BIO
Curt Cloninger is an artist, writer, and Associate Professor of New Media at the University of North Carolina Asheville. His art undermines language as a system of meaning in order to reveal it as an embodied force in the world. His art work has been featured in the New York Times and at festivals and galleries from Korea to Brazil. Exhibition venues include Centre Georges Pompidou (Paris), Granoff Center for The Creative Arts (Brown University), Digital Art Museum [DAM] (Berlin), Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art (Chicago), Black Mountain College Museum + Arts Center, and the internet. He is the recipient of several grants and awards, including commissions for the creation of new artwork from the National Endowment for the Arts (via Turbulence.org) and Austin Peay State University's Terminal Award.
Cloninger has written on a wide range of topics, including new media and internet art, installation and performance art, experimental graphic design, popular music, network culture, and continental philosophy. His articles have appeared in Intelligent Agent, Mute, Paste, Tekka, Rhizome Digest, A List Apart, and on ABC World News. He is also the author of eight books, most recently One Per Year (Link Editions). He maintains lab404.com, playdamage.org , and deepyoung.org in hopes of facilitating a more lively remote dialogue with the Sundry Contagions of Wonder.
Cloninger has written on a wide range of topics, including new media and internet art, installation and performance art, experimental graphic design, popular music, network culture, and continental philosophy. His articles have appeared in Intelligent Agent, Mute, Paste, Tekka, Rhizome Digest, A List Apart, and on ABC World News. He is also the author of eight books, most recently One Per Year (Link Editions). He maintains lab404.com, playdamage.org , and deepyoung.org in hopes of facilitating a more lively remote dialogue with the Sundry Contagions of Wonder.
Re: between the "a" and the "t"
Thanks Rachel,
I'm just (nit-)picking on the illogical use of the word "at" in the
masthead. Rhizome could still prominently ackowledge the New Museum's
support in the masthead by rewording it so that it doesn't say a
rhizome is at someplace. But maybe I'm just a grammar nazi.
peace,
curt
At 11:31 AM -0400 9/30/03, Rachel Greene wrote:
>Hi Curt:
>
>
>I hear your point about the apparent contradiction of having a
>location attached to our logo on our homepage. Our programs are
>rhizomatic (decentralized, distributed, grassroots), but they are
>supported by a nonprofit organization that has an office (not a
>distributed virtual office but an actual little room) and a small
>staff (so small that we're really more of a collective node than a
>distributed network of individuals). This small nonprofit is now
>affiliated with the New Museum, but our programs and the Rhizome
>community remain globally dispersed and rhizomatic in nature. This
>affiliation won't change our mission, but it will help ensure our
>ability to continue to fulfill it, so we wanted to acknowledge the
>New Museum's support in a very prominent way.
>
>As for the NYC-centric bit, I actually keep tabs on the demographics
>of Rhizome editorial projects (especially, for obvious reasons,
>Digest and Net Art News) and there is not a heavy bias towards NYC.
>There are a lot of New Yorkers on Raw, and Francis and I live and
>work here, but I don't think "grossly NYC-centric" is a fair
>assessment.
>
>
>Very best,
>
>Rachel
>
>
>On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 11:19 AM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>
>>Hi everybody who reads rhizome raw,
>>
>>I just have to say that the new banner "rhizome.org --> at the new
>>museum" is grossly oxymoronic. A rhizome has no central node.
>>That's the famous point. You can't have a rhizome "at" anywhere.
>>I'm not even sure you can have a ".org" at anywhere. Are the .org
>>administrative duties housed within the New Museum org chart? Is
>>the .org site server hardware housed within the new museum building?
>>
>>In any other community, me pointing this out would just be semantic
>>nit-picking, but the whole ethos of this community (although it's
>>always been grossly NYC-centric) is virtuality and world-wide-ness.
>>The new site banner is antithetical to this ethos.
>>
>>Maybe rhizomatic strucutres are overly idealistic to begin with.
>>The physical network may allow it, but human's simply can't
>>paradigmatically accept it and fit it into the rest of their
>>hierarchized world.
>>
>>Or maybe it just played out that way in this one instance.
>>
>>Or maybe the banner simply needs to be changed to something more
>>accurate like:
>>"rhizome.org --> largely funded and run by the new museum"
>>
>>I'm not trying to dredge up the old anti-kapitalistik
>>stone-throwing. I don't have any intrinsic beef with hierarchy or
>>making money. The new partnership may prove to be the best tihng
>>for rhizome since sliced bacon. I'm just pointing out that the new
>>site banner don't make no sense.
>>
>>humbly,
>>curt
>>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
I'm just (nit-)picking on the illogical use of the word "at" in the
masthead. Rhizome could still prominently ackowledge the New Museum's
support in the masthead by rewording it so that it doesn't say a
rhizome is at someplace. But maybe I'm just a grammar nazi.
peace,
curt
At 11:31 AM -0400 9/30/03, Rachel Greene wrote:
>Hi Curt:
>
>
>I hear your point about the apparent contradiction of having a
>location attached to our logo on our homepage. Our programs are
>rhizomatic (decentralized, distributed, grassroots), but they are
>supported by a nonprofit organization that has an office (not a
>distributed virtual office but an actual little room) and a small
>staff (so small that we're really more of a collective node than a
>distributed network of individuals). This small nonprofit is now
>affiliated with the New Museum, but our programs and the Rhizome
>community remain globally dispersed and rhizomatic in nature. This
>affiliation won't change our mission, but it will help ensure our
>ability to continue to fulfill it, so we wanted to acknowledge the
>New Museum's support in a very prominent way.
>
>As for the NYC-centric bit, I actually keep tabs on the demographics
>of Rhizome editorial projects (especially, for obvious reasons,
>Digest and Net Art News) and there is not a heavy bias towards NYC.
>There are a lot of New Yorkers on Raw, and Francis and I live and
>work here, but I don't think "grossly NYC-centric" is a fair
>assessment.
>
>
>Very best,
>
>Rachel
>
>
>On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 11:19 AM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>
>>Hi everybody who reads rhizome raw,
>>
>>I just have to say that the new banner "rhizome.org --> at the new
>>museum" is grossly oxymoronic. A rhizome has no central node.
>>That's the famous point. You can't have a rhizome "at" anywhere.
>>I'm not even sure you can have a ".org" at anywhere. Are the .org
>>administrative duties housed within the New Museum org chart? Is
>>the .org site server hardware housed within the new museum building?
>>
>>In any other community, me pointing this out would just be semantic
>>nit-picking, but the whole ethos of this community (although it's
>>always been grossly NYC-centric) is virtuality and world-wide-ness.
>>The new site banner is antithetical to this ethos.
>>
>>Maybe rhizomatic strucutres are overly idealistic to begin with.
>>The physical network may allow it, but human's simply can't
>>paradigmatically accept it and fit it into the rest of their
>>hierarchized world.
>>
>>Or maybe it just played out that way in this one instance.
>>
>>Or maybe the banner simply needs to be changed to something more
>>accurate like:
>>"rhizome.org --> largely funded and run by the new museum"
>>
>>I'm not trying to dredge up the old anti-kapitalistik
>>stone-throwing. I don't have any intrinsic beef with hierarchy or
>>making money. The new partnership may prove to be the best tihng
>>for rhizome since sliced bacon. I'm just pointing out that the new
>>site banner don't make no sense.
>>
>>humbly,
>>curt
>>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
between the "a" and the "t"
Hi everybody who reads rhizome raw,
I just have to say that the new banner "rhizome.org --> at the new
museum" is grossly oxymoronic. A rhizome has no central node.
That's the famous point. You can't have a rhizome "at" anywhere.
I'm not even sure you can have a ".org" at anywhere. Are the .org
administrative duties housed within the New Museum org chart? Is the
.org site server hardware housed within the new museum building?
In any other community, me pointing this out would just be semantic
nit-picking, but the whole ethos of this community (although it's
always been grossly NYC-centric) is virtuality and world-wide-ness.
The new site banner is antithetical to this ethos.
Maybe rhizomatic strucutres are overly idealistic to begin with. The
physical network may allow it, but human's simply can't
paradigmatically accept it and fit it into the rest of their
hierarchized world.
Or maybe it just played out that way in this one instance.
Or maybe the banner simply needs to be changed to something more accurate like:
"rhizome.org --> largely funded and run by the new museum"
I'm not trying to dredge up the old anti-kapitalistik stone-throwing.
I don't have any intrinsic beef with hierarchy or making money. The
new partnership may prove to be the best tihng for rhizome since
sliced bacon. I'm just pointing out that the new site banner don't
make no sense.
humbly,
curt
I just have to say that the new banner "rhizome.org --> at the new
museum" is grossly oxymoronic. A rhizome has no central node.
That's the famous point. You can't have a rhizome "at" anywhere.
I'm not even sure you can have a ".org" at anywhere. Are the .org
administrative duties housed within the New Museum org chart? Is the
.org site server hardware housed within the new museum building?
In any other community, me pointing this out would just be semantic
nit-picking, but the whole ethos of this community (although it's
always been grossly NYC-centric) is virtuality and world-wide-ness.
The new site banner is antithetical to this ethos.
Maybe rhizomatic strucutres are overly idealistic to begin with. The
physical network may allow it, but human's simply can't
paradigmatically accept it and fit it into the rest of their
hierarchized world.
Or maybe it just played out that way in this one instance.
Or maybe the banner simply needs to be changed to something more accurate like:
"rhizome.org --> largely funded and run by the new museum"
I'm not trying to dredge up the old anti-kapitalistik stone-throwing.
I don't have any intrinsic beef with hierarchy or making money. The
new partnership may prove to be the best tihng for rhizome since
sliced bacon. I'm just pointing out that the new site banner don't
make no sense.
humbly,
curt
Re: RE: pre-modern [kodachrome/wunderkammer remix]
Hi Ryan,
Later on in the passage I included by Weschler, he wonders if
cyclically, pre-modern and post-modern might be one and the same.
Here's a difference (and to me, no small one). The medieval goal is
to discover true relationships and proceed along those lines. To
quote Kenneth Clark, "That's the medieval mind. They cared
passionately about the truth, but their sense of evidence was
different than ours." The postmodern goal is to make over things as
we see fit, because there are no true relationships.
Tolkein would call the former art and the latter magic.
peace,
curt
Ryan griffis wrote:
> "For one thing, people believed that words and objects
> really corresponded to each other -- that there was
> something inherently
> 'lionny' about the word 'lion'..."
>
> or another way...
>
> "To extend or operationalize these insights about
> language as material to genetics research - to see how
> genes, like language, are malleable and subject to
> political organization-we need to recognize that the
> codes of DNA are no more or less metaphorical than the
> codes outside DNA. Both are part of the environment
> that shapes various events, ranging from the political
> and economic forces of "environmental racism" that
> lead to higher incidences of asthma among African
> Americans than European Americans to the legal
> struggles against this disparity to the possibility
> that some genetic factors may contribute to disease
> disparities (though so far these have not been
> isolated as the source of this difference)"
> From J Stevens, "Symbolic Matter"
> http://jacquelinestevens.org/articlesessays.htm
Later on in the passage I included by Weschler, he wonders if
cyclically, pre-modern and post-modern might be one and the same.
Here's a difference (and to me, no small one). The medieval goal is
to discover true relationships and proceed along those lines. To
quote Kenneth Clark, "That's the medieval mind. They cared
passionately about the truth, but their sense of evidence was
different than ours." The postmodern goal is to make over things as
we see fit, because there are no true relationships.
Tolkein would call the former art and the latter magic.
peace,
curt
Ryan griffis wrote:
> "For one thing, people believed that words and objects
> really corresponded to each other -- that there was
> something inherently
> 'lionny' about the word 'lion'..."
>
> or another way...
>
> "To extend or operationalize these insights about
> language as material to genetics research - to see how
> genes, like language, are malleable and subject to
> political organization-we need to recognize that the
> codes of DNA are no more or less metaphorical than the
> codes outside DNA. Both are part of the environment
> that shapes various events, ranging from the political
> and economic forces of "environmental racism" that
> lead to higher incidences of asthma among African
> Americans than European Americans to the legal
> struggles against this disparity to the possibility
> that some genetic factors may contribute to disease
> disparities (though so far these have not been
> isolated as the source of this difference)"
> From J Stevens, "Symbolic Matter"
> http://jacquelinestevens.org/articlesessays.htm
pre-modern [kodachrome/wunderkammer remix]
In his book _Art & Discontent: Theory at the Millenium_, the art
critic Thomas McEvilley develops the notion of the periodic
recurrence of the postmodern, or rather the theory that modernist and
postmodernist tendencies have actually been following one upon the
other throughout history... I suppose in thinking of the Museum of
Jurassic Technology, we might similarly speak of the periodic
recurrence of the *pre*modern."
- Lawrence Weschler, 1995
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The philosopher Michael Foucault describes how in the Middle Ages,
the world was experienced in a completely different way. Things that
we now view as being unrelated were, at that time, considered to be
intimately connected.
For one thing, people believed that words and objects really
corresponded to each other -- that there was something inherently
'lionny' about the word 'lion' and that a plant that looked like a
brain (a cabbage for instance) could be used as a medicine that was
good for your brain. The object of medieval science was to identify
all these connections, and incorporate them into a grand scheme of
creation. God was considered to be the Great Thinker in the
background who had conceived the world in this coherent way.
It was only in the Renaissance that people began hesitantly,
haltingly, to split things up. In the Age of Enlightenment reason
and analysis reigned supreme. The world was cleanly laid out in
different categories and subdivisions, clearly discernable from one
another.
Designers tend to think in terms of finding or making connections.
they are inclined to use association and analogies to create new
possibilities for solutions.
Designers are basically medieval in the way they think."
- Kees Dorst, 2003
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.militantesthetix.co.uk/osfa/osfa28.jpg
http://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/cgi-bin/12.228.185.206/html/wor
dsinimages/keydreams.jpg
http://deepyoung.org/sister
http://www.thesoundofsimon.com/kodachrome.html
_
_
critic Thomas McEvilley develops the notion of the periodic
recurrence of the postmodern, or rather the theory that modernist and
postmodernist tendencies have actually been following one upon the
other throughout history... I suppose in thinking of the Museum of
Jurassic Technology, we might similarly speak of the periodic
recurrence of the *pre*modern."
- Lawrence Weschler, 1995
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The philosopher Michael Foucault describes how in the Middle Ages,
the world was experienced in a completely different way. Things that
we now view as being unrelated were, at that time, considered to be
intimately connected.
For one thing, people believed that words and objects really
corresponded to each other -- that there was something inherently
'lionny' about the word 'lion' and that a plant that looked like a
brain (a cabbage for instance) could be used as a medicine that was
good for your brain. The object of medieval science was to identify
all these connections, and incorporate them into a grand scheme of
creation. God was considered to be the Great Thinker in the
background who had conceived the world in this coherent way.
It was only in the Renaissance that people began hesitantly,
haltingly, to split things up. In the Age of Enlightenment reason
and analysis reigned supreme. The world was cleanly laid out in
different categories and subdivisions, clearly discernable from one
another.
Designers tend to think in terms of finding or making connections.
they are inclined to use association and analogies to create new
possibilities for solutions.
Designers are basically medieval in the way they think."
- Kees Dorst, 2003
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.militantesthetix.co.uk/osfa/osfa28.jpg
http://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/cgi-bin/12.228.185.206/html/wor
dsinimages/keydreams.jpg
http://deepyoung.org/sister
http://www.thesoundofsimon.com/kodachrome.html
_
_
Re: Don't Call it Art: Ars Electronica 2003
Hi Lev,
It seems to me the "problem" with software-centric art lies more with
a general curatorial inability to contextualize it within
contemporary art, and less with the software artist's inability to
intentionally fit herself into a contemporary art context. Yes,
Duchamp is remembered because of his ability to contextualize his
work, but then a major goal of his work was to criticize art
institutions. So of course he is well remembered for this -- *by art
institutions.* It's the same reason that books about the web sell
inordinately better at Amazon that at brick and-mortar-stores --
because people who surf the web are inordinately interested in the
web. Art historians and critics are inordinately interested in
"defining art moments," "new movements," etc., particularly ones with
clear and discernible narratives. Manifestos-R-Us. So the "problem"
is not that generative/reactive art as a genre lacks a cohesive,
self-aware narrative; the problem is that contemporary art historians
expects such a narrative.
compared to Duchamp's work, Lia's work [ http://www.re-move.org ] is
much less self-aware, but is it any less valuable? Were she Vannevar
Bush (or even Golan Levin), she would perhaps be more inclined/able
to write para-art texts eloquently and perspicaciously situating her
own work in terms of contemporary culture. But should such didactic
self-awareness necessarily be the artist's role? I assume Lia is
well-enough aware of how her work fits in. She curated the online
section of the AbstractionNow exhibit that you mention [
http://www.abstraction-now.at/the-online-project/ ].
A lot of reactive/auto-generative art is, for lack of a better term,
outsider art. The time, aptitude, and obsessive exploration it takes
to even be able to create stuff in this genre means its practitioners
are more likely to spend their time listening to underground net
radio and tweaking code than perusing Adorno and Foucault. So a rift
developes. On the one hand, you have a group of contemporary artists
swimming in conceptual allusion, but their work displays the
aesthetic craftsmanship of a wet mop. On the other hand, you've got
these idiot savante coder geeks cranking out gorgeous stuff, with no
idea of (or concern with) how it might fit in anywhere.
The new media artist needs a new media curator, and the outsider new
media artist may even need an outsider new media curator, as
Anne-Marie Schleiner observes:
http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_No1_curation_schleiner.html
The RUNME.ORG categories are a good example. Alexei created an
entirely new category ("institutional critique") for one of my
pieces. For a while, my piece was the only one in that category, but
now there are two more:
http://runme.org/categories/+institutional_critique/
This "curation as ongoing research" approach is a much more robust
way to deal with emerging media. Rather than playing canonical
gatekeeper ("we know what belongs *inside* and what stays
*outside*"), the curator acts more like a documentary archivist,
along for the ride, analyzing as he goes, wondering where it will all
end up.
There are software artists who have both the skills and the concepts.
Golan Levin and Mark Napier come to mind. Carnivore is particularly
ingenious in its partitioning of skills and concepts. Alex Galloway
took care of the conceptual load up-front (or more accurately,
in-back), and then he farmed out the sensory-aware aesthetics to
those artists interested in developing the modules. Thus e8z was
free to make a wacky 3D world, josh davis was free to make some
pleasant and well designed circles, etc. The conceptual artist did
what he was good at without having to tackle sensory effects, and the
coder artists did what they were good at without having to carry the
full load of establishing an overarching conceptual context for their
work. Kind of like an information architect collaborating with a web
designer. Carnivore has a back-end and a front-end, not just
technichally but also artistically. Very clever.
Finally (and this is sort of off topic), when you say "design," you
seem to have graphic design in mind. But design encompasses 3D
product design, new media design, software design, and even
architecture. Not just Klee but also Gropius, so to speak. When
Casey Reas tells you he is a designer, he's probably referring to
design in this broader sense, as a discipline that approaches
problems from a uniuqe perspective known as "design." (Casey, if
you're reading this, feel free to chime in.) This broader definition
of design might situate it closer to software art than you originally
allow.
peace,
curt
It seems to me the "problem" with software-centric art lies more with
a general curatorial inability to contextualize it within
contemporary art, and less with the software artist's inability to
intentionally fit herself into a contemporary art context. Yes,
Duchamp is remembered because of his ability to contextualize his
work, but then a major goal of his work was to criticize art
institutions. So of course he is well remembered for this -- *by art
institutions.* It's the same reason that books about the web sell
inordinately better at Amazon that at brick and-mortar-stores --
because people who surf the web are inordinately interested in the
web. Art historians and critics are inordinately interested in
"defining art moments," "new movements," etc., particularly ones with
clear and discernible narratives. Manifestos-R-Us. So the "problem"
is not that generative/reactive art as a genre lacks a cohesive,
self-aware narrative; the problem is that contemporary art historians
expects such a narrative.
compared to Duchamp's work, Lia's work [ http://www.re-move.org ] is
much less self-aware, but is it any less valuable? Were she Vannevar
Bush (or even Golan Levin), she would perhaps be more inclined/able
to write para-art texts eloquently and perspicaciously situating her
own work in terms of contemporary culture. But should such didactic
self-awareness necessarily be the artist's role? I assume Lia is
well-enough aware of how her work fits in. She curated the online
section of the AbstractionNow exhibit that you mention [
http://www.abstraction-now.at/the-online-project/ ].
A lot of reactive/auto-generative art is, for lack of a better term,
outsider art. The time, aptitude, and obsessive exploration it takes
to even be able to create stuff in this genre means its practitioners
are more likely to spend their time listening to underground net
radio and tweaking code than perusing Adorno and Foucault. So a rift
developes. On the one hand, you have a group of contemporary artists
swimming in conceptual allusion, but their work displays the
aesthetic craftsmanship of a wet mop. On the other hand, you've got
these idiot savante coder geeks cranking out gorgeous stuff, with no
idea of (or concern with) how it might fit in anywhere.
The new media artist needs a new media curator, and the outsider new
media artist may even need an outsider new media curator, as
Anne-Marie Schleiner observes:
http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_No1_curation_schleiner.html
The RUNME.ORG categories are a good example. Alexei created an
entirely new category ("institutional critique") for one of my
pieces. For a while, my piece was the only one in that category, but
now there are two more:
http://runme.org/categories/+institutional_critique/
This "curation as ongoing research" approach is a much more robust
way to deal with emerging media. Rather than playing canonical
gatekeeper ("we know what belongs *inside* and what stays
*outside*"), the curator acts more like a documentary archivist,
along for the ride, analyzing as he goes, wondering where it will all
end up.
There are software artists who have both the skills and the concepts.
Golan Levin and Mark Napier come to mind. Carnivore is particularly
ingenious in its partitioning of skills and concepts. Alex Galloway
took care of the conceptual load up-front (or more accurately,
in-back), and then he farmed out the sensory-aware aesthetics to
those artists interested in developing the modules. Thus e8z was
free to make a wacky 3D world, josh davis was free to make some
pleasant and well designed circles, etc. The conceptual artist did
what he was good at without having to tackle sensory effects, and the
coder artists did what they were good at without having to carry the
full load of establishing an overarching conceptual context for their
work. Kind of like an information architect collaborating with a web
designer. Carnivore has a back-end and a front-end, not just
technichally but also artistically. Very clever.
Finally (and this is sort of off topic), when you say "design," you
seem to have graphic design in mind. But design encompasses 3D
product design, new media design, software design, and even
architecture. Not just Klee but also Gropius, so to speak. When
Casey Reas tells you he is a designer, he's probably referring to
design in this broader sense, as a discipline that approaches
problems from a uniuqe perspective known as "design." (Casey, if
you're reading this, feel free to chime in.) This broader definition
of design might situate it closer to software art than you originally
allow.
peace,
curt