There is, or should be, a natural animosity netween new media artists (and artists in general) and corporations. Not that such artists necessarily disfavor capitalism and its legal forms. It goes deeper than that.

There is, or should be, a natural animosity between art and ANY dominant and out-of-control form in any society, because art, in its highest and deepest role, is not aiming to encourage the ambitions of these forms - such as material acquisitions or corporate profits beyond the level of reasonable well-being for the society. In the US the corporate form has taken us way beyond that stage and we are not behaving responsibly towards the planet and our neighbors on it.

Nor is art aimed at the type or extent of control over human behavior sought by governments or big established religions. ART, IN ITS HIGHEST AND BEST FORM, IS ANOTHER 'WAY.'

To the extent that Rhizome becomes dependent for its existence on these other societal "branches" it's authentic representation of another "way" - the way of art - is weakened.

Take a close look at what happens to the institutions that seek out corporate funding. See how the content of the shows and projects begin to reflect corporate goals. And obviously, healthy criticism of corporate conduct is muted.

So I would much rather see Rhizome try to stay self-sustaining and maintain the strength of independence then adopt the whorish behavior of such institutions as the Guggenheim.

Could someone point me to a detailed list of what Rhizome needs, physically and financially, to fulfill its planned role in the years ahead? And a specification of what its orginizational ambitions are? That's the starting point - setting the goals.

Daniel Young