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: Electronic Folk Art?!
cool.
check:
http://www.casperelectronics.com
http://www.anti-theory.com/soundart/
http://www.blingmethod.com
_
Angela Cachay Dwyer wrote:
> Do-it-yourself robotic toys, homebrew vidgames, ASCII images, homemade
> software - could these be a kind of 21st century folk art?
>
> Roundtable with artists and academics
> Surrey Art Gallery (Surrey, BC)
> Sunday, February 6, 2 - 3:30pm
> Free admission
> www.surreytechlab.ca
> Location and directions are available from the website
>
> ***********************************************************************
> What is electronic folk art?
> Is it an art practice that is culturally specific to North America?
> Is anyone who appropriates electronic toys, tools and software for
> their art an electronic folk artist?
> What are the possible forms of electronic folk art?
>
> Artists and academics will share their thoughts on these questions,
> and whether electronic folk art exists as a distinct area of
> contemporary art in general and/or within the realm of new media.
>
> The invited speakers are:
> * Diana Burgoyne (current exhibiting artist and PHD student in
> Interactive Arts, Simon Fraser University)
> * Don Krug (theorist; folk art researcher and curriculum specialist,
> University of British Columbia)
> * Leonard Paul (electronic music composer - lauded for his score for
> the film The Corporation, and video game audio instructor, Vancouver
> Film School)
> * Niranjan Rajah (theorist; curator and convenor, New Forms Festival
> 2005)
>
> Networking reception (3:30 - 5pm) following the Roundtable.
check:
http://www.casperelectronics.com
http://www.anti-theory.com/soundart/
http://www.blingmethod.com
_
Angela Cachay Dwyer wrote:
> Do-it-yourself robotic toys, homebrew vidgames, ASCII images, homemade
> software - could these be a kind of 21st century folk art?
>
> Roundtable with artists and academics
> Surrey Art Gallery (Surrey, BC)
> Sunday, February 6, 2 - 3:30pm
> Free admission
> www.surreytechlab.ca
> Location and directions are available from the website
>
> ***********************************************************************
> What is electronic folk art?
> Is it an art practice that is culturally specific to North America?
> Is anyone who appropriates electronic toys, tools and software for
> their art an electronic folk artist?
> What are the possible forms of electronic folk art?
>
> Artists and academics will share their thoughts on these questions,
> and whether electronic folk art exists as a distinct area of
> contemporary art in general and/or within the realm of new media.
>
> The invited speakers are:
> * Diana Burgoyne (current exhibiting artist and PHD student in
> Interactive Arts, Simon Fraser University)
> * Don Krug (theorist; folk art researcher and curriculum specialist,
> University of British Columbia)
> * Leonard Paul (electronic music composer - lauded for his score for
> the film The Corporation, and video game audio instructor, Vancouver
> Film School)
> * Niranjan Rajah (theorist; curator and convenor, New Forms Festival
> 2005)
>
> Networking reception (3:30 - 5pm) following the Roundtable.
Re: Re: music
and more:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A3212740
not outsider music ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556523726/ ), but more like what dubuffet called "neuve invention" -- borderline cases of works that straddled the boundary between Art Brut and mainstream art.
_
curt cloninger wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Maybe this will help:
> http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/top/2004/
>
> From that list I particularly like Devendra Banhart, Joanna Newsom,
> and Sufjan Stevens. The majority of those projects I don't even know.
> But in my college radio DJ days I would have known them all.
>
> Ours is a good era for off-the-radar pop music. But then it's been a
> good era for off-the-radar pop music since 1962.
>
> peace,
> curt
>
> _
>
> Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > Douglas Coupland, when asked what new band he's listening to that he
> > can't
> > stop listening to, recently said:
> >
> > "I think the day of discovering a brand new band is largely over.
> > Everybody's a musical curator now, young and old. What's interesting
> > is that
> > people over 30, who throughout the 20th cenury more or less stopped
> > engaging
> > with music, are back in the trenches experiencing music they never
> > would
> > have found sans Internet. For me right now it's 1960's feel-good
> bands
> > like
> > the New Seekers as well as 1970's dinosaur rock like Emerson Lake
> and
> > Palmer, which I didn't like when it first came out."
> >
> > I don't know. Sounds a bit myopic to me.
> >
> > The last day or so I've been listening to/watching the music videos
> > available through the media library of winamp 5. I don't know
> whether
> > I
> > should be disappointed in the media library or music more generally
> or
> > myself, but there just wasn't much that really got me. I got the
> > strange
> > feeling I'd heard it all before. Mind you all this stuff is from
> AOL,
> > ie, it
> > all hits a certain pro level. yet by dad there's an awful lot of
> > sameness in
> > that media library.
> >
> > My own suspicion is that there *is* music out there that is really
> > new, but
> > for all our communications devices it's still hard as hell to hear
> it,
> > to
> > find it. It is inaudible as far as empire is concerned. Like that
> > Vicki
> > Bennett/People Like Us music I put a link in to a while ago. That's
> > interesting contemporary music, not an endless repeat loop--though
> it
> > uses
> > other peoples' music from the 20's through the 90's as its only
> > material.
> >
> > dazed & confused,
> > ja
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> >
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A3212740
not outsider music ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556523726/ ), but more like what dubuffet called "neuve invention" -- borderline cases of works that straddled the boundary between Art Brut and mainstream art.
_
curt cloninger wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Maybe this will help:
> http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/top/2004/
>
> From that list I particularly like Devendra Banhart, Joanna Newsom,
> and Sufjan Stevens. The majority of those projects I don't even know.
> But in my college radio DJ days I would have known them all.
>
> Ours is a good era for off-the-radar pop music. But then it's been a
> good era for off-the-radar pop music since 1962.
>
> peace,
> curt
>
> _
>
> Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > Douglas Coupland, when asked what new band he's listening to that he
> > can't
> > stop listening to, recently said:
> >
> > "I think the day of discovering a brand new band is largely over.
> > Everybody's a musical curator now, young and old. What's interesting
> > is that
> > people over 30, who throughout the 20th cenury more or less stopped
> > engaging
> > with music, are back in the trenches experiencing music they never
> > would
> > have found sans Internet. For me right now it's 1960's feel-good
> bands
> > like
> > the New Seekers as well as 1970's dinosaur rock like Emerson Lake
> and
> > Palmer, which I didn't like when it first came out."
> >
> > I don't know. Sounds a bit myopic to me.
> >
> > The last day or so I've been listening to/watching the music videos
> > available through the media library of winamp 5. I don't know
> whether
> > I
> > should be disappointed in the media library or music more generally
> or
> > myself, but there just wasn't much that really got me. I got the
> > strange
> > feeling I'd heard it all before. Mind you all this stuff is from
> AOL,
> > ie, it
> > all hits a certain pro level. yet by dad there's an awful lot of
> > sameness in
> > that media library.
> >
> > My own suspicion is that there *is* music out there that is really
> > new, but
> > for all our communications devices it's still hard as hell to hear
> it,
> > to
> > find it. It is inaudible as far as empire is concerned. Like that
> > Vicki
> > Bennett/People Like Us music I put a link in to a while ago. That's
> > interesting contemporary music, not an endless repeat loop--though
> it
> > uses
> > other peoples' music from the 20's through the 90's as its only
> > material.
> >
> > dazed & confused,
> > ja
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> >
Re: music
Hi Jim,
Maybe this will help:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/top/2004/
From that list I particularly like Devendra Banhart, Joanna Newsom, and Sufjan Stevens. The majority of those projects I don't even know. But in my college radio DJ days I would have known them all.
Ours is a good era for off-the-radar pop music. But then it's been a good era for off-the-radar pop music since 1962.
peace,
curt
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
> Douglas Coupland, when asked what new band he's listening to that he
> can't
> stop listening to, recently said:
>
> "I think the day of discovering a brand new band is largely over.
> Everybody's a musical curator now, young and old. What's interesting
> is that
> people over 30, who throughout the 20th cenury more or less stopped
> engaging
> with music, are back in the trenches experiencing music they never
> would
> have found sans Internet. For me right now it's 1960's feel-good bands
> like
> the New Seekers as well as 1970's dinosaur rock like Emerson Lake and
> Palmer, which I didn't like when it first came out."
>
> I don't know. Sounds a bit myopic to me.
>
> The last day or so I've been listening to/watching the music videos
> available through the media library of winamp 5. I don't know whether
> I
> should be disappointed in the media library or music more generally or
> myself, but there just wasn't much that really got me. I got the
> strange
> feeling I'd heard it all before. Mind you all this stuff is from AOL,
> ie, it
> all hits a certain pro level. yet by dad there's an awful lot of
> sameness in
> that media library.
>
> My own suspicion is that there *is* music out there that is really
> new, but
> for all our communications devices it's still hard as hell to hear it,
> to
> find it. It is inaudible as far as empire is concerned. Like that
> Vicki
> Bennett/People Like Us music I put a link in to a while ago. That's
> interesting contemporary music, not an endless repeat loop--though it
> uses
> other peoples' music from the 20's through the 90's as its only
> material.
>
> dazed & confused,
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
Maybe this will help:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/top/2004/
From that list I particularly like Devendra Banhart, Joanna Newsom, and Sufjan Stevens. The majority of those projects I don't even know. But in my college radio DJ days I would have known them all.
Ours is a good era for off-the-radar pop music. But then it's been a good era for off-the-radar pop music since 1962.
peace,
curt
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
> Douglas Coupland, when asked what new band he's listening to that he
> can't
> stop listening to, recently said:
>
> "I think the day of discovering a brand new band is largely over.
> Everybody's a musical curator now, young and old. What's interesting
> is that
> people over 30, who throughout the 20th cenury more or less stopped
> engaging
> with music, are back in the trenches experiencing music they never
> would
> have found sans Internet. For me right now it's 1960's feel-good bands
> like
> the New Seekers as well as 1970's dinosaur rock like Emerson Lake and
> Palmer, which I didn't like when it first came out."
>
> I don't know. Sounds a bit myopic to me.
>
> The last day or so I've been listening to/watching the music videos
> available through the media library of winamp 5. I don't know whether
> I
> should be disappointed in the media library or music more generally or
> myself, but there just wasn't much that really got me. I got the
> strange
> feeling I'd heard it all before. Mind you all this stuff is from AOL,
> ie, it
> all hits a certain pro level. yet by dad there's an awful lot of
> sameness in
> that media library.
>
> My own suspicion is that there *is* music out there that is really
> new, but
> for all our communications devices it's still hard as hell to hear it,
> to
> find it. It is inaudible as far as empire is concerned. Like that
> Vicki
> Bennett/People Like Us music I put a link in to a while ago. That's
> interesting contemporary music, not an endless repeat loop--though it
> uses
> other peoples' music from the 20's through the 90's as its only
> material.
>
> dazed & confused,
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
Re: Re: Re: citizen king-mystery of truth
My dad's wooden bowls:
http://lab404.com/bowls/
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
I agree with what you say, for the most part. But even in something like
woodwork, when somebody makes a bowl, say, they can have a sense of
offering, a hope that in creating the thing (whatever it may be), it will
help somebody in some way, that it is toward the greater good and lessening
human suffering. A gesture of service to others. This is the sort of thing I
mean by 'spirituality'. Not necessarily a conventionally religious thing but
a desire to act in accordance with the greater good.
My dad liked to make things out of wood. He wasn't a master craftsman, in
fact much of his work consisted of simple bowls. But I got this vibe from
them. They were embodiments of his kindness and generosity and desire to act
in accordance with the greater good. They were offerings to other people and
also to the world.
http://lab404.com/bowls/
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
I agree with what you say, for the most part. But even in something like
woodwork, when somebody makes a bowl, say, they can have a sense of
offering, a hope that in creating the thing (whatever it may be), it will
help somebody in some way, that it is toward the greater good and lessening
human suffering. A gesture of service to others. This is the sort of thing I
mean by 'spirituality'. Not necessarily a conventionally religious thing but
a desire to act in accordance with the greater good.
My dad liked to make things out of wood. He wasn't a master craftsman, in
fact much of his work consisted of simple bowls. But I got this vibe from
them. They were embodiments of his kindness and generosity and desire to act
in accordance with the greater good. They were offerings to other people and
also to the world.
Re: re: citizen king
From an educator's perspective, a concise book on the topic is "Creating Significant Learning Experiences." The paradigm is not to shovel data from professor's brain to student's notebook, but to design courses that cause students to have, er, significant learning experiences. Which is what Joseph Beuys was doing in his courses all along. Not all education is didactic. The most effective education is frequently not.
The question is, who are we trying to educate? To whom are we speaking? This summer I will teach at Anderson Ranch Arts Center ( http://andersonranch.org ) along with Josh Davis and Mark Tribe. The Ranch is premised on the belief that "to create is human." All very egalitarian and appealing to my personal, craft-centric ethic.
T. Whid has argued here before that he is an artist, not an educator, and that he is not responsible to bend over backwards to speak to the masses or jump through hoops to help them understand his art. Fair enough. Ironically, I think MTAA's work is becoming increasingly accessible, which to me is a good thing.
So artist's aren't responsible to educate the masses. I agree. But I would innocuously suggest that artists (particularly net artists) try to avoid speaking exclusively to any single, parochial group -- even if that single group consists of "important" people like academics, new media curators, hardcore C++ coders, or all the beautiful people in Manhattan. To me, a lot of early net.art feels trivial, narrow, and incestuous because it was largely an insider game amongst a few friends. But at least it was a game at all and the friends were marginally interesting.
What every artist needs is a good biographer, critic, or curator who can make his work accessible to the public. Every Turner needs his Ruskin, so to speak. You can try to be your own Ruskin (cf: DJ Spooky/Paul D. Miller or Miltos Manetas/Miltos Manetas), but you'll inevitably run into a conflict of interest.
Regarding PBS online, check their companion site for the PBS Art21 series:
http://pbs.org/art21/
Along with all the meta-art documentation, they even include a working Golan Levin piece on the site.
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
> art isn't necessarily particularly didactic or at all didactic, of
> course.
> it isn't so much about teaching lessons as creating challenging
> experiences.
> still, such experiences are important in schools and there's great
> scope for
> art in education. i take it that part of what we're about as
> net.artists is
> to help society use computers imaginatively and wisely. so that they
> become
> extensions of our humanity even as we move into the 'post human'
> (which is
> the human extended by technology). that requires people experience
> imaginative and wise use of computers, and it also requires that they
> be
> able to find their way to their own imaginative and wise use of
> computers.
> the art provides the former. but artists can help with the latter too,
> in
> their projects.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
The question is, who are we trying to educate? To whom are we speaking? This summer I will teach at Anderson Ranch Arts Center ( http://andersonranch.org ) along with Josh Davis and Mark Tribe. The Ranch is premised on the belief that "to create is human." All very egalitarian and appealing to my personal, craft-centric ethic.
T. Whid has argued here before that he is an artist, not an educator, and that he is not responsible to bend over backwards to speak to the masses or jump through hoops to help them understand his art. Fair enough. Ironically, I think MTAA's work is becoming increasingly accessible, which to me is a good thing.
So artist's aren't responsible to educate the masses. I agree. But I would innocuously suggest that artists (particularly net artists) try to avoid speaking exclusively to any single, parochial group -- even if that single group consists of "important" people like academics, new media curators, hardcore C++ coders, or all the beautiful people in Manhattan. To me, a lot of early net.art feels trivial, narrow, and incestuous because it was largely an insider game amongst a few friends. But at least it was a game at all and the friends were marginally interesting.
What every artist needs is a good biographer, critic, or curator who can make his work accessible to the public. Every Turner needs his Ruskin, so to speak. You can try to be your own Ruskin (cf: DJ Spooky/Paul D. Miller or Miltos Manetas/Miltos Manetas), but you'll inevitably run into a conflict of interest.
Regarding PBS online, check their companion site for the PBS Art21 series:
http://pbs.org/art21/
Along with all the meta-art documentation, they even include a working Golan Levin piece on the site.
_
Jim Andrews wrote:
> art isn't necessarily particularly didactic or at all didactic, of
> course.
> it isn't so much about teaching lessons as creating challenging
> experiences.
> still, such experiences are important in schools and there's great
> scope for
> art in education. i take it that part of what we're about as
> net.artists is
> to help society use computers imaginatively and wisely. so that they
> become
> extensions of our humanity even as we move into the 'post human'
> (which is
> the human extended by technology). that requires people experience
> imaginative and wise use of computers, and it also requires that they
> be
> able to find their way to their own imaginative and wise use of
> computers.
> the art provides the former. but artists can help with the latter too,
> in
> their projects.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>