Re: Syndicate: Re: travelling and ISEA 2000

[trevor <tebatt@dds.nl>]

On 18-Jan-00, Andreas Broeckmann wrote:
>trevor <tebatt@dds.nl> wrote:

>>Was there not recently an invitation to meet at ISEA?
>>
>>Do all the syndicate members have access to funds allowing them to attend
>such
>>meetings -or is there a well funded elite developing who have the
financial
>>freedom to plan future developmemts for others while having no further
>>responsibility (or democratic feedback) for their decisions?

>dear trevor and others,

>if you have followed the syndicate, its meetings and this list over >last
years, you will know better than this. all meetings are
>announced via the list, great effort has been made by organisers to pay as
many of the travel
>costs as possible, and piles of references and invitations have been
>written so that people can apply for travel funding. remember for instance,
>in 99, budapest, helsinki, karlsruhe, where a large parts of the travel
>costs were paid for everybody who wanted to participate.

Well, to be honest -one would know this through participating -but not simply
by following the list (as far as I can see).

However, in fact, I was not trying to attack the list, but was concerned with
more general principles.

Clearly, one cannot expect (or wish) large sums of money from sincere and
dedicated people working on low budgets. Unfortunately, the financial support
given to participants in a wide range of manifestations does not always seem
to be in direct ratio to the budget of the organisation/manifestation
involved.


On 18 Jan 2000 andreas hagenbach wrote:
>>
>>Well, now you mention it -I notice that the (financial) conditions for
>>participating in festivals, conferences and other manifestations vary
>>enormously. While some organisations are prepared to pay travel and
>>accomodation (sometimes even additional expenses or a small fee) others
>>provide nothing and seem to support the local hotel and resturant industry
>>more than the artists.

>this is true, but there also are differencies between organisations.
>Kulturserver isn't such a new thing, one might expect them to raise money,
>which in these times should be possible. If they want to invest energy in
that,
>depends on how much they appreciate art work of others...

Maybe it would be nice to have a broader insight into how different
organisations work financially. Where are there genuine efforts to forge a
productive partnership -and where do things go more in the direction of a
commercial scam in order to exploit participants?

However, perhaps this is too idealistic and things are not that simple
(particularly in situations involving cooperation between different groups).

Possibly there is also a question of different cultures -the (university)
institute where I once studied used to have a budget for the teaching staff
(according to academic status) to visit conferences. In an art college this is
(in my experience) less normal, and for a non-grant supported artist it is out
of the
question.

I may also be (more than) a little thick, but I still do not understand the
relationship with isea. Are they offering facilities because they then hope
participants will pay them to get in to use the facilities which they have so
kindly offered?

>>If the net really is such a revolutionary medium -why are the users still
>>using it so conventionally?

>Why don't we have airials? It is nice to meet here and there people in
real.
>Others things are said much easier than through email.

Oh I agree absolutely. It was also not my intention to upset hardworking and
dedicated people. However I do not have a happy relationship with either the
cultural or funding systems in my area (my own fault -for not living in
Rotterdam ;-)).

So I am a little (too) sensitive about these things -and would perhaps like to
find some way (other than experiencing hard kicks) of sorting sheep from goats
-or the goats from the wolves (perhaps with a little help from my friends).


Surely, basic to all this is the question of the role of the artist and how
the work should be funded (with or without the internet). To be honest -I am
not sure myself. Sometimes I would say that artists should be concidered as an
academic -but this gives evaluation (and other) problems. Or perhaps they
should be automatically concidered to be like a foundation (also problems of
who qualifies, etc...), or perhaps I would like to be supported by the
community and work for free (although this can lead to problems of
distribution of resources), or perhaps ??????.........

On the other hand, there is perhaps a certain irony, concidering the
commercial fight for control of the net -if people (like me/us) fight for
support in order to develop a system which might work most efficiently when
completely free!

Is seems that it is not only the large companies who need to clarify their
position regarding the economic implications of the net.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 Inke Arns wrote:

>Benjamin Heidersberger is not a curator, he is the director (or so, I don't
>know the exact position) -- he is the director / co-founder of
>*Kulturserver*. So, if I understand this correctly, the sponsor
>(Kulturserver) is the curator for the net art competition? Whow. Is this
>serious?

Guess it all depends if the subject is a exhibition or an art work (or whether
one believes there is a difference or not).

Or, on how much one likes self-referencing systems (in theory or in
practice). I suppose things would get really interesting if he was also to
become the winnar!

best wishes,
trevor


------Syndicate mailinglist--------------------
 Syndicate network for media culture and media art
 information and archive: http://www.v2.nl/syndicate
 to unsubscribe, write to <syndicate-request@aec.at>
 in the body of the msg: unsubscribe your@email.adress