It would still be misguided to try and define ASUs in a way that includes some and excludes others. However, where do we draw the line? Would we hesitate to recognise commercial art sites such as eyestorm. com or the web-sites of big museums like the Whitney or the Guggenheim as ASU, even if they take on supportive activities such as commissioning or promoting? Is it just a matter of scale, is only small beautiful and the biggies are the baddies? We hope that the 'institutional question' will be discussed more soberly and more in depth at ASU2. Much confusion seems to surround this questions and many prejeduces are brought in. However, 'institutions' in the generic sense of the word, are socially negotiated ways of organising certain tasks in society.

Much more than any physical circumstances or resources what counts in this new immaterial sphere of work is the social fabric of people who are involved. The apparent lack of hierarchic structure of networks does not mean that there are not some people who hold more power, exert more influence, which in return, creates envy or sometimes justified anger about lack of transparency and behind the scenes manoeuvring. Turmoil about the moderation of an important mailinglist recently has shown how such unresolved questions can generate some very destructive energy.

next >>