[recent news that net art site ada 'web will close has simultaneously
created interesting threads in many different online communities
including wwwac, nettime, RHIZOME and the thing nyc's bbs. below is just
one comment of many, made by ada 'web curator Benjamin Weil in response
to a claim by Paul Garrin on the nettime list that, for independent
media, "there is no free lunch." then, RHIZOME's Mark Tribe adds a few
words. for more on this topic, check out rhizome.com/query.htm,
www.desk.nl/~nettime or www.thing.net. -alex galloway]
+ + +
Paul Garrin:
>Don't be surprised! There is no free lunch. everything has it's
price.
Benjamin Weil:
this kind of commentary astounds me in that it demonstrates a remarkably
simplistic approach to the economy of the arts and culture in general.
it reminds me of those people who keep on saying that artists have to
starve in order to produce good work. it is at best romantic, at worst
idiotic.
art has *always* been supported by wealth, may it be individual patrons,
corporations, of the state (in modern times). there is no doubt that
there is a price to pay, that there is no "free lunch." nobody–except
maybe romantics or idiots–ever assumed that receiving funding from any
corpus was "free of charge." old masters, as we refer to them, had to
service the greed and power of individuals or families, and it did not
prevent them from being "free." their freedom was defined by the
constraints they had to accept in order to make their work. the notion
of the artist having "no obligation" to anyone except to her/his art is
something that only pushes this area of culture in a very marginal
position. any transaction implies the agreement between both parties
that there is something in it for each. the fact digital city, inc. has
decided to stop supporting adaweb only proves that this corporate entity
does not see its interest in supporting such a venture any longer.
public space on the net will only disappear if we decide so. just like
the notion of public space in the city disappears if it is not occupied.
it is a decision, not an occurance.
i would find it more constructive and interesting to take this as a
departure point to discuss the nature of the relationship between art
and its potential sponsors, so as to eventually come up with means to
convince the holders of wealth that they have an interest in supporting
activities that are not "profitable" in a purely capitalistic
understanding of the term. so far, most of that support was informed by
a valuation of culture that relied upon the notion of prestige, or
status. there must be other ways, more creative ones, to approach the
possibility of establishing satisfactory relationships with corporate
patrons.
mark tribe replied:
based on my recent experiences navigating the corporate waters, there
seem to be two primary factors that motivate corporations to fund
creative work: strategic marketing and what's know as "corporate
citizenship." the former, strategic marketing, is quite
straight-forward: companies tend to sponsor exhibitions, plays,
television programs, etc. to build brand name among potential customers,
suppliers or industry thought leaders. the second, corporate
citizenship, is more complex: most large corporate entities have
corporate citizenship policies that are geared toward enhancing overall
value for its stake-holders, including employees, equity-holders,
neighbors, customers, suppliers and partners. these corporations see
themselves as "citizens" of a market to which they must contribute value
if they are to succeed in the long term.
the key is to demonstrate the value of a creative project to a corporate
sponsor by identifying the ways in which the project aligns with and
supports these motivators.
