Mark Tribe
Since 2004
Works in New York, New York United States of America

Mark Tribe is an artist whose work explores the intersection of media technology and politics. His photographs, installations, videos, and performances are exhibited widely, including recent solo projects at Momenta Art in New York, the San Diego Museum of Art, G-MK in Zagreb, and Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions. Tribe is the author of two books, The Port Huron Project: Reenactments of New Left Protest Speeches (Charta, 2010) and New Media Art (Taschen, 2006), and numerous articles. He is Chair of the MFA Fine Arts Department at School of Visual Arts in New York City. In 1996, Tribe founded Rhizome, an organization that supports the creation, presentation, preservation, and critique of emerging artistic practices that engage technology.
Discussions (109) Opportunities (17) Events (22) Jobs (0)

Whitney Director Max Anderson Resigns

From the New York Times, May 13, 2003:

"Maxwell L. Anderson, director of the Whitney Museum of American Art,
resigned Monday after a tumultuous five years in the post, the museum
announced... During his tenure Mr. Anderson built the museum's collections
by establishing acquisition committees in previously unsupported areas like
film and video, architecture, and new media."

Full story at


Mirapaul on Dietz Departure

From the New York Times, May 13, 2003:

"The Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, which has been a strong supporter of
Internet art, has dismissed the curator for its online art projects... the
center's director, Kathy Halbreich, said plans to build a digital-art
gallery would be deferred for at least five years... Under Mr. Dietz, who
joined the Walker in 1996, the center has vigorously supported the notion
of the Internet as a creative medium by commissioning a series of
online-only artworks and organizing several Web-based exhibitions... Ms.
Halbreich said she intended to keep the projects online but could not
commit to doing so until the cost was determined."

Full story at


Re: Re: [thingist] Steve Dietz Out at Walker Art Center

At 12:37 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>The archive is clearly not stealing anyones work, but let's be honest,
>Rhizome benefits from having and maintaining the archive whereas artists can
>simply make back up cds and keep the sites up independantly if they wanted
>to. The proof of this is the ratio of cloned objects compared to linked
>objects- almost nothing is cloned. [The one piece I personally gave to the
>artbase is cloned.]

The Rhizome ArtBase currently contains 270 cloned art works and 716 linked
art works.


Re: Re: [thingist] Steve Dietz Out at Walker Art Center

At 12:37 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

>Rhizome also has a problem with truly archiving work in that the archive is
>not immune to browser changes, a problem that has been brought up when they
>opened the artbase but never really acted on. While they added more than one
>piece a day to the archive last year, the principal strategy seems to be
>"emulation" which is, they will re-write the code to work for new browsers.

Actually, emulation referrs to running old software on new hardware by
installing emulators (kind of like running Windows software on a Mac using
Virtual PC. Imagine, for example, that we are living in the year 2018 and
want to experience a work of net art that was made in 1998. This art works
best on the Netscape 4 web browser (not sure if Netscape for is the right
browser for 1998, but you get the idea), but the Netscape web browser is
obsolete--you can't even install it on your fancy new Macintosh GS11
computer. So you download a Pentium II emulator and install it. Then you
download free copies of the obsolete software you need: Windows 98,
Netscape 4, maybe a particular Shockwave plug-in. After installing all
these, you can enter the URL of the art work, and experience the art. There
are several problems. It will be difficult and expensive to make emulators.
We can only hope that smart people will want to make them and that
institutions with major resoruces will pay for it. Second, nobody that we
know if us archiving operating systems, browsers and plug-ins (not to
mention all the other software that other forms of new media art might
require). Third, nobody is keeping track of the software required to run a
given work of art. We'll probably be able to work that out retrospectively,
but it would be much better to get the information up-front from the
artist. Rhizome does not have the resources to archive commercial software
(we looked into it, and it's harder than it sounds to do it in a thorough
and organized way). Right now, we are focused on the third problem: getting
info from artists on what software is needed to run the art work in an
ideal situation. In order to do that, we need funding. We applied for a
grant from the NEA to cover this, but we got much less than we asked for.
So this might have to wait a while (until the funding situation improves).

Alternatives to emulation include documentation (screen shots, etc.),
migration (updating old code to meet new specs) and recreation (rebuilding
old work from scratch so it would work in a new technological environment).

We have a lengthy questionnaire for artists who submit copies of their work
(what we call cloned objects). For each of the four main preservation
tactics we contemplate (documentation, migration, emuation and recreation),
it asks for permission (i.e. do we have permission to document your work in
the future?), information (tech specs, etc.) and guidance (what's are the
most important aspects to preserve?).

This is all explained in some detail, including a copy of the
questionnaire, at

For a report by Rick Rinehart that talks about emulation and sets out a
plan for gathering information on required software, see

>I feel like if rhizome was serious about the artbase they would have
>addressed these issues by now,

We have addressed these issues, Eryk. You just haven't been paying attention.



Re: Re: [thingist] Steve Dietz Out at Walker Art Center

At 09:46 AM 5/12/2003 -0400, t.whid wrote:


>The funny thing about the work possibly being lost from the Walker servers
>is that rhizome had set-up a system where they would archive work... the
>artbase clone feature, do they clone any longer?


as of may 1, the artbase had 984 art works. not sure how many are cloned
vs. linked. in the case of linked art works, the artist has supplied
information about the art work and a link to it, but has not provided a
copy of the work itself. in the case of cloned art works, the artist has
provided information as well as a copy of the work to be stored on our
server for posterity.

>and people were angry that rhizome didn't pay them for the privilege of
>archiving their work. If any other sort of grassroots org or Eyebeam
>offered this service, would people take advantage of it? Or would they
>complain that this org was 'stealing' their work? 'using' them for the org
>admin's advantage?
>it would be nice if someone, The Thing or Rhizome, could organize a huge
>archive of the web/internet work, Rhizome tried and people bitched and
>moaned about it. Perhaps it was the way Rhiz went about it?

there was a bit of bitching and moaning, but there has also been a lot of

>So maybe a new grassroots org could rise to handle just archiving, storing
>work. It ain't cheap, the disk space, bandwidth, searchable index,
>interface development might cost you more than 5 bucks a year. Rhizome has
>all of this going on already of course, but they don't push the cloned art
>objects much anymore, people didn't want to 'give' away their files.

we don't push it, but we do give each artist the option. artists can also
change their minds later. so if you've submitted a linked object and would
like to give us a copy for safe keeping, you can do so at any time.