In his press blurb for the "Charged Hearts" exhibition [see "<a
href="/cgi-local/query.cgi?action=grab_object&kt=kt0713">Catherine Richards'
'Charged Hearts'</a>" in the RHIZOME CONTENTBASE, 7.10.97], Jean Gagnon wrote:

…the Internet component of this installation is accessible through the
National Gallery's Web site…

Yet Robert Adrian sees it differently:

This is not altogether true. The site is accessible all right - but only
to people with institutional resources or lotsa money for private
bandwidth. I just spent about 5 minutes waiting for the information
(250k of it on a 28.8 modem) that I would need to spend at least another
20 minutes downloading the "latest" version of a proprietary media
product in order get a look at the stuff I had just downloaded from Ms.
Richard's site.

I did, however, get to look at the logos of various software firms and
sponsors. The fact that this is the only information I received implies
that it is the essential content of the piece. The message I received
was: "This is a high-tech state-of-the-art site and we, the sponsors of
this site, invite you to join us in our vision of the future. If your
equipment and resources are insufficient then you are failing in your
duties as a 'netizen' and the 21st century will be starting without you.
Get re-wired or get off-line!"

I did not wait to find out what Ms. Richards intended "content" was …

To describe AT&T's support as generous is either naive or just plain
old-fashioned brown-nosing. AT&T's support could not have been more than
what they normally pay for 30 seconds of network TV advertising. For
this bit of corporate small change they got their logo plastered all
over the Web site of the National Gallery (Canada's national art museum)
plus a prominent place in the publicity of the gallery.

[…]

Is RHIZOME really the place for this kind of corporate-sponsored hype?

Robbin Murphy (murph the surf) was the first to reply:

I upgraded my browser and seemed to have messed up my Shockwave plugin
so I didn't get very far in the piece. I've pretty much lost interest in
CD-ROM/Director projects ported to the Web anyway. They remind me of
lithographs that are made from photographing paintings. Nothing wrong
with that I guess but it doesn't show much involvement with material on
the part of the artist and I think that involvement is crucial right
now.

Fact of Life #1: Museums (at least in North America) are dependent on
corporate sponsorship.

Fact of Life #2: Media corporations (like AT&T, and Macromedia) have all
the money these days.

I'm supportive of projects that use the Internet to work without this
kind of corporate influence but at the same time I think it is wise to
consider how artists can influence the corporations or other
Non-Governmental Organizations. I only wish some of those corporate
types would get involved in RHIZOME and learn something. They won't, of
course.

AT&T is actually pretty supportive of alternative uses of their
products. The problem is that artists invited in only on the
consumer/commodity level or just before when critical mass is being
sought. Hence, a project has to be demonstratable/deliverable off-line
to the boardroom, at the trade fairs and the Museum kiosk.

sam de silva also replied:

Technology art will become different to other art-forms - it will be
accessible only by the richest of the rich … and those at well funded
academic and other institutions. And most probably, the technology
artists will love it. After all, lobster, sushi and champagne don't come
cheap ;)

The net and the digital medium provides the possibility of creating
accessible art - accessible by a global audience… but clunky authoring
technologies combined with the ignorance of the 'technology' artists
themselves are really destroying this potential.

But who can blame the 'artist' - the mega machine with infinite ram and
access to a lot of bandwidth was part of the funding deal.

Anyhow, does the audience really matter ?

Responding again, this time to Robbin Murphy's two "Facts of Life"
above, Robert Adrian adds:

True – but it should be insisted upon by artists, museum directors and
the responsible press that, in N. America at least, the sponsoring money
from these corporations comes from the public purse in the form of tax
write-offs. That is: the government delegates decisions about the
funding of cultural institutions to rich companies and individuals and
reimburses them under the tax law. In fact cultural sponsoring is not
only a good way to influence important and powerful potential customers
(who are hard to reach by normal advertising tactics), but also often
shows an after- tax profit for the very rich.

It would be more honest and effective to collect the tax and distribute
the money as a demonstration of society's belief in the importance of
art and culture rather than as a demostration of corporate "generosity",
which is not only inefficient but humiliating to the recipient (see J.
Gagnon's prostration before AT&T).

… my complaint is not that AT&T sponsors cultural projects and
programs but that it is seen as a "generous" act by people who should
know better. It is also clear that corporations are going to support
high profile projects … the money is, after all, out of the PR budget.
Bizniz is bizniz!