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: Thom Yorke / Howard Zinn
Eduardo:
> Also, I do agree with you and Ryan about Art consisting of many
> things; in
> the end, it is not good to essentialize based on labels, especially
> those
> strategically created thinking one can somehow be outside a
> hierarchical
> powerstructure, when clearly such structure feeds the person by
> enabling the
> individual to either teach, make, or/and write about art. If we make
> art
> and become aware of a particular thread of thought and events, we are
> bound
> to contribute material in various levels. This is how histories come
> about.
> Creating new labels and pushing one's opinion revitalizes the
> vocabulary of
> the discourse. This is exactly why we write on this thread; hence our
> creative nature. And by creating new labels one can also displace
> power by
> shifting its attention to particular narratives, but this is all being
> done
> within a particular discourse, which we can call "Rhizome-Raw" that is
> really an extension of the greater art discourse. We are not doing
> this is
> Mars, and we have serious investment in art making, so why fool
> ourselves
> claiming that we can dismiss hierarchies based on personal labels?
curt:
Thanks for the primer. I could have sworn these were my personal opinions and pet whims, but now I see that I'm simply operating in response to greater social power structures. This very argument itself is surely a gambit to shift the balance of RAW list power (sounds like a wrestling team), and not a gut reaction to the disturbing tidiness of your adopted system, as I had originally thought. I'm glad to know how I fit into your world view. I'll spare you the details of how such convenient reductionism fits into mine.
What if I'm just writing all this stuff for the sheer joy of self-expression, dialectic exploration, and personal procrastination? What if my livelihood has little to do with rhizome raw or my standing theron? What if I could not care less about altering the paradigmatic narratives of art history; I simply want to see more interesting art work produced for the sake of my own personal enjoyment? What if my geographical influences are more peculiarly southern than anything that could properly be called U.S? What if it's not all good in the hood?
eduardo:
> I do not really understand why there is a constant need by certain
> critics
> to openly bash on a specific historical branch of art practice.
curt:
caring is sharing.
> Also, I do agree with you and Ryan about Art consisting of many
> things; in
> the end, it is not good to essentialize based on labels, especially
> those
> strategically created thinking one can somehow be outside a
> hierarchical
> powerstructure, when clearly such structure feeds the person by
> enabling the
> individual to either teach, make, or/and write about art. If we make
> art
> and become aware of a particular thread of thought and events, we are
> bound
> to contribute material in various levels. This is how histories come
> about.
> Creating new labels and pushing one's opinion revitalizes the
> vocabulary of
> the discourse. This is exactly why we write on this thread; hence our
> creative nature. And by creating new labels one can also displace
> power by
> shifting its attention to particular narratives, but this is all being
> done
> within a particular discourse, which we can call "Rhizome-Raw" that is
> really an extension of the greater art discourse. We are not doing
> this is
> Mars, and we have serious investment in art making, so why fool
> ourselves
> claiming that we can dismiss hierarchies based on personal labels?
curt:
Thanks for the primer. I could have sworn these were my personal opinions and pet whims, but now I see that I'm simply operating in response to greater social power structures. This very argument itself is surely a gambit to shift the balance of RAW list power (sounds like a wrestling team), and not a gut reaction to the disturbing tidiness of your adopted system, as I had originally thought. I'm glad to know how I fit into your world view. I'll spare you the details of how such convenient reductionism fits into mine.
What if I'm just writing all this stuff for the sheer joy of self-expression, dialectic exploration, and personal procrastination? What if my livelihood has little to do with rhizome raw or my standing theron? What if I could not care less about altering the paradigmatic narratives of art history; I simply want to see more interesting art work produced for the sake of my own personal enjoyment? What if my geographical influences are more peculiarly southern than anything that could properly be called U.S? What if it's not all good in the hood?
eduardo:
> I do not really understand why there is a constant need by certain
> critics
> to openly bash on a specific historical branch of art practice.
curt:
caring is sharing.
Re: Re: Thom Yorke / Howard Zinn
Hi Ryan,
Zinn is not dismissing the value of the circus altogether, but he is definitely belittling its value as an agent of social change, and in a sort of condescending, patronizing way. As if there's mere entertainment on the one hand, and then there's powerful, serious art. (The more self-conscious and boring it is, the more important it must be.)
This discussion list is para-art. All our dialogue here is para-art. Grants and gallery shows and album sales and quantifiable measurements of social change are all para-art. Art is not immune to these social contexts, but neither is it necessarily dependent on them (judging from your response, we probably disagree on this point). There's this assumption that art which intentionally acknowledges these para-art contexts and dialogues with them is somehow more legitimate, and art that ignores these contexts is somehow less legitimate. This assumption, of course, is made by those who place an inordinate amount of value on such para-art contexts (namely writers, curators, educators, critics, historians). But the Howard Finsters and Emily Dickinsons continue to create great art just fine without us, and people continue to enjoy it just fine without us.
Assume some portion of great art (let's say 25%) is objectively quantifiable and the rest (75%) is objectively unquantifiable. Contemporary critics get all weirded out talking about that unquantifiable 75%, because they're not allowed to have a subjective aesthetic response to anything anymore, and they've lost the skill of writing in a critically poetic/emotional/personal/responsive way. It's all footnotes and historical allusions and "did the artist achieve what he said he was trying to achieve in his artist statement" and "how does this relate to this or that preceding movement." In other words, most contemporary critics are only comfortable talking about the quantifiable 25%.
So aspiring artists check out the critical scene, pick up on the 25% that's valued, and they learn to make art that's 100% quantifiable. The critics are happy, because now they don't have to deal with that sticky unquantifiable 75%. But art that's 100% quantifiable sucks. It's using a paintbrush as an oven mitt. Every other discipline seeks to be 100% quantifiable, and now we want our art to be that way too? Corrosive folly.
I am the Lorax; I speak for the trees.
--
ryan griffis wrote:
> hi everyone,
> (i didn't mean to singal out you out curt, i just thought some more
> concrete examination could help the discussion)
> anyway, i think we should re-examine Zinn's statements as i think they
> have been misinterpreted, or maybe not, but it seems that way to me.
> Zinn: "You can look upon entertainment as something useful, as we
> don't want to eliminate art which is only entertaining, and insist
> that all art must be political, must be revolutionary, must be
> transforming.
> ...there's a place for comedy and music and the circus and things
> that
> don't really have an awful effect on society except to entertain
> people - to
> make people feel good.
> In order to change that you need to have artists who will be conscious
> of that, who will
> use their art in such a way that it helps to transform society. It may
> not
> be a blunt instrument, but it will have a kind of poetic effect."
> that doesn't sound like a programmatic dismissal of the poetic to me.
> (i also wouldn't expect anyone to criticize art or even Radiohead as
> the "opiate of the masses", maybe all the Fox "reality" shows and
> internet porn...)
> and what was it marx said... something about composing music at night
> after working during the day...
> anyway, it seems like we're all in agreement that thoughtful,
> well-produced, complex work is better than what isn't (and for the
> record, i would never, never slam the circus - except for the ones
> that brutalize animals of course), but it doesn't mean one can't talk
> about the cultural and political meaning and implications of the
> non-verbal. i mean, what does it mean to say Radiohead has influenced
> more of the world than Zinn in a more profound way? (they are
> obviously engaged in different projects first of all) how and who and
> why? is this measured in records sales vs book sales? what are the
> different results of their impact? i don't think these are trivial
> questions. is it really "in" the music itself? am i a better person
> for listening to Radiohead rather than Matchbox Twenty (can i have
> fugazi please)? this doesn't mean i'm looking for didactic answers to
> the meaning of "Art," (please, no). i'd like to say that i enjoy
> something outside of a social context, but come on, what the hell
> would that mean? my enjoyment of anything is always grounded in many
> things - some people subscribe to different dogmatic theories to
> explain it, but there are ways of dealing with context in more complex
> and thoughtful ways, it's just not easy. especially when "Art" is
> given some kind of magic power to shield itself from everything around
> it.
> to compare someone talking about art as a non specialist to a surgeon
> or car mechanic is ludicrous though. when's the last time you wanted
> to hear a surgeon/mechanic tell you that a surgical procedure/car
> repair was "beyond words" and intuitive? if art wants to have the kind
> of cultural impact everyone seems to want it to, it should be open to
> discussion from non-specialists. especially if all us specialists can
> say is we like something or don't, but can't say why because it's
> non-verbal.
> well, that's way to much for me to have written without saying all
> that much.
> (+ eduardo - thanx for bring up Lygia Clark - i hadn't thought about
> her and Oiticica's work for a while, which i really like)
> take care,
> ryan
>
Zinn is not dismissing the value of the circus altogether, but he is definitely belittling its value as an agent of social change, and in a sort of condescending, patronizing way. As if there's mere entertainment on the one hand, and then there's powerful, serious art. (The more self-conscious and boring it is, the more important it must be.)
This discussion list is para-art. All our dialogue here is para-art. Grants and gallery shows and album sales and quantifiable measurements of social change are all para-art. Art is not immune to these social contexts, but neither is it necessarily dependent on them (judging from your response, we probably disagree on this point). There's this assumption that art which intentionally acknowledges these para-art contexts and dialogues with them is somehow more legitimate, and art that ignores these contexts is somehow less legitimate. This assumption, of course, is made by those who place an inordinate amount of value on such para-art contexts (namely writers, curators, educators, critics, historians). But the Howard Finsters and Emily Dickinsons continue to create great art just fine without us, and people continue to enjoy it just fine without us.
Assume some portion of great art (let's say 25%) is objectively quantifiable and the rest (75%) is objectively unquantifiable. Contemporary critics get all weirded out talking about that unquantifiable 75%, because they're not allowed to have a subjective aesthetic response to anything anymore, and they've lost the skill of writing in a critically poetic/emotional/personal/responsive way. It's all footnotes and historical allusions and "did the artist achieve what he said he was trying to achieve in his artist statement" and "how does this relate to this or that preceding movement." In other words, most contemporary critics are only comfortable talking about the quantifiable 25%.
So aspiring artists check out the critical scene, pick up on the 25% that's valued, and they learn to make art that's 100% quantifiable. The critics are happy, because now they don't have to deal with that sticky unquantifiable 75%. But art that's 100% quantifiable sucks. It's using a paintbrush as an oven mitt. Every other discipline seeks to be 100% quantifiable, and now we want our art to be that way too? Corrosive folly.
I am the Lorax; I speak for the trees.
--
ryan griffis wrote:
> hi everyone,
> (i didn't mean to singal out you out curt, i just thought some more
> concrete examination could help the discussion)
> anyway, i think we should re-examine Zinn's statements as i think they
> have been misinterpreted, or maybe not, but it seems that way to me.
> Zinn: "You can look upon entertainment as something useful, as we
> don't want to eliminate art which is only entertaining, and insist
> that all art must be political, must be revolutionary, must be
> transforming.
> ...there's a place for comedy and music and the circus and things
> that
> don't really have an awful effect on society except to entertain
> people - to
> make people feel good.
> In order to change that you need to have artists who will be conscious
> of that, who will
> use their art in such a way that it helps to transform society. It may
> not
> be a blunt instrument, but it will have a kind of poetic effect."
> that doesn't sound like a programmatic dismissal of the poetic to me.
> (i also wouldn't expect anyone to criticize art or even Radiohead as
> the "opiate of the masses", maybe all the Fox "reality" shows and
> internet porn...)
> and what was it marx said... something about composing music at night
> after working during the day...
> anyway, it seems like we're all in agreement that thoughtful,
> well-produced, complex work is better than what isn't (and for the
> record, i would never, never slam the circus - except for the ones
> that brutalize animals of course), but it doesn't mean one can't talk
> about the cultural and political meaning and implications of the
> non-verbal. i mean, what does it mean to say Radiohead has influenced
> more of the world than Zinn in a more profound way? (they are
> obviously engaged in different projects first of all) how and who and
> why? is this measured in records sales vs book sales? what are the
> different results of their impact? i don't think these are trivial
> questions. is it really "in" the music itself? am i a better person
> for listening to Radiohead rather than Matchbox Twenty (can i have
> fugazi please)? this doesn't mean i'm looking for didactic answers to
> the meaning of "Art," (please, no). i'd like to say that i enjoy
> something outside of a social context, but come on, what the hell
> would that mean? my enjoyment of anything is always grounded in many
> things - some people subscribe to different dogmatic theories to
> explain it, but there are ways of dealing with context in more complex
> and thoughtful ways, it's just not easy. especially when "Art" is
> given some kind of magic power to shield itself from everything around
> it.
> to compare someone talking about art as a non specialist to a surgeon
> or car mechanic is ludicrous though. when's the last time you wanted
> to hear a surgeon/mechanic tell you that a surgical procedure/car
> repair was "beyond words" and intuitive? if art wants to have the kind
> of cultural impact everyone seems to want it to, it should be open to
> discussion from non-specialists. especially if all us specialists can
> say is we like something or don't, but can't say why because it's
> non-verbal.
> well, that's way to much for me to have written without saying all
> that much.
> (+ eduardo - thanx for bring up Lygia Clark - i hadn't thought about
> her and Oiticica's work for a while, which i really like)
> take care,
> ryan
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thom Yorke / Howard Zinn
eduardo:
> Does creating your own terms really place you outside of a historical
> canon?
> I do not think so. You are still creating labels on a specific set of
> parameters based on well established art historical models.
curt:
I'm creating labels based on similarities I observe in various pieces of work I encounter. The labels describe the nature of the work. Am I obliged to filter my responses and critical understandings through a prescribed set of predetermined historical perspectives, or am I allowed a personal critical response based on the pieces themselves?
eduardo:
One day
> you may
> well be cited for being a pseudo-dissenter...
ace:
alrighty then.
> Does creating your own terms really place you outside of a historical
> canon?
> I do not think so. You are still creating labels on a specific set of
> parameters based on well established art historical models.
curt:
I'm creating labels based on similarities I observe in various pieces of work I encounter. The labels describe the nature of the work. Am I obliged to filter my responses and critical understandings through a prescribed set of predetermined historical perspectives, or am I allowed a personal critical response based on the pieces themselves?
eduardo:
One day
> you may
> well be cited for being a pseudo-dissenter...
ace:
alrighty then.
Re: Re: Re: Thom Yorke / Howard Zinn
Hi Eduardo,
T. Whid has chided me about this before. In the past, to avoid confusion, I have confined myself to using less historically encrusted terms like "ideaual art" (stupid, but different), "hardocre conceptual art" (hijacked by m. river!), and "object-incidental conceptual art" (accurate, but doesn't exactly roll off the tongue) to describe the dead mule I so sadistically continue to whip. Forgive this momentary semantic relapse. It's just that they were demeaning the circus. The circus! I had to act fast.
++++
Eduardo Navas wrote:
And many artists who came after the
> "hardcore" movement, in the U.S., developed work that was completely
> dependent on the art object. Roni Horn, Janine Antoni among others.
> I
> honestly do not understand the bashing. Maybe you should be more
> honest
> because in many ways Conceptual Art cleaned-up the corners that
> Duchamp had
> left untouched.
> Conceptual art is now part of history and should be considered a
> starting
> point, not a bashing scapegoat.
T. Whid has chided me about this before. In the past, to avoid confusion, I have confined myself to using less historically encrusted terms like "ideaual art" (stupid, but different), "hardocre conceptual art" (hijacked by m. river!), and "object-incidental conceptual art" (accurate, but doesn't exactly roll off the tongue) to describe the dead mule I so sadistically continue to whip. Forgive this momentary semantic relapse. It's just that they were demeaning the circus. The circus! I had to act fast.
++++
Eduardo Navas wrote:
And many artists who came after the
> "hardcore" movement, in the U.S., developed work that was completely
> dependent on the art object. Roni Horn, Janine Antoni among others.
> I
> honestly do not understand the bashing. Maybe you should be more
> honest
> because in many ways Conceptual Art cleaned-up the corners that
> Duchamp had
> left untouched.
> Conceptual art is now part of history and should be considered a
> starting
> point, not a bashing scapegoat.
Re: Re: Thom Yorke / Howard Zinn
Hi Ryan,
To clarify:
I mean to disrespect hamfisted didactic art. Not all conceptual art (whatever that means) is hamfisted and didactic. Much lately is. Not all political art (whatever that means) is hamfisted and didactic. Much lately is.
In the excerpt Eryk shared, we have a political activist dismissing the circus as something incapable of changing the world in any meaningful way. If you believe that, why call yourself an artist? Go hand out pamphlets. Zinn seems to be not merely adding an interesting perspective to the artistic dialogue (as you posit); he's trying to shoehorn art into his non-artistic understanding of llfe and human communication.
Most experts think that being an expert in their one field makes them an expert in every field. Like a brain surgeoun trying tell his auto mechanic how best to repair his Mercedes. Academia is prejudiced towards methodical, didactic communication. But the best art speaks a wholly different language. I wouldn't call it an ambiguous language. "Ambiguous" is a pejorative term that reveals an underlying preference for the didactic. You want me to put into words the quality of art that I most value? I most value the quality of art that communicates stuff which can't be put into words.
Radiohead (despite their music's lack of any overt political stance) positively influences contemporary culture to a much greater degree than Howard Zinn, and at a much more primordial, extra-didactic level. Because Radiohead are artists, and that's what artists do. If the creative approach I'm advocating seems uncomfortably intuitive and irreducible, perhaps you would enjoy a career in one of the social sciences?
the big 3 killed my baby,
curt
_
ryan griffis wrote:
> i have to say that for an argument that seems in opposition to the
> over-simplistic practice of political/conceptual art, it seems a
> simplistic response itself. it's also strange that "political" and
> "conceptual" art keep getting collapsed. certianly there are examples
> of "political art" going back to Goya through the Mexican and
> California Muralists that i don't think is being criticized here
> (because it involves manual craft, hence "Art"?).
> It also seems to have something to do with a valuation of ambiguity?
> Certianly, the roots of much political-conceptual art, dada/surrealism
> and situationism, embraced and employed ambiguity as a political
> tactic. the politics included pleasure.
> but much celebrated conceptual art was as apolitical as it gets (in
> overt terms) On Kawara, LeWit, Bochner, even a lot of Kosuth's work.
> so i guess i'm not sure what's being critized here. is it feeling like
> one's being "preached" at with no formal outlet to distract from the
> "sermon?" or is it a desire for manual craft? i don't have problems
> with these positions, i'm just trying to figure out exactly what the
> critique is, because i think some art perceived as cut-and-dry or
> overly "didactic" can be read with much more ambiguity and
> sensitivity.
> but to say that "it figures that a political scientist would expect
> this from art" as a dismissive is, well, not very useful. it overlooks
> other forms of knowledge that might have something useful to add to a
> critique fo visual culture. i'm not saying that it should be given
> priority by any means (that might be scary), but it shouldn't be
> dismissed. unless this is all about taste, in which case, whoever has
> the most cultural power wins ;)
> it's also strange to insist that artists don't have to try to
> communicate, they "just do" by being part of the environment. what?
> take care,
> ryan
To clarify:
I mean to disrespect hamfisted didactic art. Not all conceptual art (whatever that means) is hamfisted and didactic. Much lately is. Not all political art (whatever that means) is hamfisted and didactic. Much lately is.
In the excerpt Eryk shared, we have a political activist dismissing the circus as something incapable of changing the world in any meaningful way. If you believe that, why call yourself an artist? Go hand out pamphlets. Zinn seems to be not merely adding an interesting perspective to the artistic dialogue (as you posit); he's trying to shoehorn art into his non-artistic understanding of llfe and human communication.
Most experts think that being an expert in their one field makes them an expert in every field. Like a brain surgeoun trying tell his auto mechanic how best to repair his Mercedes. Academia is prejudiced towards methodical, didactic communication. But the best art speaks a wholly different language. I wouldn't call it an ambiguous language. "Ambiguous" is a pejorative term that reveals an underlying preference for the didactic. You want me to put into words the quality of art that I most value? I most value the quality of art that communicates stuff which can't be put into words.
Radiohead (despite their music's lack of any overt political stance) positively influences contemporary culture to a much greater degree than Howard Zinn, and at a much more primordial, extra-didactic level. Because Radiohead are artists, and that's what artists do. If the creative approach I'm advocating seems uncomfortably intuitive and irreducible, perhaps you would enjoy a career in one of the social sciences?
the big 3 killed my baby,
curt
_
ryan griffis wrote:
> i have to say that for an argument that seems in opposition to the
> over-simplistic practice of political/conceptual art, it seems a
> simplistic response itself. it's also strange that "political" and
> "conceptual" art keep getting collapsed. certianly there are examples
> of "political art" going back to Goya through the Mexican and
> California Muralists that i don't think is being criticized here
> (because it involves manual craft, hence "Art"?).
> It also seems to have something to do with a valuation of ambiguity?
> Certianly, the roots of much political-conceptual art, dada/surrealism
> and situationism, embraced and employed ambiguity as a political
> tactic. the politics included pleasure.
> but much celebrated conceptual art was as apolitical as it gets (in
> overt terms) On Kawara, LeWit, Bochner, even a lot of Kosuth's work.
> so i guess i'm not sure what's being critized here. is it feeling like
> one's being "preached" at with no formal outlet to distract from the
> "sermon?" or is it a desire for manual craft? i don't have problems
> with these positions, i'm just trying to figure out exactly what the
> critique is, because i think some art perceived as cut-and-dry or
> overly "didactic" can be read with much more ambiguity and
> sensitivity.
> but to say that "it figures that a political scientist would expect
> this from art" as a dismissive is, well, not very useful. it overlooks
> other forms of knowledge that might have something useful to add to a
> critique fo visual culture. i'm not saying that it should be given
> priority by any means (that might be scary), but it shouldn't be
> dismissed. unless this is all about taste, in which case, whoever has
> the most cultural power wins ;)
> it's also strange to insist that artists don't have to try to
> communicate, they "just do" by being part of the environment. what?
> take care,
> ryan