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: Re: Net Art Market
It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more filmic/motion design.
ryan griffis wrote:
> hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
> projects?
> i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
> of
> their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
> art-based project...
> ryan
>
> On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back,
> > curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
> > experimental designers. The space is archived here:
> > http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.com/
>
ryan griffis wrote:
> hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
> projects?
> i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
> of
> their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
> art-based project...
> ryan
>
> On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back,
> > curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
> > experimental designers. The space is archived here:
> > http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.com/
>
Re: Re: Net Art Market
Hi Jason,
Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back, curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various experimental designers. The space is archived here:
http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.com/
_
Jason Nelson wrote:
> Jason and all,
>
> I've been toying with this idea of selling "net art'.
> It seems to me that what needs to happen is for
> artists or curators to convince others (companies,
> wealthy collectors, etc...) that featuring net art on
> their sites is the same thing as hanging paintings on
> the wall, or putting sculptures in the main foyer.
>
> Obviously websites, for many, are used as the main
> doorway for their customers. So having some net art
> work on a site would enchance their image and/or the
> scope of an art investor's collection.
>
> But then where would this artowrk be featured on the
> site? How big would it be, both in file size and in
> screen? Would you simply have it linked off the main
> page or have it hanging somewhere within a table?
>
> I honestly feel that this will come to pass
> eventually. It will just take a few collectors
> spending some cash and promoting the idea.
>
> does this sound feasible?
>
> Jason Nelson
Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back, curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various experimental designers. The space is archived here:
http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.com/
_
Jason Nelson wrote:
> Jason and all,
>
> I've been toying with this idea of selling "net art'.
> It seems to me that what needs to happen is for
> artists or curators to convince others (companies,
> wealthy collectors, etc...) that featuring net art on
> their sites is the same thing as hanging paintings on
> the wall, or putting sculptures in the main foyer.
>
> Obviously websites, for many, are used as the main
> doorway for their customers. So having some net art
> work on a site would enchance their image and/or the
> scope of an art investor's collection.
>
> But then where would this artowrk be featured on the
> site? How big would it be, both in file size and in
> screen? Would you simply have it linked off the main
> page or have it hanging somewhere within a table?
>
> I honestly feel that this will come to pass
> eventually. It will just take a few collectors
> spending some cash and promoting the idea.
>
> does this sound feasible?
>
> Jason Nelson
autobiographical
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2005/03/all-of-curt-cloningers-base-are-belong.html
http://www.playdamage.org/renga/
http://www.coldbacon.com/feedback/curtcloninger.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cell911/6567860/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noahkalina/10125938/ [in my dreams]
http://www.playdamage.org/at/
http://plagiarist.org/iy/cloninger.html
http://rhizome.org/directory/resumes/1000739.doc
_
http://www.playdamage.org/renga/
http://www.coldbacon.com/feedback/curtcloninger.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cell911/6567860/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/noahkalina/10125938/ [in my dreams]
http://www.playdamage.org/at/
http://plagiarist.org/iy/cloninger.html
http://rhizome.org/directory/resumes/1000739.doc
_
Re: hardcore conceptual digital art
Hi Tim,
Not exactly the same, but Josh Davis of Praystation fame writes generative software that cranks out stuff like this:
http://www.once-upon-a-forest.com
Josh mentioned in San Diego last year that he got tired of sitting there hitting refresh and having to personally assess which iterations he liked and which he didn't. So he was working on a separate program, teaching it to harvest the iterations that he would be most likely to choose. So he runs the first software to autogenerate the art, then he runs the second software which simulates his particular tastes to observe the first software, choose which iterations Josh might like, store them in a folder, and discard the rest.
Then I presume Josh would look through the folder himself at the iterations which made the cut and pick the ones he likes. Or he could write a third program to look through the folder and choose the ones he might like, etc. etc.
peace,
curt
t.whid wrote:
> Hi Rhizome,
>
> Had this idea and posted it to the mtaa blog today, but it sounds
> familiar... anyone can direct me to something similar? Thanks.
>
> ++++
>
> AIOTD: Art By Computers, For Computers
> posted at 14:25 by T.Whid in /news/twhid
>
> Two software programs are created. Program A creates �art data� which
>
> is transmitted to program B. Program B is programed in such a way that
>
> it has aesthetic criteria with which it evaluates Program A�s art data
>
> transmissions. The human witness doesn�t view the art data, but
> Program
> B responds to the art data in a way that is discernible by the human
> witness.
>
> Oh! I almost forgot. This is hardcore conceptual digital art.
>
> ++++
>
> read M and me discussing it here:
>
> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
> aiotd_art_by_computers_for_computers.html
>
> ++++
>
> re: net art market
>
> Bitforms has been trying. Napier tried to sell access to a
> collaborative space. Not sure how successful he was.
>
> Selling straight-up digital art seems to be easier, as Curt mentioned,
>
> the McCoys do it within an installation/object context. Also Paul
> Johnson, wolfgang staehle, Assume Astro Vivid Focus (sells AI files of
>
> his wallpaper, up to the collector to fabricate). You could count Paul
>
> Pfieffer too. All in all, I think digital media has been making some
> real inroads into traditional art markets the last few years. Many
> times this is under the guise of video, photographs or installations,
>
> but it's digital art nonetheless.
>
> Good luck!
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
Not exactly the same, but Josh Davis of Praystation fame writes generative software that cranks out stuff like this:
http://www.once-upon-a-forest.com
Josh mentioned in San Diego last year that he got tired of sitting there hitting refresh and having to personally assess which iterations he liked and which he didn't. So he was working on a separate program, teaching it to harvest the iterations that he would be most likely to choose. So he runs the first software to autogenerate the art, then he runs the second software which simulates his particular tastes to observe the first software, choose which iterations Josh might like, store them in a folder, and discard the rest.
Then I presume Josh would look through the folder himself at the iterations which made the cut and pick the ones he likes. Or he could write a third program to look through the folder and choose the ones he might like, etc. etc.
peace,
curt
t.whid wrote:
> Hi Rhizome,
>
> Had this idea and posted it to the mtaa blog today, but it sounds
> familiar... anyone can direct me to something similar? Thanks.
>
> ++++
>
> AIOTD: Art By Computers, For Computers
> posted at 14:25 by T.Whid in /news/twhid
>
> Two software programs are created. Program A creates �art data� which
>
> is transmitted to program B. Program B is programed in such a way that
>
> it has aesthetic criteria with which it evaluates Program A�s art data
>
> transmissions. The human witness doesn�t view the art data, but
> Program
> B responds to the art data in a way that is discernible by the human
> witness.
>
> Oh! I almost forgot. This is hardcore conceptual digital art.
>
> ++++
>
> read M and me discussing it here:
>
> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
> aiotd_art_by_computers_for_computers.html
>
> ++++
>
> re: net art market
>
> Bitforms has been trying. Napier tried to sell access to a
> collaborative space. Not sure how successful he was.
>
> Selling straight-up digital art seems to be easier, as Curt mentioned,
>
> the McCoys do it within an installation/object context. Also Paul
> Johnson, wolfgang staehle, Assume Astro Vivid Focus (sells AI files of
>
> his wallpaper, up to the collector to fabricate). You could count Paul
>
> Pfieffer too. All in all, I think digital media has been making some
> real inroads into traditional art markets the last few years. Many
> times this is under the guise of video, photographs or installations,
>
> but it's digital art nonetheless.
>
> Good luck!
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
Re: Re: Net Art Market
Hi Jason,
Another idea that transcends the paneling is to make art for free and give it away. There are 8 extra hours to make art between 5pm and 3am. That still gives you 5 hours of sleep per night. Then there are 2 full days on Saturday and Sunday. And if you can get a non-9-5 job like teaching in college, that's often 2 extra days per week and 3 entire months per year.
So that's 3 entire months per year to make art all the time. Then 9 months per year making art 4 days per week all the time, and the other 3 days per week you still get to make art 8 hours per day.
[Individual mileage may vary. Check local listings for details.]
Do you want to spend more time making art (possible in virtually any situation, particularly with net art where your material costs are minimal), or do you want to spend less time working at your day job (a much more challenging prospect)? People regularly confuse these two desires, but they're not necessarily related.
On a more personal tack, if you suddenly got a day job that you loved, would that solve the problem? Does your art need to make money in order for you to feel that it/you are good/legitimate?
Don't feel obliged to answer these questions publicly. I just think they're useful.
peace,
curt
Jason Van Anden wrote:
> Hi Curt,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> My motives are pretty simple: to find a support system that enables me
> to devote myself to making art full time.
>
> I had a feeling that this topic may have been brought up before, and
> this is why I was asking about it here; Rhizome community as a
> collective institutional memory. Where or how else would I find this
> information if I was not around when the topic got stale? What terms
> would I Google?: art net business sale etc... try them and you will
> see how easily that system breaks down.
>
> Which brings up another point - it seems like there is a riddle to be
> solved in that "old art" galleries need to promote their wares online
> (artnet.com), and yet online artists have so much difficulty finding a
> market in their own element.
>
> I had an excellent aesthetics teacher in college named Larry Bakke,
> who would rant about how "new" media typically anchored itself to old
> media before finding its own. Fake wood paneling stuck to the sides
> of station wagons was a favorite example of his. Of your examples - I
> think that only #7 starts to transcend the paneling.
>
> Jason Van Anden
Another idea that transcends the paneling is to make art for free and give it away. There are 8 extra hours to make art between 5pm and 3am. That still gives you 5 hours of sleep per night. Then there are 2 full days on Saturday and Sunday. And if you can get a non-9-5 job like teaching in college, that's often 2 extra days per week and 3 entire months per year.
So that's 3 entire months per year to make art all the time. Then 9 months per year making art 4 days per week all the time, and the other 3 days per week you still get to make art 8 hours per day.
[Individual mileage may vary. Check local listings for details.]
Do you want to spend more time making art (possible in virtually any situation, particularly with net art where your material costs are minimal), or do you want to spend less time working at your day job (a much more challenging prospect)? People regularly confuse these two desires, but they're not necessarily related.
On a more personal tack, if you suddenly got a day job that you loved, would that solve the problem? Does your art need to make money in order for you to feel that it/you are good/legitimate?
Don't feel obliged to answer these questions publicly. I just think they're useful.
peace,
curt
Jason Van Anden wrote:
> Hi Curt,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> My motives are pretty simple: to find a support system that enables me
> to devote myself to making art full time.
>
> I had a feeling that this topic may have been brought up before, and
> this is why I was asking about it here; Rhizome community as a
> collective institutional memory. Where or how else would I find this
> information if I was not around when the topic got stale? What terms
> would I Google?: art net business sale etc... try them and you will
> see how easily that system breaks down.
>
> Which brings up another point - it seems like there is a riddle to be
> solved in that "old art" galleries need to promote their wares online
> (artnet.com), and yet online artists have so much difficulty finding a
> market in their own element.
>
> I had an excellent aesthetics teacher in college named Larry Bakke,
> who would rant about how "new" media typically anchored itself to old
> media before finding its own. Fake wood paneling stuck to the sides
> of station wagons was a favorite example of his. Of your examples - I
> think that only #7 starts to transcend the paneling.
>
> Jason Van Anden