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.
Required Reading
Hi Jesse,
re: cloning, my uncle and I have the same name. He is http://curtcloninger.com . It's not like being named mike jones, because we aren't legion, we are just two. ego surfing at google is fun.
Yes, of course the use of web art/images/text is different than the use of pre-web art/image/text. But "difference" is not like a binary on and off, where something is either altogether different or altogether the same. (Here I borrow from Derrida; I will spare you the theoretical details). Something would have to be extremely radical and novel for it to be completely and altogether different than anything else. A sewing machine, an umbrella, and a dissecting table are all similar/different.
Plus, I would hardly say that the web after 2000 is unimaginably incomparable to the web prior to 2000. Or that the net/web from 1968 - 2000 is unimaginably incomparable to all sorts of things prior to 1968 (Gysin/Burroughs, Kaprow, Bush's Memex, Borges' fiction). technically, nastynets is similar to 4chan which is similar to dreamless.org which is similar to livejournal friend groups circa 1997. I do think RSS-ability matters, but I won't go into why here. For my money, the interesting differences are not really in the technology. I am more interested in a new willingness to embrace corporate-generated pop culture detritus (net.tritus) as a lingua franca for gleeful/unethical word/image-play. And even this move is not without historical precedent.
As one who researches and writes about the aporias of performed language, dump.fm and spirit surfers are of particular interest to me. (As the next new art_scene rising up from Williamsburg to take Chelsea by storm, I could not be any less interested.) And to my detriment, I am still inexplicably interested in this ridiculous, derelict, abandoned, ghetoized, rhizome community discussion area. "rhizome_RAW, I wish I knew how to quit you."
re: Tom Moody not directly addressing me, I was mistaken. I see that he did directly address me a couple of times there at the beginning before he gave up on me. I have never felt that not liking someone was a reason to stop talking to them. I didn't particularly like Tim Whidden in 1998, but I kept talking to him and now we are lovers. It just goes to show you.
From The Bowels of Rock and Roll, I remain,
the
/
the
re: cloning, my uncle and I have the same name. He is http://curtcloninger.com . It's not like being named mike jones, because we aren't legion, we are just two. ego surfing at google is fun.
Yes, of course the use of web art/images/text is different than the use of pre-web art/image/text. But "difference" is not like a binary on and off, where something is either altogether different or altogether the same. (Here I borrow from Derrida; I will spare you the theoretical details). Something would have to be extremely radical and novel for it to be completely and altogether different than anything else. A sewing machine, an umbrella, and a dissecting table are all similar/different.
Plus, I would hardly say that the web after 2000 is unimaginably incomparable to the web prior to 2000. Or that the net/web from 1968 - 2000 is unimaginably incomparable to all sorts of things prior to 1968 (Gysin/Burroughs, Kaprow, Bush's Memex, Borges' fiction). technically, nastynets is similar to 4chan which is similar to dreamless.org which is similar to livejournal friend groups circa 1997. I do think RSS-ability matters, but I won't go into why here. For my money, the interesting differences are not really in the technology. I am more interested in a new willingness to embrace corporate-generated pop culture detritus (net.tritus) as a lingua franca for gleeful/unethical word/image-play. And even this move is not without historical precedent.
As one who researches and writes about the aporias of performed language, dump.fm and spirit surfers are of particular interest to me. (As the next new art_scene rising up from Williamsburg to take Chelsea by storm, I could not be any less interested.) And to my detriment, I am still inexplicably interested in this ridiculous, derelict, abandoned, ghetoized, rhizome community discussion area. "rhizome_RAW, I wish I knew how to quit you."
re: Tom Moody not directly addressing me, I was mistaken. I see that he did directly address me a couple of times there at the beginning before he gave up on me. I have never felt that not liking someone was a reason to stop talking to them. I didn't particularly like Tim Whidden in 1998, but I kept talking to him and now we are lovers. It just goes to show you.
From The Bowels of Rock and Roll, I remain,
the

the