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: the rapture and anti-environmentalism
Hi Ryan,
The Christian political Zionism to which you allude does actually exist as a contemporary movement and warrants legitimate scrutiny.
But Moyers is constructing his own personal straw man here. The dude he quotes talking on the senate floor is a rank loon. I live among people who hold the exact eschatological view Moyers is describing, and have never heard anyone teach or preach or say anything even vaguely resembling the idea that environmental destruction hastens the second coming. Moyers' entire argument hangs on this dubiously timid assertion: "Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists *may* believe..." That's just cheap rhetoric and bad journalism. Moyers is cautioning against a spectre of his own devising.
ryan griffis wrote:
But to say that the
> tendencies Moyers is pointing to have nothing to do with a particular
> religious mythology seems mistaken. The people Moyers mentions are
> also
> involved in other efforts to follow some kind of prophesy, like
> ferrying Jewish migrants to Israel, not for the safety of the
> migrants,
> but for their own narrativized reasons.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml
> This is not the kind of "preparedness" Curt mentions above, but an
> active playing out of prophetic narratives. And one that undeniably
> causes a whole lot of suffering.
The Christian political Zionism to which you allude does actually exist as a contemporary movement and warrants legitimate scrutiny.
But Moyers is constructing his own personal straw man here. The dude he quotes talking on the senate floor is a rank loon. I live among people who hold the exact eschatological view Moyers is describing, and have never heard anyone teach or preach or say anything even vaguely resembling the idea that environmental destruction hastens the second coming. Moyers' entire argument hangs on this dubiously timid assertion: "Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists *may* believe..." That's just cheap rhetoric and bad journalism. Moyers is cautioning against a spectre of his own devising.
ryan griffis wrote:
But to say that the
> tendencies Moyers is pointing to have nothing to do with a particular
> religious mythology seems mistaken. The people Moyers mentions are
> also
> involved in other efforts to follow some kind of prophesy, like
> ferrying Jewish migrants to Israel, not for the safety of the
> migrants,
> but for their own narrativized reasons.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml
> This is not the kind of "preparedness" Curt mentions above, but an
> active playing out of prophetic narratives. And one that undeniably
> causes a whole lot of suffering.
Re: Re: Re: the rapture and anti-environmentalism
> If one believes that the end of the world is (literally) near (not
> figuratively as in 'the future is uncertain and the end is always
> near')
> then the importance of not only environmentalism but many another
> forward-looking view concerning the world or worldly things is simply
> moot,
> is it not? If one holds that we are in end game of the worldly
> existence of
> humanity, then one may well disregard things like environmentalism as
> planning for a future which simply will not exist.
not so. the Bible says no one knows when the second coming is going to happen (not even Jesus), so be found obeying God as if you didn't know when it was going to happen.
> Regardless of whether environmental plundering is 'welcomed', it is
> not
> particularly consequential if there isn't going to be a world much
> longer.
not so. The Bible says one of the ways humans obey God is to steward his world wisely. Likewise, the Bible says my body is going to pass away and I'll get a new and glorified spiritual one, but I'm also Biblically responsible to keep fit ("physical training is of some value," Paul writes in 1 Timothy). I'm not to worship my body, but neither am I to let it go to pot.
> The Bush administration is not environmentally responsible. Whether
> it's
> because environmental plundering is simply profitable, in the short
> term, or
> for other reasons, I have no idea.
I do. He's from Texas, he's a republican, he supports big oil business, he has a bad track record on environmental issues. Take your pick.
> But, certainly, if one believes
> that
> there isn't going to be a world around for much longer, the importance
> of
> environmentalism and other such forward-looking views is gravely
> diminished.
Not true. Moyers wants very much for us to believe this, but he's taking one aspect of a religion and over-emphasizing it to the exclusion of other aspects much more relevant to the issue of environmentalism. Most Christians (even "fundamentalist" "dispensationalist" ones) view nature as God's handiwork. They don't worship nature as a deity, and they do see it as a renewable resource which we are responsible to steward, but very few are trying to trick Jesus into returning by trashing it. If they don't recycle, it's probably because they are lazy/uninformed like every other demographic, not due to some fundamental theological flaw.
It's easy to pick on a group that everyone generally despises and no one knows very much about. Do a little research, make some facile conclusions, and then declare whatever you like... (blacks are prone to drug abuse, muslims are prone to terrorism). Politically correct people aren't allowed to say either of those things (and well they shouldn't be), but say anything you like about Christians and the general response is, "that may or may not be true, but I wouldn't put it past 'em.
> figuratively as in 'the future is uncertain and the end is always
> near')
> then the importance of not only environmentalism but many another
> forward-looking view concerning the world or worldly things is simply
> moot,
> is it not? If one holds that we are in end game of the worldly
> existence of
> humanity, then one may well disregard things like environmentalism as
> planning for a future which simply will not exist.
not so. the Bible says no one knows when the second coming is going to happen (not even Jesus), so be found obeying God as if you didn't know when it was going to happen.
> Regardless of whether environmental plundering is 'welcomed', it is
> not
> particularly consequential if there isn't going to be a world much
> longer.
not so. The Bible says one of the ways humans obey God is to steward his world wisely. Likewise, the Bible says my body is going to pass away and I'll get a new and glorified spiritual one, but I'm also Biblically responsible to keep fit ("physical training is of some value," Paul writes in 1 Timothy). I'm not to worship my body, but neither am I to let it go to pot.
> The Bush administration is not environmentally responsible. Whether
> it's
> because environmental plundering is simply profitable, in the short
> term, or
> for other reasons, I have no idea.
I do. He's from Texas, he's a republican, he supports big oil business, he has a bad track record on environmental issues. Take your pick.
> But, certainly, if one believes
> that
> there isn't going to be a world around for much longer, the importance
> of
> environmentalism and other such forward-looking views is gravely
> diminished.
Not true. Moyers wants very much for us to believe this, but he's taking one aspect of a religion and over-emphasizing it to the exclusion of other aspects much more relevant to the issue of environmentalism. Most Christians (even "fundamentalist" "dispensationalist" ones) view nature as God's handiwork. They don't worship nature as a deity, and they do see it as a renewable resource which we are responsible to steward, but very few are trying to trick Jesus into returning by trashing it. If they don't recycle, it's probably because they are lazy/uninformed like every other demographic, not due to some fundamental theological flaw.
It's easy to pick on a group that everyone generally despises and no one knows very much about. Do a little research, make some facile conclusions, and then declare whatever you like... (blacks are prone to drug abuse, muslims are prone to terrorism). Politically correct people aren't allowed to say either of those things (and well they shouldn't be), but say anything you like about Christians and the general response is, "that may or may not be true, but I wouldn't put it past 'em.
Re: the rapture and anti-environmentalism
hi jim,
I saw this too, and honestly expected something a little more sensible from home boy. He's off as follows:
moyers:
ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality.
c:
This is an inaccurate definition. An ideology is just a held set of beliefs. It doesn't have to oppose the majority.
moyers:
James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
c:
strawman rhetoric. Picking an extreme case as representative of the norm. One can easily believe all sorts of things about the second coming without coming to such ridiculous policy conclusions.
moyers:
Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
c:
millions *may* believe? What kind of an ass-covering assertion is that to hang your whole argument on? Yes, millions believe in this version of the second coming, but millions haven't connected it to prerequisite environmental destruction. He's extrapolating a tenous generalization based on some extreme cases.
moyers:
the book of Revelations
c:
It's just one revelation. The book is called "Revelation."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim Andrews wrote:
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852 is an article called "Welcome to
> Doomsday" by Bill Moyers. It concerns the anti-environmentalism of
> 'rapture'ists.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
I saw this too, and honestly expected something a little more sensible from home boy. He's off as follows:
moyers:
ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality.
c:
This is an inaccurate definition. An ideology is just a held set of beliefs. It doesn't have to oppose the majority.
moyers:
James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
c:
strawman rhetoric. Picking an extreme case as representative of the norm. One can easily believe all sorts of things about the second coming without coming to such ridiculous policy conclusions.
moyers:
Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
c:
millions *may* believe? What kind of an ass-covering assertion is that to hang your whole argument on? Yes, millions believe in this version of the second coming, but millions haven't connected it to prerequisite environmental destruction. He's extrapolating a tenous generalization based on some extreme cases.
moyers:
the book of Revelations
c:
It's just one revelation. The book is called "Revelation."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim Andrews wrote:
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852 is an article called "Welcome to
> Doomsday" by Bill Moyers. It concerns the anti-environmentalism of
> 'rapture'ists.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
geeks accidentally making net art: SXSW 2005
Hi everybody on the rhizome list,
I just got back from presenting at http://sxsw.com/interactive/ ,
which is like the mecca of blog culture. People blogging their
notes of panel sessions in real time via wireless during the actual
panel sessions.
I'm always checking my referrer logs to see who is linking me, and
the links to my site markedly increased during and shortly after the
conference, much more so than at any other conference where I've
talked.
I could read reviews of my talk within the day, and by the second
day, late-coming bloggers were quoting the previous day's bloggers in
reference to the talk (meta-meta-meta).
http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=&url=curt+cloninger
Strangest of all, on flickr, I could see what acquaintances did after
we parted ways. For instance, on Monday night, we left Molly
actively calling friends on her cell phone in hopes of finding some
people with whom to get drunk. And sure enough, here's a picture of
her in a Hilton hotel room late Monday night, bottle of whiskey in
hand:
http://flickr.com/photos/58944004@N00/6795021/
(too much information, really)
Walking down 6th street with a group of folks after lunch, Jason took
a snapshot of a groovy VW motorcycle and said "that's going on
flickr," and indeed, there it was:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jkottke/6537310/
It all reminded me of the way Mark Stephen Meadows describes
non-linear narrative, in terms of multiple perspectives (a la
Rashamon). You have different people moving through the same space
and time, all documenting it from their own perspective, and in the
case of SXSW, it's all indexed and cross-referenced with meta-tags.
And because it's cross-referenced, I can alter my narrative path
through the event whenever I find a new path that interests me.
I can surf this "narrative" via several different navigational paradigms:
1. by event/time: what was happening on Friday night?
2. by location: what was happening at the opening night party at Frog Design?
3. by "narrator": of what did my friend nick finck take pictures?
4. by "character": how many pictures are there of Jeffrey Zeldman?
5. by subject: where are the pictures of beer bottles?
What arises are convergences of interest. For instance, lots of
people took a picture of this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/booboolina/6701812/
http://flickr.com/photos/jmcnally/6530732/
http://flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/6581935/
http://flickr.com/photos/58944004@N00/6794855/
and lots of people took (lots of) pictures of her:
http://flickr.com/photos/sirepaintball/6689824/
http://flickr.com/photos/somedirection/6879388/
One blogger described how people would just walk up to CSS jedi Eric
Meyer and have their picture taken next to him, without even asking,
as if he were mount rushmore or something.
You even have people posting comments at flickr asking "who's that
guy on the left?" And then the guy on the left will post and say
"oh, that's me."
What makes it the least bit interesting is that I was actually there,
so I keep coming across locations, events, narrators, characters, and
objects that were somehow related to my personal experience. And the
time-shifted, cross-referenced database allows me to expand my
personal experience (locationally and temporally) into perspectives
previously not possible. For instance, I ate dinner with so and so
at such and such a restaurant -- what did so and so go and take
pictures of after that meal? who took pictures of so and so? who
else ate at such and such a restaurant? what did they take pictures
of after their meal? In some cases, you can even see the same dinner
party from multiple diners' perspectives.
What "net artist" has yet devised such an elaborate real-time,
idiosynchratically mapped, network-centric, cross-indexed, databased,
multi-user, open-source, multimedia, semi-virtual/semi-physical,
socially networked performance? It's psychogeography and flash mobs
and democratized media and dyspanopticonization and several other
buzzwords you might care to muster (or coin). But really, it's just
a bunch of bored blogging geeks at a 4-day conference. Yet another
form of outsider net art.
Imagine if the events, locations, narrators, characters, and objects
were the least bit interesting to anyone other than those who were
there!
cf:
http://www.technorati.com/tag/sxsw
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/sxsw
http://www.technorati.com/tag/sxsw2005
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/sxsw2005
peace,
curt
I just got back from presenting at http://sxsw.com/interactive/ ,
which is like the mecca of blog culture. People blogging their
notes of panel sessions in real time via wireless during the actual
panel sessions.
I'm always checking my referrer logs to see who is linking me, and
the links to my site markedly increased during and shortly after the
conference, much more so than at any other conference where I've
talked.
I could read reviews of my talk within the day, and by the second
day, late-coming bloggers were quoting the previous day's bloggers in
reference to the talk (meta-meta-meta).
http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=&url=curt+cloninger
Strangest of all, on flickr, I could see what acquaintances did after
we parted ways. For instance, on Monday night, we left Molly
actively calling friends on her cell phone in hopes of finding some
people with whom to get drunk. And sure enough, here's a picture of
her in a Hilton hotel room late Monday night, bottle of whiskey in
hand:
http://flickr.com/photos/58944004@N00/6795021/
(too much information, really)
Walking down 6th street with a group of folks after lunch, Jason took
a snapshot of a groovy VW motorcycle and said "that's going on
flickr," and indeed, there it was:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jkottke/6537310/
It all reminded me of the way Mark Stephen Meadows describes
non-linear narrative, in terms of multiple perspectives (a la
Rashamon). You have different people moving through the same space
and time, all documenting it from their own perspective, and in the
case of SXSW, it's all indexed and cross-referenced with meta-tags.
And because it's cross-referenced, I can alter my narrative path
through the event whenever I find a new path that interests me.
I can surf this "narrative" via several different navigational paradigms:
1. by event/time: what was happening on Friday night?
2. by location: what was happening at the opening night party at Frog Design?
3. by "narrator": of what did my friend nick finck take pictures?
4. by "character": how many pictures are there of Jeffrey Zeldman?
5. by subject: where are the pictures of beer bottles?
What arises are convergences of interest. For instance, lots of
people took a picture of this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/booboolina/6701812/
http://flickr.com/photos/jmcnally/6530732/
http://flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/6581935/
http://flickr.com/photos/58944004@N00/6794855/
and lots of people took (lots of) pictures of her:
http://flickr.com/photos/sirepaintball/6689824/
http://flickr.com/photos/somedirection/6879388/
One blogger described how people would just walk up to CSS jedi Eric
Meyer and have their picture taken next to him, without even asking,
as if he were mount rushmore or something.
You even have people posting comments at flickr asking "who's that
guy on the left?" And then the guy on the left will post and say
"oh, that's me."
What makes it the least bit interesting is that I was actually there,
so I keep coming across locations, events, narrators, characters, and
objects that were somehow related to my personal experience. And the
time-shifted, cross-referenced database allows me to expand my
personal experience (locationally and temporally) into perspectives
previously not possible. For instance, I ate dinner with so and so
at such and such a restaurant -- what did so and so go and take
pictures of after that meal? who took pictures of so and so? who
else ate at such and such a restaurant? what did they take pictures
of after their meal? In some cases, you can even see the same dinner
party from multiple diners' perspectives.
What "net artist" has yet devised such an elaborate real-time,
idiosynchratically mapped, network-centric, cross-indexed, databased,
multi-user, open-source, multimedia, semi-virtual/semi-physical,
socially networked performance? It's psychogeography and flash mobs
and democratized media and dyspanopticonization and several other
buzzwords you might care to muster (or coin). But really, it's just
a bunch of bored blogging geeks at a 4-day conference. Yet another
form of outsider net art.
Imagine if the events, locations, narrators, characters, and objects
were the least bit interesting to anyone other than those who were
there!
cf:
http://www.technorati.com/tag/sxsw
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/sxsw
http://www.technorati.com/tag/sxsw2005
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/sxsw2005
peace,
curt
it is a great convenience for boiling eggs
There are five [rules of wisdom] in all. Always ask any questions
that are to be asked and never answer any. Turn everything you hear
to your own advantage. Always carry a repair outfit. Take left
turns as much as possible. Never apply your front brake first.
- Sergeant Pluck
http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/Launch2004.html
_
that are to be asked and never answer any. Turn everything you hear
to your own advantage. Always carry a repair outfit. Take left
turns as much as possible. Never apply your front brake first.
- Sergeant Pluck
http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/Launch2004.html
_