curt cloninger
Since the beginning
Works in Canton, North Carolina United States of America

ARTBASE (7)
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.
Discussions (1122) Opportunities (4) Events (17) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.


I've added cory's piece to this exhibit:
http://www.deepyoung.org/current/hardwired/ (scroll down some), Deep linking it past the artist statement, and [re/de]-contexualizing it according to the Young method.

had you first come upon it this way, would it qualify as punk?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
marc wrote:
Perhaps it is wrong for me to use Cory as a virtual hammer to pick holes in the obvious failings of contemporary net/web art, and isolationist snobbism. But, there are many questions still not answered, that have to be challenged and reevaluated genuinely and not by protocol. Cory's art is not 'Punk', it advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not fill the void that punk fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to justify its being, it certainly ain't Punk.

DISCUSSION

Re: more mccloud, last one promise


hi t.,

To me it seems you're oversimplifying McCloud's arguments, and then
accusing them of being facile. He's saying more than what you say
he's saying.

Whether McCloud is played or chic or pop or serious is irrelevant to
me. I'm fairly pop myself.

Honestly, McCloud is just a point of departure. I used his model as
a springboard to make the following indictment: In the net art scene,
there's a glut of genre-exploring for genre-exploring's sake, and a
dearth of art which uses the genre to say something topical that's
not explicitly about the genre.

peace,
curt

At 1:50 PM -0500 2/19/03, t.whid wrote:
>+++
>yo,
>
>It's been a long time since I've read it but I'll concede that he
>doesn't attempt to draw direct connections btw contemporary comix
>and egyptian art.
>
>If memory serves correctly he calls Egyptian art comics however
>(along with cave paintings). If he does do this it is a good
>illustration of his intellectual paucity. There is no defensible
>reason to tack on contemporary names to historical movements or
>thinking. I'v made that point before on this list so I won't go
>through it again. (Rembrandt != expressionist)
>
>There's nothing illuminating in describing people using images to
>tell stories throughout history. A fairly obvious observation imo.
>To tack on the sequential thing because it happens to be his own
>medium is simply self-serving.
>
>It's not a serious book (it's analogous to a pop psych book) and to
>quote it when making args about art doesn't serve you well curt. I
>think you have much better ideas and args than McCloud.
>
>take care,
>
>
>>
>>He brings up the Egyptians to point out that this form of iconic
>>storytelling is not so tangential to human culture as we might
>>suppose. He later uses these Egyptian narratives to exemplify a
>>time when images and words were not so segregated and specialized
>>as they were at the end of the 19th century.
>>
>>Likewise, with the 6 creative phases, he's not talking about
>>historical art movements, he's talking about the intrinsic human
>>creative process. Maybe there's no such thing as an intrinsic
>>human creative process, and maybe art means nothing outside of its
>>given socio-historical contexts -- but those assertions were still
>>open to some debate last time I checked.
>>
>>peace,
>>curt
>>
>>
>>++++
>>t. wrote:
>>
>>yo curt,
>>
>>it's irrelevant in that those who pioneered newspaper comics in
>>america in the early part of the 20th weren't taking any cues from
>>Egyptian art; they weren't thinking about Egyptian art. they were
>>being directly influenced by political cartoons from 1800s in both
>>America and Europe (Nash, Daumier, etc) (btw Marcel Duchamp's bro
>>was
>>a cartoonist for newspapers, it was considered very uncool so he
>>changed his name to Jacques Villon ).
>>
>>to say simply that it's a sequential pictorial narrative therefor
>>draw some relation is absurd. film (which fits the def as well) is
>>also directly related to Egyptian art? Early comics creators
>>weren't directly influenced by any art historical form of
>>sequential art. the only connection is a general art historical
>>connection but then you
>>can say everyone from Titian to Matt Barney have connections to Egyptian art.
>>
>>it's just a rather obvious play to attempt to give contemporary
>>comics some sort of art historical or cultural cache that they
>>don't need. they live and breathe on their own. so perhaps it isn't
>>an
>>absurd idea, simply an irrelevant observation.
>>
>>+ 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
>
>--
><twhid>
>http://www.mteww.com
></twhid>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on


t.,

you're missing McCloud's argument and the point of the book. "understanding comics" isn't an art history chronicle. it's a series of ruminations on the language of a particular medium. he's not suggesting that 20th century comic artists were directly influenced by egyptian art. he's suggesting that there's something intrinsic to the human condition that makes us want to tell stories sequentially with pictures, and he's analyzing the ways we have done so throughout history in order to arrive at some fundamental conclusions about images, icons, words, and communication itself.

He brings up the Egyptians to point out that this form of iconic storytelling is not so tangential to human culture as we might suppose. He later uses these Egyptian narratives to exemplify a time when images and words were not so segregated and specialized as they were at the end of the 19th century.

Likewise, with the 6 creative phases, he's not talking about historical art movements, he's talking about the intrinsic human creative process. Maybe there's no such thing as an intrinsic human creative process, and maybe art means nothing outside of its given socio-historical contexts -- but those assertions were still open to some debate last time I checked.

peace,
curt

++++
t. wrote:

yo curt,

it's irrelevant in that those who pioneered newspaper comics in
america in the early part of the 20th weren't taking any cues from Egyptian art; they weren't thinking about Egyptian art. they were
being directly influenced by political cartoons from 1800s in both America and Europe (Nash, Daumier, etc) (btw Marcel Duchamp's bro was
a cartoonist for newspapers, it was considered very uncool so he changed his name to Jacques Villon ).

to say simply that it's a sequential pictorial narrative therefor
draw some relation is absurd. film (which fits the def as well) is
also directly related to Egyptian art? Early comics creators weren't directly influenced by any art historical form of sequential art. the only connection is a general art historical connection but then you
can say everyone from Titian to Matt Barney have connections to Egyptian art.

it's just a rather obvious play to attempt to give contemporary
comics some sort of art historical or cultural cache that they don't need. they live and breathe on their own. so perhaps it isn't an
absurd idea, simply an irrelevant observation.

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence


Hi t.,

We disagree about McCloud. He defines comics (not just american underground comics, but all comics) as sequential art, so how is his discussing sequential pictorial Egyptian narrative totally absurd and irrelevant given his definition? As I continue to explore web art from a narrative angle (as something between film and literature) McCloud's several insights on comics are particularly relevant.

Anyway, to prima facie dismiss an argument as unincisive is not really dialogue. your critique is unincisive.

i remain,
curt

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
t. wrote:

you're talking about Scott McCloud the comix guy?

he's an idiot. well, let me back up. he's not an idiot, but i
wouldn't take any art lessons from him. in 'understanding comix' he attempts to make a connection from american underground comix to egyptian art (they are both sequential static images creating a narrative is his reasoning) which is totally absurd and irrelevant.

his artistic process above doesn't seem any more incisive. he reminds me of pop psychology (the dr. phil brand) but he's making poor arguments in art criticism and art history.

DISCUSSION

Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence


Michael S. wrote:
good?...
steve reich, howe gelb, will oldham,wim vanderkeybus, david foster wallace, primo levi, w.g sebald, richard ford. & loads more...

What makes all the above notable for me?- engagement with the human and with the human being in society; high degree of technical ability ( and a willingness to undertake drudgery) sometimes bordering on virtuosity but not to an obsessional extent & rarely entirely for it's own sake; universality - relatively
independent of context -even though often very much of
it's time nevertheless it resonates for us now..
..and I think I'd want to argue that somewhere in
there lies a framework for what justifies art as a
human activity.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
curt responds:
Scott McCloud describes the artistic process in 6 stages:
1. idea/purpose
2. form [what might be called "genre"]
3. idiom [what I would call "style"]
4. structure
5. craft
6. surface

He says artists start at #6 and work backwards as they mature. (Sadly, a lot of net artists skip phases 6-3 entirely.) McCloud says the great artists in the end are going to focus on either #2 or #1. Picasso chose #2. Van Gough chose #1. Miles Davis chose #2. John Coltrane chose #1. Those who choose #1 lock onto a form that will carry them where they want to go, and then they start drilling down.

Personally, I want to see more artists who choose #1. So much net art is so formalistic. Which is not invalid or wrong or any of those things. But I personally don't want "more of everything." To me, it's not "all good." I'm glad I don't have to choose between Miles and Coltrane, but if I had to choose, I would choose Coltrane from '64-'67 over Miles Davis' entire catalog. And that's really saying something, because I own and love and listen to about 15 Miles CDs, from the the early 50s to the mid-70s.

But there is something at once blindingly elevated and painfully ravaged about those late-era Coltrane recordings that signify them to me as more valuable. It's music yearning like a god in pain. And Davis, smooth and clever and masterful and genius as he was, never achieved that.

Probably he didn't have the chops or the personal depth to achieve it. Probably he wasn't even interested in achieving it. But at least he didn't fail to achieve it for fear of ridicule, or for fear of failure, or for fear of trying.

I think a lot of net art is impersonal and obligatorily formalistic because --
1. artists don't really have anything personal to say (other than making clever general observations about the medium vis society, which doesn't really count as personal)
2. artists were raised in a system where "artist as hero" was the taboo faux pas to avoid at all costs.
3. artists are afraid to be anything other than safely cynical (or politically vocal, as long as it accords with the latest approved cause -- anti-corporate, anti-occident, anti-masculine, anti-gallery, etc.)

Something like Mark Napier's internet flag is a pleasant exception. Although not autobiographical by any means, and certainly not unaware of form, the project is still concerned with #1 (idea/purpose) more than #2 (form).

Regarding Cory's work, he's into the retro-tech fetishism, which is necessarily formalistic, but I don't think he's doing it to be chic or because he's afraid of tackling other things. That's just where he is and what he's into.

I'm not trying to mandate anything, but I do have a personal opinion. I would like to see us get over our infantile fascination with the medium in and of itself and begin using the medium to plumb topics deeper and more resonant. Clever ideas are a dime a dozen. I had one on the toilet this morning. Music yearning like a god in pain is something else entirely.