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: Re: Burning Down The House
hi Tim,
I think in this case, the incident is fair game for critical comment, not simply because the art was bad (if it even was), but because hirst and emin are such intentionally object-incidental artists, which by extension makes their work inherently ephemeral. So the fact that everyone is so up in arms about the "loss of value" is kind of like a sand sculptor being aghast that the tide came in and eroded his castle. To trace it all back, it wasn't supposed to be about that particular urinal, just any urinal. But tell that to whoever owns the original urinal. If you see the buddha on the road, aren't you supposed to kill him? Duchamp probably would have. Saatchi would have sued him for copyright infringement.
This incident is quintessentially telling and instructive to me:
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/yoko_ono.html
I'm punk until you actually take me up on it, then I'm a whining, capitalistic wussy.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passageiC2:11 ,
curt
_
t.whid wrote:
> HAHA, destruction of art -- really funny!
>
> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got destroyed and not the
> good stuff.
I think in this case, the incident is fair game for critical comment, not simply because the art was bad (if it even was), but because hirst and emin are such intentionally object-incidental artists, which by extension makes their work inherently ephemeral. So the fact that everyone is so up in arms about the "loss of value" is kind of like a sand sculptor being aghast that the tide came in and eroded his castle. To trace it all back, it wasn't supposed to be about that particular urinal, just any urinal. But tell that to whoever owns the original urinal. If you see the buddha on the road, aren't you supposed to kill him? Duchamp probably would have. Saatchi would have sued him for copyright infringement.
This incident is quintessentially telling and instructive to me:
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/yoko_ono.html
I'm punk until you actually take me up on it, then I'm a whining, capitalistic wussy.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passageiC2:11 ,
curt
_
t.whid wrote:
> HAHA, destruction of art -- really funny!
>
> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got destroyed and not the
> good stuff.
You Can Link to Rhizome.org
t.whid wrote:
> I know, it's free on friday. But if I want to link to a Rhizome post
> or
> artwork, am I to attach a disclaimer? "This link only functions on
> Fridays."
>
> I know, first time's free. But what if I have visitors to my site who
> follow the links to Rhizome regularly? They get shut out.
<snip>
>How many
> blogs
> link to Rhizome articles and artworks? Probably not many, blog
> authors
> know the value of freely linking across the web; Rhizome stops them
> at
> the door.
Hi Tim,
I just read the thread or I would have chimed in about this sooner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can link straight to any single article at rhizome and surfers can access the article you linked any day of the week without having to be rhizome members. Before Mark left, I talked to him and francis about this, because it was a concern of mine.
From my site, I link to several articles I wrote at rhizome (they're really just long posts I made to raw). It seemed ridiculous that once rhizome started charging for membership I would no longer be able to link my own articles. I would have stopped contributing to rhizome long ago had this been the case. Mark agreed that it was not right. So they set up the protocol to work this way --
If I'm writing a friend, and I include the URL to a rhizome post in the email, unless my friend is a member, they can't view the post simply by clicking on the link in their email client. Furthermore, yhey can't manually type in the URL and get it either. (both situations are regrettable, but a necessary evil to the membership model). BUT if I link a rhizome URL (artbase piece, post at raw, whatever) from an online web page, non-rhizome members can still access the rhizome URL I linked. In this respect, rhizome is unlike the New York Times and most other password-protected content sites. Once the non-rhizome-member visits the rhizome URL I linked, she still can't wander around the rest of rhizome for free from there, but she can at least read the single post to which I linked. I assume this is true for a dynamically-generated link from a google search-results page as well.
That's how critics of rhizome's $5 policy have been able to make "mirrors" of the entire rhizome artbase. They simply link directly to each piece of content in the artbase, and the way rhizome has set up their protocol, since the call is coming from another online web page, Francis allows the content to pass through, even if the visitor doesn't have the rhizome login cookie.
Francis would know more about the technical details.
I'm not sure how the above "backdoor" protocol works with RSS feeds and content aggregators.
I'm not disagreeing with your suggestion to drop the membership fee. But the argument that one can't link non-members directly to specific rhizome content except on Fridays is not valid. One can (unless I'm missing something).
> I know, it's free on friday. But if I want to link to a Rhizome post
> or
> artwork, am I to attach a disclaimer? "This link only functions on
> Fridays."
>
> I know, first time's free. But what if I have visitors to my site who
> follow the links to Rhizome regularly? They get shut out.
<snip>
>How many
> blogs
> link to Rhizome articles and artworks? Probably not many, blog
> authors
> know the value of freely linking across the web; Rhizome stops them
> at
> the door.
Hi Tim,
I just read the thread or I would have chimed in about this sooner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can link straight to any single article at rhizome and surfers can access the article you linked any day of the week without having to be rhizome members. Before Mark left, I talked to him and francis about this, because it was a concern of mine.
From my site, I link to several articles I wrote at rhizome (they're really just long posts I made to raw). It seemed ridiculous that once rhizome started charging for membership I would no longer be able to link my own articles. I would have stopped contributing to rhizome long ago had this been the case. Mark agreed that it was not right. So they set up the protocol to work this way --
If I'm writing a friend, and I include the URL to a rhizome post in the email, unless my friend is a member, they can't view the post simply by clicking on the link in their email client. Furthermore, yhey can't manually type in the URL and get it either. (both situations are regrettable, but a necessary evil to the membership model). BUT if I link a rhizome URL (artbase piece, post at raw, whatever) from an online web page, non-rhizome members can still access the rhizome URL I linked. In this respect, rhizome is unlike the New York Times and most other password-protected content sites. Once the non-rhizome-member visits the rhizome URL I linked, she still can't wander around the rest of rhizome for free from there, but she can at least read the single post to which I linked. I assume this is true for a dynamically-generated link from a google search-results page as well.
That's how critics of rhizome's $5 policy have been able to make "mirrors" of the entire rhizome artbase. They simply link directly to each piece of content in the artbase, and the way rhizome has set up their protocol, since the call is coming from another online web page, Francis allows the content to pass through, even if the visitor doesn't have the rhizome login cookie.
Francis would know more about the technical details.
I'm not sure how the above "backdoor" protocol works with RSS feeds and content aggregators.
I'm not disagreeing with your suggestion to drop the membership fee. But the argument that one can't link non-members directly to specific rhizome content except on Fridays is not valid. One can (unless I'm missing something).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Setting Up the Punch Line And Blogspace
Rob Myers wrote:
> What about architectural-scale art? Or architectural models? Or
> designs. Exhibitions of architecture are very common (Archigram are on
> at the moment: Conceptual Architecture from the 1960s...).
still, walking through a Hadid building is a lot cooler than looking at a 3D flythrough of a model of a Hadid building.
> Art on the
> scale of architecture is also common.
and interesting.
> You can always paint a picture of architecture. It's harder to make a
> building of a painting.
But you can always hang a painting on the wall of a building called a gallery.
> The desire to control space and behaviour that
> architecture seems to offer to satiate can be achieved through art as
> well, although it's hard to get a new kitchen fitted in a Picasso.
Per this thread, it's less architecture's control of space and behavior that's being admired as it is architecture's ability to achieve a kind of most-meta-ness. I agree that "art" can also achieve this (without necessarily being big or even physical). But (by definition) it can't achieve most-meta-ness while hanging on a gallery wall with a label under it.
> What about architectural-scale art? Or architectural models? Or
> designs. Exhibitions of architecture are very common (Archigram are on
> at the moment: Conceptual Architecture from the 1960s...).
still, walking through a Hadid building is a lot cooler than looking at a 3D flythrough of a model of a Hadid building.
> Art on the
> scale of architecture is also common.
and interesting.
> You can always paint a picture of architecture. It's harder to make a
> building of a painting.
But you can always hang a painting on the wall of a building called a gallery.
> The desire to control space and behaviour that
> architecture seems to offer to satiate can be achieved through art as
> well, although it's hard to get a new kitchen fitted in a Picasso.
Per this thread, it's less architecture's control of space and behavior that's being admired as it is architecture's ability to achieve a kind of most-meta-ness. I agree that "art" can also achieve this (without necessarily being big or even physical). But (by definition) it can't achieve most-meta-ness while hanging on a gallery wall with a label under it.
Re: Re: Re: Setting Up the Punch Line And Blogspace
Myron Turner wrote:
> I think of architecture as a metaphor for virtual space, not as
> an actual space where installations could be mounted. I like the
> metaphor because architecture, despite its potentially massive
> physicality, or perhaps when it is most massive and cannnot be taken
> in all at once, requires an internalized imaginative grasp of space.
> And it's an internalized imaginative beholding of space that, I feel,
> is the defining characteristic of networks as aesthetic constructions.
> I hope that this doesn't sound like too much of a stretch--but it
> helps me to view the net in the idealistic terms that have always
> appealed to me.
I think I understand what you are saying. You're not comparing architecture to the net in terms of a William Gibson cyberspace VR type connection (an awkward/unnatural imposition onto a network that wants to be more about code [programmatic, semantic, even iconic] than 3D space). It seems like you're saying architecture is cool becauese you can't out-meta it. You're not going to put somebody's architecture into a gallery. Architecture defines its own context (or its context is simply worldspace). And the network can be that way too. It's not just a "place" to show your art; it is itself an artistic medium, with its own kind of implicit unboundedness (Eric Raymond likens it to the noosphere -- realtime mindspace). Heady stuff, but I don't think it's entirely unfounded.
> I think of architecture as a metaphor for virtual space, not as
> an actual space where installations could be mounted. I like the
> metaphor because architecture, despite its potentially massive
> physicality, or perhaps when it is most massive and cannnot be taken
> in all at once, requires an internalized imaginative grasp of space.
> And it's an internalized imaginative beholding of space that, I feel,
> is the defining characteristic of networks as aesthetic constructions.
> I hope that this doesn't sound like too much of a stretch--but it
> helps me to view the net in the idealistic terms that have always
> appealed to me.
I think I understand what you are saying. You're not comparing architecture to the net in terms of a William Gibson cyberspace VR type connection (an awkward/unnatural imposition onto a network that wants to be more about code [programmatic, semantic, even iconic] than 3D space). It seems like you're saying architecture is cool becauese you can't out-meta it. You're not going to put somebody's architecture into a gallery. Architecture defines its own context (or its context is simply worldspace). And the network can be that way too. It's not just a "place" to show your art; it is itself an artistic medium, with its own kind of implicit unboundedness (Eric Raymond likens it to the noosphere -- realtime mindspace). Heady stuff, but I don't think it's entirely unfounded.