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: Re: snoop


or this:
http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/

or this:
http://c6.org/toogle/

_

Plasma Studii wrote:

> >How do they do that?
> >Very cool.
>
> you may even dig this more! found it a few months ago, wonder if
> they made this, then thought lets let you pick any URL. seems a
> cooler use to let google make up the web page.
> http://www.gizoogle.com/

DISCUSSION

RHIZOME_RAW: Re: eh?


Hi all,

Here is a more comprehensive 50 worst and 50 best list:
http://www.isi.org/journals/ir/50best_worst/index.html

The short synopses of the works are just that -- short synopses. They are unapolagetically belligerent because the judges are picking a fight which they hope will lead to a reconsideration of "the canon."

Neither set of judges are dummies. I'm sure they are conversant with these texts and could readily delineate the impact these texts have had on western culture from their perspectives. They just fundamentally disagree with the boilerplate "progressive/enlightened" liberal world view we've inherited and are unwilling to accept it as beneficially progressive.

Might someone clearly understand the nuances of your world view and still choose not to subscribe to it (yea, even take some pot shots at it) without being rotely dismissed as a small-minded, barely literate simpleton? Is such an outcome possible?

peace,
curt

+++++++++

Pall Thayer wrote:

> http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?idu91
>
> Are these people for real?!?
>
> --
> _______________________________
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
>
> Lorna
> http://www.this.is/lorna
> _______________________________
+
-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: eh?


Hi all,

Here is a more comprehensive 50 worst and 50 best list:
http://www.isi.org/journals/ir/50best_worst/index.html

The short synopses of the works are just that -- short synopses. They are unapolagetically belligerent because the judges are picking a fight which they hope will lead to a reconsideration of "the canon."

Neither set of judges are dummies. I'm sure they are conversant with these texts and could readily delineate the impact these texts have had on western culture from their perspectives. They just fundamentally disagree with the boilerplate "progressive/enlightened" liberal world view we've inherited and are unwilling to accept it as beneficially progressive.

Might someone clearly understand the nuances of your world view and still choose not to subscribe to it (yea, even take some pot shots at it) without being rotely dismissed as a small-minded, barely literate simpleton? Is such an outcome possible?

peace,
curt

+++++++++

Pall Thayer wrote:

> http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?idu91
>
> Are these people for real?!?
>
> --
> _______________________________
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
>
> Lorna
> http://www.this.is/lorna
> _______________________________

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: New Membership Policy


Hi Francis:

From http://lab404.com/dreams/library.html#text
under "art":
"chinese musak always sets me free" (2002) works
but
"on the inherent bias of words" doesn't work. I get the firewall.

And that's even with me logged in as a $5 member.

best,
curt

At 4:45 PM -0400 5/26/05, Francis Hwang wrote:
>Yeah, that should be the case. Of course, you're welcome to try it
>out and submit a bug report to me if it turns out not to work. There
>have been a lot of details for me to keep track of these past few
>weeks; I may have missed a few things.
>
>Francis Hwang
>Director of Technology
>Rhizome.org
>phone: 212-219-1288x202
>AIM: francisrhizome
>+ + +
>On May 24, 2005, at 7:16 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>
>>Hi Francis,
>>
>>This is something we worked through last time around, but I just
>>want to make sure it stays in place.
>>
>>For those of us who have written articles for rhizome, and then we
>>want to link to those articles from our web sites, will the links
>>still work? Behind the $5 firewall they worked if they were linked
>>from an online web page, but not from an email. I assume the same
>>will remain true behind the $25 firewall?
>>
>>And just for fun (from 2003):
>>http://www.computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/rebranding/rhizome/
>>
>>again from 2003:
>>http://www.lab404.com/rhizome/
>>
>>Doug Butabi: You can take away our phones. You can take away our
>>keys. But, you can't take away our dreams!
>>
>>Steve Butabi: That's right. 'Cause we're like sleeping when we have them!
>>
>>peace,
>>curt
>>
>>_
>>
>>Francis Hwang wrote:
>>
>>>Well, it's a funny thing. Newest content is the most valuable, for
>>>sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can charge for it. I
>>>actually blogged about this, a few months back, on my own site:
>>>
>>>http://fhwang.net/blog/51.html
>>>
>>>It's useful, for the purposes of discussion, to divide content into
>>>two
>>>completely arbitrary categories: "news" and "archives". News--which
>>>is
>>>to say anything that's about notifying you of a new thing happening
>>>recently--is a highly in-demand product, but there are lots of people
>>>giving it away for free online, so you can't really charge for it. I
>>>can only think of one company that's been able to do this reliably
>>>online, and that's the Wall Street Journal--and obviously that works
>>>for them because their customers are Godless capitalists who are
>>>willing to pay for premium services like WSJ content. But it hasn't
>>>worked reliably for Salon or the NYT online, and I don't personally
>>>have any faith that it'd work for us.
>>>
>>>Archives aren't nearly as popular as news, and in fact, people who
>>>want
>>>archives are looking for somewhat different reasons as those who want
>>>news. Someone looking for a one-day-old text wants to read that funny
>>>thing that somebody wrote yesterday, or join some chatter about a
>>>recent news article or how to make a living in the field. Someone
>>>looking for a five-year-old text is more likely to be doing some sort
>>>of research.
>>>
>>>It turns out that a lot of people would like a little bit of access
>>>to
>>>the archives, but people who really need access to the
>>>archives--we're
>>>talking academics, researchers, historians, etc.--are more likely to
>>>justify paying some money for it. Hence the $25 requirement at 1
>>>year-plus. Of course, an individual donation of $25 can be steep for
>>>some of those folks; the idea is that if they're affiliated with some
>>>sort of an organization, like a library or a university, that
>>>organization can sign up for an organizational subscription instead.
>>>
>>>( By the way, we also offer complimentary organizational
>>>subscriptions
>>>to new media arts organizations in developing countries; contact
>>>Kevin
>>>at kevin@rhizome.org if you think you'd qualify. )
>>>
>>>The division between news consumers and archive consumers is quite
>>>arbitrary, of course. And you can make the case that with the rise of
>>>amateur publishing, amateur history, etc., etc., enabled by internet
>>>culture, such a division may be rendered entirely useless at some
>>>point
>>>in the near future. But it works for some organizations today, and
>>>we're hoping it'll work for us for a while.
>>>
>>>Of course, ideally you wouldn't have to charge for anything. But I'm
>>>fairly confident that our new policy is one that will be
>>>significantly
>>>less irritating for everybody on a day-to-day basis. And it does so
>>>while letting us sustain or increase our member-driven revenue--which
>>>is, unfortunately, something we always have to be conscious of here
>>>in
>>>the office.
>>>
>>>But of course, this is just another try at a difficult problem. Like
>>>the New York Times, like Salon, like Kuro5hin, and everyone else,
>>>we're
>>>always looking for the best policy that allows us to make enough
>>>money
>>>to keep doing interesting things, while annoying people as little as
>>>possible. I don't think we'll need to tinker with this policy for
>>>some
>>>time--but this is the internets, after all, so eventually you're
>>>going
>>>to have to tinker with everything.
>>>
>>>Francis Hwang
>>>Director of Technology
>>>Rhizome.org
>>>phone: 212-219-1288x202
>>>AIM: francisrhizome
>>+
>>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: New Membership Policy


Hi Francis,

This is something we worked through last time around, but I just want to make sure it stays in place.

For those of us who have written articles for rhizome, and then we want to link to those articles from our web sites, will the links still work? Behind the $5 firewall they worked if they were linked from an online web page, but not from an email. I assume the same will remain true behind the $25 firewall?

And just for fun (from 2003):
http://www.computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/rebranding/rhizome/

again from 2003:
http://www.lab404.com/rhizome/

Doug Butabi: You can take away our phones. You can take away our keys. But, you can't take away our dreams!

Steve Butabi: That's right. 'Cause we're like sleeping when we have them!

peace,
curt

_

Francis Hwang wrote:

> Well, it's a funny thing. Newest content is the most valuable, for
> sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can charge for it. I
> actually blogged about this, a few months back, on my own site:
>
> http://fhwang.net/blog/51.html
>
> It's useful, for the purposes of discussion, to divide content into
> two
> completely arbitrary categories: "news" and "archives". News--which
> is
> to say anything that's about notifying you of a new thing happening
> recently--is a highly in-demand product, but there are lots of people
> giving it away for free online, so you can't really charge for it. I
> can only think of one company that's been able to do this reliably
> online, and that's the Wall Street Journal--and obviously that works
> for them because their customers are Godless capitalists who are
> willing to pay for premium services like WSJ content. But it hasn't
> worked reliably for Salon or the NYT online, and I don't personally
> have any faith that it'd work for us.
>
> Archives aren't nearly as popular as news, and in fact, people who
> want
> archives are looking for somewhat different reasons as those who want
> news. Someone looking for a one-day-old text wants to read that funny
> thing that somebody wrote yesterday, or join some chatter about a
> recent news article or how to make a living in the field. Someone
> looking for a five-year-old text is more likely to be doing some sort
> of research.
>
> It turns out that a lot of people would like a little bit of access
> to
> the archives, but people who really need access to the
> archives--we're
> talking academics, researchers, historians, etc.--are more likely to
> justify paying some money for it. Hence the $25 requirement at 1
> year-plus. Of course, an individual donation of $25 can be steep for
> some of those folks; the idea is that if they're affiliated with some
> sort of an organization, like a library or a university, that
> organization can sign up for an organizational subscription instead.
>
> ( By the way, we also offer complimentary organizational
> subscriptions
> to new media arts organizations in developing countries; contact
> Kevin
> at kevin@rhizome.org if you think you'd qualify. )
>
> The division between news consumers and archive consumers is quite
> arbitrary, of course. And you can make the case that with the rise of
> amateur publishing, amateur history, etc., etc., enabled by internet
> culture, such a division may be rendered entirely useless at some
> point
> in the near future. But it works for some organizations today, and
> we're hoping it'll work for us for a while.
>
> Of course, ideally you wouldn't have to charge for anything. But I'm
> fairly confident that our new policy is one that will be
> significantly
> less irritating for everybody on a day-to-day basis. And it does so
> while letting us sustain or increase our member-driven revenue--which
> is, unfortunately, something we always have to be conscious of here
> in
> the office.
>
> But of course, this is just another try at a difficult problem. Like
> the New York Times, like Salon, like Kuro5hin, and everyone else,
> we're
> always looking for the best policy that allows us to make enough
> money
> to keep doing interesting things, while annoying people as little as
> possible. I don't think we'll need to tinker with this policy for
> some
> time--but this is the internets, after all, so eventually you're
> going
> to have to tinker with everything.
>
> Francis Hwang
> Director of Technology
> Rhizome.org
> phone: 212-219-1288x202
> AIM: francisrhizome