While we are coming to another dimension of the tired/wired worldview
concerning cultural productivity (creativity) and its relation to money
(yes, we love to hate it), take again the sector of dance music. And
take the fact that the US dance sector, in certain terms, just sucks.
Well just take it and think about the relation to Wall Street. Why there
was no risk venture capital investing into Drum & Bass, investing into
Techno etc. And sorry it wasn't European Government or Cultural grants
paying it over here. I think it's ok to try to dominate the
(media)market, but this doesn't mean that you automatically dominate the
minds and it doesn't mean that it hasn't certain costs on other sides
(like the degree of diversity). It also doesn't mean that you have to
adapt to a certain consumer taste, not as an (net)artist. There might be
easier businesses.

Surprisingly, there are interesting galleries, respectable artists, and
interesting works in the US digital culture, mainly working in the field
of digital artisanship in some companies or mediation of political
issues on the academies and surely i am very keen to see more of it. I
click along almost every second link which goes through RHIZOME. Thanks.

But sorry, an example, if i go to Hotwired's RGB i feel like in Planet
Hollywood, its too much cheesy Hyperreality, too much trying to be
cool.. it's what we call a bad club, too much money, not enough
intensity. Payed by INTEL, like WEST is paying for parties in Berlin. No
problem for the money they pay you as a poor artist, but if art is
always a kind of prostitution, then it matters in which bordelle you're
working, and how much you are praising yourself to get fucked for money.

Sure there is a thin line between virtual community and "net.gain" and
there are different cultures of commodity. But we should respect that
certain social contexts tend to authentify their modes of cultural
economy to escape the flow of capitalization, to set up certain security
schemes against exploitation. This is not at all new in art history.
There is no black and white situation, only the modes of hybridization
count, and the ability to look closely.

Back to the club: sure it's not for free and people are making a living
out of it, but does it need the stock market, does a club need the money
which works for more money? Sorry if i sound naive or even unrealistic.
I think it's worth it to hesitate a moment sometimes and rethink the
"terror of economy" even if it's in New York, at least when we are
speaking about aesthetics. Laisse-faire capitalism may not produce the
best of all possible art forms.

Why should we forget to develope different tastes in what sucks and what
not? It may become a new democratic consumer force. If the political
orientation is corrupted, there remains at least the aesthetical field,
which you can subjectify, which noone can take from you.

And concerning the net: no matter how new/old it is, let's not make an
old lady out of a young baby.