >vernacular I “owned” Rhizome and all the online art they've got. I >found it >interesting to consider this type of ownership against the forms of >online >art ownership advertised on Rhizome via things like Paddle8 and the >Phillips auction. It also struck me how Rhizome owns its art: somewhere >in >a rented Amazon Web Services rack, certain memory locations are allowed >to >be art and some are not. This is done through normal >Artworld/institutional >conventions but as these conventions are expressed in code and code >doesn't >follow the conventions of an Artworld, institutional structures become >a >bit more malleable. Understanding that meant I was able to redraw the >boundaries of where art existed on Rhizome's own servers as I saw fit. >It >was a very stressful performance for me and I made sure not to get >carried >away. While I had admin access to every Rhizome user account, the >entire >Artbase, their mailing lists, their source code and everything running >on >the server itself, I simply made a couple posts and published some >emails. >I hope everyone takes this as another instance of the same old lesson: >if >you use weak passwords you will be a collaborator with network-based >practices. It also begs the question of why an organisation stupid >enough >to use its own name + DOB as the password for most of its services >(rhizome1996) is considered fit to be a major custodian of digital art? > >However most of the attention will focus on the emails. I decided to >release certain emails because I found it interesting that the Arts >Council >of England violated their own funding policies and gave UK public money >to >an individual who was not “resident in the EU at time of application”, >in >this case Rhizome's Executive Director. I released Rhizome's internal >2013 >financials because I found it interesting to learn that Rhizome's >community >support is so small and dropping, that they receive over a quarter of >their >funding from HTC, that they receive funding from Deutsche Bank, etc. I >invite you to read everything yourself and draw your own conclusions >about >the importance of any of it, although I believe that regardless of >interpretation it's of a general benefit to artists in the UK that the >information is now public and open for discussion. > >There are many other possibly interesting things and I posses somewhere >north of 10,000 other emails and documents I've yet to go through. >Rhizome's extremely close ties with Wieden + Kennedy, the agenda of a >board >dominated by VC's, advertisers and art consultants, their internal >criticisms of certain artists and arts organisations, “seeding” HTC >phones, >their targeting of newly wealthy techies, their offering to do talent >spotting for galleries because “we made Ryan Trecartin's career”: it >seems >a very particular strategy and learning directly from Rhizome's >playbook >has been a fantastic education. However I don't know if more of that >education needs to be reflected in the project, or if I even posses the >skillset to do it safely. It could be beneficial for artists and >students >of digital culture looking to understand how this system works at a >rather >critical time. Or it might be fluff for voyeurs and that's all I am. >Rhizome's silence on the matter was also striking: tech style best >practice >is to publicly acknowledge a breach, its scope, and your response. >Perhaps >I could goad them into it through more releases but I'm unconvinced of >its >further power as an Artwork. > >I do feel confident in the work thus far. The performative nature of >the >work was very real for me. The ontological questions of digital art >ownership and "unauthorised" code I think are valid. The limited email >release of clearly dodgy & possibly criminal behaviour explored >post-Snowden privacy and politics. I took a 6 months break to let >things >simmer down and my intentions are now to find a permanent online home >for >the work as it stands, then submit it for inclusion in the Rhizome >Artbase. >I will try to participate in any discussion of the work on this thread >although I am using a temporary email account. For discussion that >needs to >be more secure you could tweet your request with #jiggawebz93 and I'll >try >to find you and your PGP key. > >All the best > >JIGGAWEBZ93 > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >NetBehaviour mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
Good work, they should never have got the ace money. Slime. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. pls xcz my brvty. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
