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: portrait of the artist as a young editor
I trust you are correct. I'm less interested in Cage here as in the
idea that Brakhage is attributing to him. In the same interview,
Brakhage relates an incident where Pollock cusses a bunch of critics
who imply that Pollock's work was produced by chance operations.
I personally get more out of Brakhage's actual output/work than
either Pollock's or Cage's, which makes me interested in his process.
What he's saying below seems particularly applicable to contemporary
generative art, which is why I posted it. Critics and theorists tout
the idea of the beauty of randomness, but ask lia or golan levin or
josh davis or anyone who is hands-on coding generative art, and I
believe they will side more with brakhange on the issue. Josh Davis
is currently developing software that analyzes the semi-random
iterations that his generative software produces, and harvesting the
iterations most likely to aesthetically appeal to him. Portrait of
the artist as meta-editor.
At 11:54 AM -0700 6/18/04, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>Brakhage was a genius and I revere him.
>He's totally wrong here on Cage though, Curt - there's
>actually no evidence at all that Cage ever did filter
>his random operations through anything so mundane as
>his hearing and the application of any conscious
>judgement, except his commitment to the random.
>Arnold Schoenberg said of him "John Cage is not a
>composer but an inventor, of genius" & people have got
>so used to quoting that as if implied an endorsement
>by one trailblazer for another that they miss the
>sting in its tail.
>I think he was an interesting guy but, a bit like
>Duchamp, please spare me the epigones, especially the
>third generation ones!
>best
>michael
>
>
>--- Curt Cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
>> Frankly, I don't see any chance operations in John
>> Cage's work
>> either. He tried many different things as I did,
>> and in that sense,
>> yes, I have thrown the dice many different ways --
>> hazard of the
>> dice, right? -- and rejected almost all of them. He
>> dipped
>> toothbrush in ink and splattered it across page and
>> threw dice and
>> put notations as to whether those were whole notes,
>> quarter notes,
>> eighth notes, whatever; played it; and threw most of
>> it away. And
>> when he found something that he liked, he kept it.
>> "Liked" would be
>> too small a word. When he found something that
>> seemed from his soul
>> that he could respond to it, and be in charge of it
>> therefore, and
>> sign it, give it out to the world. Why, it seems
>> the same way to me;
>> that's the way I work.
>>
>> - stan brakhage, 1996
>>
>> _
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
>> open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
>> out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
idea that Brakhage is attributing to him. In the same interview,
Brakhage relates an incident where Pollock cusses a bunch of critics
who imply that Pollock's work was produced by chance operations.
I personally get more out of Brakhage's actual output/work than
either Pollock's or Cage's, which makes me interested in his process.
What he's saying below seems particularly applicable to contemporary
generative art, which is why I posted it. Critics and theorists tout
the idea of the beauty of randomness, but ask lia or golan levin or
josh davis or anyone who is hands-on coding generative art, and I
believe they will side more with brakhange on the issue. Josh Davis
is currently developing software that analyzes the semi-random
iterations that his generative software produces, and harvesting the
iterations most likely to aesthetically appeal to him. Portrait of
the artist as meta-editor.
At 11:54 AM -0700 6/18/04, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>Brakhage was a genius and I revere him.
>He's totally wrong here on Cage though, Curt - there's
>actually no evidence at all that Cage ever did filter
>his random operations through anything so mundane as
>his hearing and the application of any conscious
>judgement, except his commitment to the random.
>Arnold Schoenberg said of him "John Cage is not a
>composer but an inventor, of genius" & people have got
>so used to quoting that as if implied an endorsement
>by one trailblazer for another that they miss the
>sting in its tail.
>I think he was an interesting guy but, a bit like
>Duchamp, please spare me the epigones, especially the
>third generation ones!
>best
>michael
>
>
>--- Curt Cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
>> Frankly, I don't see any chance operations in John
>> Cage's work
>> either. He tried many different things as I did,
>> and in that sense,
>> yes, I have thrown the dice many different ways --
>> hazard of the
>> dice, right? -- and rejected almost all of them. He
>> dipped
>> toothbrush in ink and splattered it across page and
>> threw dice and
>> put notations as to whether those were whole notes,
>> quarter notes,
>> eighth notes, whatever; played it; and threw most of
>> it away. And
>> when he found something that he liked, he kept it.
>> "Liked" would be
>> too small a word. When he found something that
>> seemed from his soul
>> that he could respond to it, and be in charge of it
>> therefore, and
>> sign it, give it out to the world. Why, it seems
>> the same way to me;
>> that's the way I work.
>>
>> - stan brakhage, 1996
>>
>> _
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
>> open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
>> out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
portrait of the artist as a young editor
Frankly, I don't see any chance operations in John Cage's work
either. He tried many different things as I did, and in that sense,
yes, I have thrown the dice many different ways -- hazard of the
dice, right? -- and rejected almost all of them. He dipped
toothbrush in ink and splattered it across page and threw dice and
put notations as to whether those were whole notes, quarter notes,
eighth notes, whatever; played it; and threw most of it away. And
when he found something that he liked, he kept it. "Liked" would be
too small a word. When he found something that seemed from his soul
that he could respond to it, and be in charge of it therefore, and
sign it, give it out to the world. Why, it seems the same way to me;
that's the way I work.
- stan brakhage, 1996
_
either. He tried many different things as I did, and in that sense,
yes, I have thrown the dice many different ways -- hazard of the
dice, right? -- and rejected almost all of them. He dipped
toothbrush in ink and splattered it across page and threw dice and
put notations as to whether those were whole notes, quarter notes,
eighth notes, whatever; played it; and threw most of it away. And
when he found something that he liked, he kept it. "Liked" would be
too small a word. When he found something that seemed from his soul
that he could respond to it, and be in charge of it therefore, and
sign it, give it out to the world. Why, it seems the same way to me;
that's the way I work.
- stan brakhage, 1996
_
Re: Re: Re: Sound Recording on Mac
You can plug your headphones into your audio input jack and sing into them. If that sound quality is too objectionable, this is the standard low-end vocal microphone:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SM58/
> Here is another sound question:
>
> Does the quality of the microphone matter for recording myself on the
> computer making strange sounds? If so, could you suggest one? Price
> is important, but so is sound quality.
>
> J
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SM58/
> Here is another sound question:
>
> Does the quality of the microphone matter for recording myself on the
> computer making strange sounds? If so, could you suggest one? Price
> is important, but so is sound quality.
>
> J
Re: testing ISP Censorship
cf:
http://playdamage.org/getty/10.html
In a similar instance, my host basically told me -- "send us documentation saying that you think your content is legal, and then we'll leave the content up, and you can battle it out in court with the people who sent the cease & desist. We've done our part." So my host basically took themselves out of the loop and covered themselves at the same time.
But that was my particular host (pair networks).
It pays to read the fine print when you sign up with a host. If they say "we can remove anything and everything at our whim," and you sign it, then I suppose that's what you get. It would be interesting to read the "user terms of agreement" for the two hosts tested in the project below.
t.whid wrote:
> from slashdots summary:
>
> "As part of a research project, Christian Ahlert ran an interesting
> experiment. He posted John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, which is clearly
> in the public domain, on different ISPs. He then sent the ISPs phony
> copyright violation notices. The results are troubling, with ISPs
> "acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time."
>
> http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA553.htm
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid/06/10/1750232
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
http://playdamage.org/getty/10.html
In a similar instance, my host basically told me -- "send us documentation saying that you think your content is legal, and then we'll leave the content up, and you can battle it out in court with the people who sent the cease & desist. We've done our part." So my host basically took themselves out of the loop and covered themselves at the same time.
But that was my particular host (pair networks).
It pays to read the fine print when you sign up with a host. If they say "we can remove anything and everything at our whim," and you sign it, then I suppose that's what you get. It would be interesting to read the "user terms of agreement" for the two hosts tested in the project below.
t.whid wrote:
> from slashdots summary:
>
> "As part of a research project, Christian Ahlert ran an interesting
> experiment. He posted John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, which is clearly
> in the public domain, on different ISPs. He then sent the ISPs phony
> copyright violation notices. The results are troubling, with ISPs
> "acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time."
>
> http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA553.htm
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid/06/10/1750232
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>