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: ART, Inc. necessary evil
c:
Is the goal of art to speak to humanity, or to speak only to the relatively few people who have been filtered through the thin pipe of contemporary art education?
t:
that question is answered individually by each artist. should one dumb-down one's work to appeal to the masses if that's not what one believes to be the proper course for their work? PLUS, americans are being schooled everyday in how to respond to the aesthetics and techniques of pop culture. in the cultural context of contemporary america, when you say 'speak to humanity' i hear 'britney spears videos'.
c:
that response comes across as elitist and disdainful. popular = dumb = britney spears. it's too simple, like a prejudice.
+++
t:
>>go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome >"Autumn Rhythm >>(Number 30)" and count how many >assholes say, "I could do that." >>fuck that
>>audience, i don't need 'em.)
c:
>so people either like what you like or they are uninformed redneck >idiots. Might there be a third class of people who get it but still >don't like it. Or does one's dislike of a piece of work defacto >prove that they just don't get it?
t:
if someone isn't intensely moved by the example i site above then,
yes, imo they just don't know how to look at and openly experience a painting (you may fill in your own derogatory term for one who's uncultured; redneck is good, philistine, cretin). perhaps if ART,
Inc. wasn't so derided and dismissed in contemporary american culture the general public would know how to look at a Pollack painting. they don't. I'm not an educator so until they learn i don't give a damn
what they think about Pollack's work or mine own.
c:
again, it sounds like you've got the secret knowledge [decoder ring] we all lack. Might someone understand Pollock and still not like him? Is the reason most people dislike contemporary art because they haven't been properly educated [programmed], is it because contemporary art is dismissed and derided by the media, or is it simply because a lot of contemporary art is self-referential, academic, overly cerebral, and boring? Might the artist be responsible to create work that acts as a bridge to bring people into a deeper appreciation of contemporary art, or is that just the job of the educator?
Mind art. Smat art. Educated art. Art (even Art Inc.) has only recently been about such things. And I think those emphases have only made art worse, less resonant, thinner, more parochial [even if your parish happens to be New York City]. "Everyone is smart; not everyone is brave."
_
_
_
Is the goal of art to speak to humanity, or to speak only to the relatively few people who have been filtered through the thin pipe of contemporary art education?
t:
that question is answered individually by each artist. should one dumb-down one's work to appeal to the masses if that's not what one believes to be the proper course for their work? PLUS, americans are being schooled everyday in how to respond to the aesthetics and techniques of pop culture. in the cultural context of contemporary america, when you say 'speak to humanity' i hear 'britney spears videos'.
c:
that response comes across as elitist and disdainful. popular = dumb = britney spears. it's too simple, like a prejudice.
+++
t:
>>go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome >"Autumn Rhythm >>(Number 30)" and count how many >assholes say, "I could do that." >>fuck that
>>audience, i don't need 'em.)
c:
>so people either like what you like or they are uninformed redneck >idiots. Might there be a third class of people who get it but still >don't like it. Or does one's dislike of a piece of work defacto >prove that they just don't get it?
t:
if someone isn't intensely moved by the example i site above then,
yes, imo they just don't know how to look at and openly experience a painting (you may fill in your own derogatory term for one who's uncultured; redneck is good, philistine, cretin). perhaps if ART,
Inc. wasn't so derided and dismissed in contemporary american culture the general public would know how to look at a Pollack painting. they don't. I'm not an educator so until they learn i don't give a damn
what they think about Pollack's work or mine own.
c:
again, it sounds like you've got the secret knowledge [decoder ring] we all lack. Might someone understand Pollock and still not like him? Is the reason most people dislike contemporary art because they haven't been properly educated [programmed], is it because contemporary art is dismissed and derided by the media, or is it simply because a lot of contemporary art is self-referential, academic, overly cerebral, and boring? Might the artist be responsible to create work that acts as a bridge to bring people into a deeper appreciation of contemporary art, or is that just the job of the educator?
Mind art. Smat art. Educated art. Art (even Art Inc.) has only recently been about such things. And I think those emphases have only made art worse, less resonant, thinner, more parochial [even if your parish happens to be New York City]. "Everyone is smart; not everyone is brave."
_
_
_
Re: Re: ART, Inc. necessary evil
> > c:
> > that response comes across as elitist and
> > disdainful. popular = dumb = britney spears. it's
> > too simple, like a prejudice.
> >
>
>m: Tim an elitist? I think you two need to get
>together have dinner or something.
c: Tim started his art career by copying Iron Maiden album covers (by
his own admission!), so how can he have legitimate beef with pop
culture? Maybe since Iron Maiden is British he thinks this lets him
off the hook.
m:
>How long is the
>drive to get down to you? What are you doing for
>Thanksgiving?
c:
Thanksgiving is not a good time because my brother and his family are
coming up. But y'all can come most any other time. Email me offlist.
According to mapquest, it takes 12 hours:
http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&ct=NA&1y=US&1a=
100+Freeman+Street&1p=&1c=brooklyn&1s=ny&1z=&2y=US&2a(+etta+drive&2p
=&2cEnton&2s=nc&2z=&lr=2&x8&y
Here are some pictures taken from my yard:
http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/fall/
>m: I think my job description is to make art and hope
>for the best.
c: Fair enough.
> > that response comes across as elitist and
> > disdainful. popular = dumb = britney spears. it's
> > too simple, like a prejudice.
> >
>
>m: Tim an elitist? I think you two need to get
>together have dinner or something.
c: Tim started his art career by copying Iron Maiden album covers (by
his own admission!), so how can he have legitimate beef with pop
culture? Maybe since Iron Maiden is British he thinks this lets him
off the hook.
m:
>How long is the
>drive to get down to you? What are you doing for
>Thanksgiving?
c:
Thanksgiving is not a good time because my brother and his family are
coming up. But y'all can come most any other time. Email me offlist.
According to mapquest, it takes 12 hours:
http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&ct=NA&1y=US&1a=
100+Freeman+Street&1p=&1c=brooklyn&1s=ny&1z=&2y=US&2a(+etta+drive&2p
=&2cEnton&2s=nc&2z=&lr=2&x8&y
Here are some pictures taken from my yard:
http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/fall/
>m: I think my job description is to make art and hope
>for the best.
c: Fair enough.
Re: Re: ART, Inc. necessary evil
t:
should philosophers make their texts easy to read so that the general public can understand it?
c:
they should make their texts as easy to read as possible without sacrificing the meaning they are trying to convey.
should philosophers make their texts easy to read so that the general public can understand it?
c:
they should make their texts as easy to read as possible without sacrificing the meaning they are trying to convey.
Re: Re: Re: ART, Inc. necessary evil
Actually, I'm not sure if art and philosopy are that akin. So for t.
to say, "why can't art be boring and tough to crack? philosopy is
boring and tough to crack, yet people wade through it," I already
have a problem with that analogy. Because a philosophical essay is
an attempted mind transfer. But if that's all art is, then I think
the art is already failing.
As far as all the "dumbed down" accusations, Michelangelo's David is
pretty popular and has been for a while, but I don't think you can
accurately call it dumbed down. Accessible and dumb aren't
necessarily the same, any more than inaccessable and smart are the
same.
At 4:32 PM -0800 11/19/02, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > <... should make their texts as easy to read as
> > possible without sacrificing the meaning they are
> > trying to convey...>
> > excellent! -it should be a kind of hippocratic oath
> > for artists , philosophers and politicians.
> > ..and how easy to encapsulate thusly and how difficult
> > to do!
> > Michael
>
> Absolutely. Cater to thelowest common denominator.
> Simplistic flatness uber alles.
>
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
to say, "why can't art be boring and tough to crack? philosopy is
boring and tough to crack, yet people wade through it," I already
have a problem with that analogy. Because a philosophical essay is
an attempted mind transfer. But if that's all art is, then I think
the art is already failing.
As far as all the "dumbed down" accusations, Michelangelo's David is
pretty popular and has been for a while, but I don't think you can
accurately call it dumbed down. Accessible and dumb aren't
necessarily the same, any more than inaccessable and smart are the
same.
At 4:32 PM -0800 11/19/02, -IID42 Kandinskij @27+ wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > <... should make their texts as easy to read as
> > possible without sacrificing the meaning they are
> > trying to convey...>
> > excellent! -it should be a kind of hippocratic oath
> > for artists , philosophers and politicians.
> > ..and how easy to encapsulate thusly and how difficult
> > to do!
> > Michael
>
> Absolutely. Cater to thelowest common denominator.
> Simplistic flatness uber alles.
>
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Re: We have no art (was: Pondering the social sculpture, P1)
The Balinese quote is lifted from _Understanding Media_. In his
chapter on "challenge and collapse," McLuhan identifies artists as
society's prophets because they are perspicaciously meta-media --
outside the accepted mass media of their time, un-blinded by its
ubiquity and exploring its implications. The Balinese quote first
appears in this context. He's saying that since artists are NOT
specialists, they can act as a "social conscience." (Interesting vis
Beuy's social sculpture).
McLuhan returns to the idea of everybody-as-artist in his subsequent
chapter on "games": "In a native society there is no true art
because everybody is engaged in making art. Art and games need
rules, conventions, and spectators. They must stand forth from the
over-all situation as models of it in order for the quality of play
to persist."
Which is why I'm down with the hobbyist artist. It doesn't mean you
can't get paid and exhibited. (Lew Baldwin gets paid and exhibited,
and he started out hobbyist.) It just means you'd make art whether
you were paid and exhibited or not. It means you spend more time
making cool shit and less time pimping your lame-ass contrived
specialist professional shit.
"don't need no woman
i won't take me no wife
i got the rock & roll and it'll be my life
no page in history, baby
that i don't need
i just wanna make some eardrums bleed"
- nigel tuffnel
At 10:28 PM -0500 11/18/02, Liza Sabater wrote:
>At 3:37 PM -0500 11/16/02, curt cloninger wrote:
>
>>"We have no art," say the Balinese: "we do everything as well as possible."
>
>i love this line.
>
>there is a difference between (living) art and (the business of)
>ART. my ponderings certainly have more to do with the last
>definition. thanks to (the business of) ART, i'd rather call art
>something else. i'd rather call it living as well as possible
>--certainly in the Balinese sense.
>
>
>best,
>liza
chapter on "challenge and collapse," McLuhan identifies artists as
society's prophets because they are perspicaciously meta-media --
outside the accepted mass media of their time, un-blinded by its
ubiquity and exploring its implications. The Balinese quote first
appears in this context. He's saying that since artists are NOT
specialists, they can act as a "social conscience." (Interesting vis
Beuy's social sculpture).
McLuhan returns to the idea of everybody-as-artist in his subsequent
chapter on "games": "In a native society there is no true art
because everybody is engaged in making art. Art and games need
rules, conventions, and spectators. They must stand forth from the
over-all situation as models of it in order for the quality of play
to persist."
Which is why I'm down with the hobbyist artist. It doesn't mean you
can't get paid and exhibited. (Lew Baldwin gets paid and exhibited,
and he started out hobbyist.) It just means you'd make art whether
you were paid and exhibited or not. It means you spend more time
making cool shit and less time pimping your lame-ass contrived
specialist professional shit.
"don't need no woman
i won't take me no wife
i got the rock & roll and it'll be my life
no page in history, baby
that i don't need
i just wanna make some eardrums bleed"
- nigel tuffnel
At 10:28 PM -0500 11/18/02, Liza Sabater wrote:
>At 3:37 PM -0500 11/16/02, curt cloninger wrote:
>
>>"We have no art," say the Balinese: "we do everything as well as possible."
>
>i love this line.
>
>there is a difference between (living) art and (the business of)
>ART. my ponderings certainly have more to do with the last
>definition. thanks to (the business of) ART, i'd rather call art
>something else. i'd rather call it living as well as possible
>--certainly in the Balinese sense.
>
>
>best,
>liza