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: Re: Re: Re: Burning Down The House
c [to tim]:
>>your underlying assumption that everyone "ought to" revere anything
>>that presumes to call itself "art," regardless of its aesthetic
>>appeal to them personally -- that smacks a bit of totalitarianism
>>(or at least political correctness) to me.
l:
>This reminds me of Leni Riefenstahl. I feel people dismissed her
>being a nazi because she got some really hot pics of naked African
>men. I still feel like those pics are fundamentally or at least
>aesthetically nazi. Weren't her videos and photographs responsible
>for cementing a vision of the fascist aesthetic? They've always
>bothered me.
c:
that in turn makes me think about collier schorr's staged nazi pics.
what is she trying to come to terms with, reconcile/redeem?
http://www.modernartinc.com/collierschorr/
http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/schorr/clip1.html
[and now we're way off topic]
>>your underlying assumption that everyone "ought to" revere anything
>>that presumes to call itself "art," regardless of its aesthetic
>>appeal to them personally -- that smacks a bit of totalitarianism
>>(or at least political correctness) to me.
l:
>This reminds me of Leni Riefenstahl. I feel people dismissed her
>being a nazi because she got some really hot pics of naked African
>men. I still feel like those pics are fundamentally or at least
>aesthetically nazi. Weren't her videos and photographs responsible
>for cementing a vision of the fascist aesthetic? They've always
>bothered me.
c:
that in turn makes me think about collier schorr's staged nazi pics.
what is she trying to come to terms with, reconcile/redeem?
http://www.modernartinc.com/collierschorr/
http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/schorr/clip1.html
[and now we're way off topic]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burning Down The House
c:
> > Just because I dare say some art is aesthetically "better"
> > than some other art,
i:
>It is very brave of you, but it does not make it true.
c:
obviously. but just because something can't be proved beyond a doubt
doesn't relegate all opinion to the rubish bin (otherwise art would
be science). I'm not looking for unilateral concensus. I'm just
looking for dialogue, thought, and critical engagement.
c:
> > Likewise, as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged
>> to defend the artistic sanctity of Tracy Emin's work. Not
>> simply because her work is "bad," but because of the specific
>> way in which it's "bad." It's anti-art that laughs at craft
>> and questions the practice of assigning aesthetic value to
> > artwork in the first place.
i:
>Do you mean it's anti-art _because_ it laughs at craft? Can't art laugh at
>craft? Can't art question the practice of assigning aesthetic value? Isn't
>that part of the job of art?
c:
all well and good, but when such anti-art suddenly finds iteslf
defending the value of its own object-craftiness, I laugh at it.
i:
>Or - whose aesthetic value do we want to assign to artwork? Yours? My dads?
>George Bush's?
c:
I want to assign my aesthetic value to it. You feel free to assign
yours. Or not. You can even feel free to try and keep me from
assigning my aesthetic value to it (but that's not a very tenable
position). We should probably leave my father and gw out of it.
> > Just because I dare say some art is aesthetically "better"
> > than some other art,
i:
>It is very brave of you, but it does not make it true.
c:
obviously. but just because something can't be proved beyond a doubt
doesn't relegate all opinion to the rubish bin (otherwise art would
be science). I'm not looking for unilateral concensus. I'm just
looking for dialogue, thought, and critical engagement.
c:
> > Likewise, as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged
>> to defend the artistic sanctity of Tracy Emin's work. Not
>> simply because her work is "bad," but because of the specific
>> way in which it's "bad." It's anti-art that laughs at craft
>> and questions the practice of assigning aesthetic value to
> > artwork in the first place.
i:
>Do you mean it's anti-art _because_ it laughs at craft? Can't art laugh at
>craft? Can't art question the practice of assigning aesthetic value? Isn't
>that part of the job of art?
c:
all well and good, but when such anti-art suddenly finds iteslf
defending the value of its own object-craftiness, I laugh at it.
i:
>Or - whose aesthetic value do we want to assign to artwork? Yours? My dads?
>George Bush's?
c:
I want to assign my aesthetic value to it. You feel free to assign
yours. Or not. You can even feel free to try and keep me from
assigning my aesthetic value to it (but that's not a very tenable
position). We should probably leave my father and gw out of it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burning Down The House
Hi Tim,
To liken religious book burnings to apathy/glee over the saatchi fire seems a stretch. Even if some critics here find the works in saatchi's collection lame, morality and aesthetics are two different things. Relativists miss this. Just because I dare say some art is aesthetically "better" than some other art, that has nothing to do with an imposition of morality or political totalitarianism. Actually, your underlying assumption that everyone "ought to" revere anything that presumes to call itself "art," regardless of its aesthetic appeal to them personally -- that smacks a bit of totalitarianism (or at least political correctness) to me. "Everyone is free to believe whatever they like, as long we all agree to believe in relativism."
I agree with Rob. A champion of chivalry is not obliged to defend every street walking tranvestite who calls himself a woman. In fact, he's obliged not to, lest chivalry become a diluted sham. Likewise, as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged to defend the artistic sanctity of Tracy Emin's work. Not simply because her work is "bad," but because of the specific way in which it's "bad." It's anti-art that laughs at craft and questions the practice of assigning aesthetic value to artwork in the first place. But she has no problem assigning monetary value to her work, and then bemoaning the loss of that monetary value. Forgive me if I'm not touched.
_
t.whid wrote:
> Hiya Curt,
>
> It all comes down to book-burning IMO...
>
> If this was fundamentalist christians/muslims burning Burrows/Rushdie
> we wouldn't have so many self-identified artists on this list
> gleefully
> dancing around the fire. Of course (i'll assume) this was an
> accidental
> fire, but it seems many on this list would have willingly tossed the
> match.
>
> the NYTimes fills us in on what was destroyed, which includes
> paintings
> -- gasp! yes -- paintings, one-of-a-kind paintings, and even --
> yikes!
> -- sculptures.. but who cares? they suck and their old media anyway..
> the artists will just make more, right?
>
> And again I ask myself, why do so many artists seem to hate art?
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/arts/27FIRE.html
To liken religious book burnings to apathy/glee over the saatchi fire seems a stretch. Even if some critics here find the works in saatchi's collection lame, morality and aesthetics are two different things. Relativists miss this. Just because I dare say some art is aesthetically "better" than some other art, that has nothing to do with an imposition of morality or political totalitarianism. Actually, your underlying assumption that everyone "ought to" revere anything that presumes to call itself "art," regardless of its aesthetic appeal to them personally -- that smacks a bit of totalitarianism (or at least political correctness) to me. "Everyone is free to believe whatever they like, as long we all agree to believe in relativism."
I agree with Rob. A champion of chivalry is not obliged to defend every street walking tranvestite who calls himself a woman. In fact, he's obliged not to, lest chivalry become a diluted sham. Likewise, as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged to defend the artistic sanctity of Tracy Emin's work. Not simply because her work is "bad," but because of the specific way in which it's "bad." It's anti-art that laughs at craft and questions the practice of assigning aesthetic value to artwork in the first place. But she has no problem assigning monetary value to her work, and then bemoaning the loss of that monetary value. Forgive me if I'm not touched.
_
t.whid wrote:
> Hiya Curt,
>
> It all comes down to book-burning IMO...
>
> If this was fundamentalist christians/muslims burning Burrows/Rushdie
> we wouldn't have so many self-identified artists on this list
> gleefully
> dancing around the fire. Of course (i'll assume) this was an
> accidental
> fire, but it seems many on this list would have willingly tossed the
> match.
>
> the NYTimes fills us in on what was destroyed, which includes
> paintings
> -- gasp! yes -- paintings, one-of-a-kind paintings, and even --
> yikes!
> -- sculptures.. but who cares? they suck and their old media anyway..
> the artists will just make more, right?
>
> And again I ask myself, why do so many artists seem to hate art?
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/arts/27FIRE.html