curt cloninger
Since the beginning
Works in Canton, North Carolina United States of America

ARTBASE (7)
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.
Discussions (1122) Opportunities (4) Events (17) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase


I think the guest curator is a good idea, but to act more as a guest filter, to cull together favorites from the current artbase, not to act as a curator for new entries. Let the current standard criteria for new entries remain (whatever it is), and this guest curator thing is just one more level of meta-ness to draw attention to current works in the artbase that might not otherwise be noticed by contextualizing these artworks from a personal perspective.

A practical analogy:
At the apple iTunes online store, they ask guest musicians to put together a "mix CD" of sorts and explain their thoughts behind it. Then each track is sold for their going rate of 99 cents or whatever it is. So I can download and burn myself the same mix CD that Michael Stipe or Paul Simon or whomever chose.

This draws attention to and endorses musicians in their database that might not otherwise get heard by someone just randomly browsing. Because I trust the artist making the mix tape, I give his suggestions a try. If I like one of the musicians in their mix, I'll go check out her other work.

The same could happen with these types of "filterships" at rhizome. (Except the art is free because net artists are bound to be poor and give all their work away for free.)

Yes, "filtership" is off the top of my head. Yes, feel free to use it. [memes-r-us]

For more on the concept of filtering vs. curating, cf:
http://intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_No1_curation_schleiner.html

-------

nathaniel stern wrote:

> I like this idea much better. But perhaps rather than having a guest
> decide
> what goes in and does not, why not have them put together "shows" of
> current
> and archived (it is the artbase, after all) work, based on various
> themes -
> be them concept, time, file size, technology, etc? This would not be
> a
> competition (best or worst art?), but a curatorial project using both
> a
> collection (again, artbase), and placing a call for new work (new
> artbase
> submissions, based on theme of show - this should not exclude other
> work
> from being submitted to the artbase, outside of the show's
> perimeters);
> these online exhibitions would also be archived, making the artbase a
> bit
> easier to surf, and perhaps slightly more interesting to those not
> in-the-know of "what to look for."
>
> 2cents,
>
> nathaniel
> http://nathanielstern.com
>
>
> Feisal Ahmad, who can be found @ feisal@rhizome.org online, so boldly
> stated
> the following, on 11/7/03 5:15 PM:
>
> > I think we understand your feelings on the potential downside of the
> > 'competitive nature' of such an idea and it's definitely a valid
> point.
> >
> > Another possible artbase idea that we've been kicking around is the
> 'guest
> > curator' concept, where we get one specific person to serve the
> curatorial
> > function and give them a time window to do so--- not to to choose on
> the
> > supposed 'best in show' of what's already in the artbase but to help
> decide
> > what actually goes in when it comes to new submissions.
> >
> > My questions to you all are, do you feel that this could be a
> feasible
> > proposition? Is it moving towards an Artbase Superuser capability,
> and if so,
> > would that be a good or bad thing in your eyes? Best,
> >
> > = Feisal

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: re: net.art education and its contents


the linkrotted rant that used to be in the top frame of:
http://tinjail.com/concept/adefine.html

still resides here:
http://www.spark-online.com/issue24/cloninger.html

[i'm just glad to be of service.]

--

M. River wrote:

> http://tinjail.com/concept/index.html

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Materialism/Mysticism (was Re: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?)


hi mark,

To clarify, when i talk about a spiritual world, i'm talking about a spiritual world that exerts an influence on the material world. It's what Hamlet means when he says, "What should such fellows as I do crawling between heaven and earth?" I believe we live in two worlds concurrently, and are simultaneously influenced by both. If such is the case, then attributing every event to material causes is no less fallacious than attributing every event to spiritual causes.

peace,
curt

__

mark cooley wrote:

> just wanted to throw something in... a response to... > If a spiritual
> world exists, but I don't allow for its existence, I will wrongly
> attribute spiritual influences to material causes. If a spiritual
> world doesn't exist, but I believe one does, I will wrongly attribute
> material influences to spiritual causes.< Curt. There is, of course,
> the third position (and many others besides) that allows for both the
> existence of "a spiritual world" and a materialist way of finding
> social relations meaningful. I don't think this should be a chicken
> OR egg thing. It is possible to believe the existence of an
> unattainable (at least while we are in our bodies here on earth)
> transcendence and a view that human social relations always work
> within political/economic contexts. Personally, I have a lot of
> trouble attributing material situations with universal/transcendent
> causes, simply because every situation takes place within relations of
> power in society... unless you say that power relations are somehow
> divinely sanctioned... and I'm not about to go there.
> One can believe in the existence of a spirit world and, at the same
> time, have no faith in it.

DISCUSSION

re: net.art education and its contents



DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Materialism/Mysticism (was Re: No Web Art in the Whitney Biennial?)


eryk:
>I would say- as an atypical modernist- that God, as an existing figure or
>not, is not "the problem." Our relationship with God is the problem. The
>notion of choice- free will runs through religion- is really central to most
>explosive ideas, from Democracy to Marxism. Coupled with sponteneity- which
>I would define as one potential endpoint of Joy- a picture emerges not
>neccesarily of Revolution replacing God, but of Revolution resorting to
>and/or instigating, in some, what the belief in God accomplishes for others.
>And I think it can- with the proper understanding of its adherents- actually
>accomplish a similar psychological imperative of personal happiness and
>liberation. Call it Comparative Revolution. The seven deadly sins, even
>taken as a secular psychological value, are extremely useful; they're
>guideposts to what trips people up in being free. If Communism paid
>attention to them we might see a different breed of engaged socialism
>succesful today- although it could also falter; that's the issue with
>revolution- in order to achive any result as a concept, it has to be, if you
>forgive me, a permanent revolution.

curt:
I hear what you're saying, and I do agree that modernists isms are
trying to solve the same basic human problems as religion. But I
don't think a more religious form of socialism will work, any more
than I think that religion itself will work. I don't really consider
myself religious. I just believe in God. It has been said that
religion is man's failed attempts to reach God, and the person of
Jesus is God's successful attempt to reach man. I believe a
one-on-one relationship with God is central, not peripheral, to the
problem of the human condition.

Christianity is not about morality, the seven deadly sins, or the ten
commandments. Jesus summed it up simply, "Love God with all your
heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Knowledge of what's right doesn't give me the strength to do what's
right. That strength to love the unlovely is a supernatural strength
that comes from God alone.

eryk:
>Let me put it to you this way: If a thing- any thing at all- is concerned
>with *true* freedom and liberation, isn't it holy by default? We could argue
>it as a debate over the existance of God, or we could argue it as a debate
>over the manner in which God manifests itself. But I guess my point is, an
>idea that can take root inside of anyone's mind and open them up to the idea
>of truth, beauty, etc- again, in a true way, not a hallmark greeting card
>way- then isn't it to some degree a religious experience? And I am not
>talking simply about the Mona Lisa or something "noble," but even Warhols
>Soup Cans- which, taken in historical context, I would offer in full
>seriousness as a religious document, along with anything that makes us
>question our ideas of the world, even if it is simply the question of "is it
>art?" - "Is it beautiful?" Put some of the better conceptual artists here
>and you can ask the same questions, minus the imposition of an artifact.

curt:
I totally agaree. It is kind of strange that we are having this
discussion on an art list. But then again, it's not so strange. I
believe part of God's inherent nature is "creator." He makes stuff.
Literal stuff, like matter. Stuff that we can't make; we just remix
it. He made us in his image. And part of his image (who he is) is
creator. So when we create, we participate and celebrate who he's
made us to be, whether we believe in him or not. Which is what
Keats' Urn might mean when it says "beauty is truth and truth
beauty." Which is why I can crank up Radiohead's "Holy Roman Empire"
and raise my hands and weep as it washes over me. In many ways,
artists know aspects of God that many conservative religious people
will never know.

eryk:
>I always saw this position- of the existentialists primarily- is that if
>there is no meaning, then there is no meaning to that, either. Why despair?
>It then becomes an issue very close to my own idea of life: If we are in a
>state of zero, we have a state of infinite choice. And when we have infinite
>choice, we can panic, or we can rise up to face and embrace the choice for
>our own happiness. Why do anything? You can say this as well- why work for
>any community, why work for any self improvement, if heaven is assured by
>biblical default of *not* sinning.

curt:
Biblically, heaven is not assured by not sinning. Heaven is a
kingdom, and a kingdom is defined as the reign of a king over an
area. The kingdom of God is the rule of God in men's hearts. It's
not about towing the moral line. It's about yieldedness to the
person of God.

eryk:
>Certainly, a humanistic view can explain
>some of this- you work towards God because it makes you happy to be clean
>and without guilt associated with sin. Heaven or not, Religion works because
>it makes this mortal coil feel better. Ultimately, though, can anyone
>believe in God without getting to a point of zero and then choosing to
>embrace God? Isn't this ultimately the same as the post modern condition-
>except the post modern condition, it seems to me, offers and opportunity to
>strike out elements of tainted religion, of Erich Fromm's authoritative
>religion which seeks to limit freedom rather than expand it. You cannoy
>choose god if you cannot _not_ choose God, correct? Isn't Post Modernism
>really just saying: You can _not_ choose god, and then you can choose God if
>you want to?

curt:
Agreed. But coming to the point of making a choice is still not
having made a choice.

curt:
> > Gnostics believe in a separation of matter and spirit, that matter is
>> base and to be overcome. But Christians believe God made man in
>> three integrated parts -- body, soul, and spirit. At the fall, death
>> entered the world and the body started breaking. At the incarnation,
>> God entered the world and became a man in order to buy back the body
>> (among other things). Christian mysticism isn't about becoming
>> nothing or escaping the body. It is (in part) about using the senses
> > as a vehicle to spiritual stuff.

eryk:
>Above, you make my point exactly- but I don't know if we need to believe in
>Christ as a literal son of God to believe that. We can believe in Christ's
>ideas as descended from God and still believe it, and we can believe that
>God is evidence of human potential and still believe that. But coming from
>the idea that the word of Christ was what was brought down from God, not
>neccesarily Christ himself, and coming from the idea that these ideas were
>designed to implement a new set of thought systems for mankind, wasn't
>Christ, to some degree, a conceptual artist? Or coming from the idea that he
>_was_ the literal son of God- didn't he use the same tools as conceptual
>artists to spread the Gospel?

curt:
Jesus came to do more than spread a meme. He came to be a spiritual
sacrifice. The power of his death and resurrection don't derive from
their metaphorical poeticism. He defeated death and evil in the
literal spiritual realm ("literal spiritual" is not an oxymoron to
me). You can allegorize these historical events if you like, but in
so doing, you get a diluted remix, something just enough removed from
Bibllical Christianity to leave out the living God.

Here is an interesting passage from the New Tesetament written by
Peter, one of Jesus's closest companions, in which the author himself
give us hermeneutical instructions as ato how we are to interpret his
text:

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about
the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were
eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God
the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory,
saying, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.' We
ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with
him on the sacred mountain."

eryk:
>Because to say that you are bored by conceptual art seems to me like you are
>saying you are bored of ideas, and I can't understand that. Ideas can be
>shit- literally, I mean. They can be forced onto other individuals and they
>can be bad and they can encourage diseased thought, but they can also
>encourage a sort of spiritual discourse with the world, or instigate a
>personal inquiry. I have always seen *good* conceptual art as a legitimate
>form of philosophical and psychological inquiry; I see no reason why it
>cannot be a form of religious inquiry, either. I mean, people see it as "Oh,
>well, Religion has nothing to do with Psychology." But it does. A lot of
>psychology comes from Kierkregaard, who was a Christian and very concerned
>with religion, and it goes down from there. The problems stem from when we
>view these developments in religious understanding as seperate fields that
>compete with religion, and I think art has some of that problem. Is there
>anything in the humanities that is not somehow the study of God? "Man in his
>own image" and all? But again, Beuys, Tzara, Duchamp, etc- they all seem to
>be descended from ideas of mysticism from me. Jung certainly was, so to an
>extent was Freud. Good psychology is a contemporary mysticism, good
>conceptual art is good psychology. At least if you come from where I come
>from- as a psychologist (in training) who makes art.

curt:
My problem with pure conceptual art is that it takes one of the few
areas of human activity that need not be subject to didacticism, and
it makes it didactic. You could write a text essay with a
paintbrush, but what a waste of the paintbrush's unique potential.
Yes, let there be concepts in art, but let them also traffic in the
visceral, sensory, intuitive, non-didactic channels that art alone c
an travel.

curt:
> > To answer your question -- no, I don't think
>> there is anything about conceptual art that inherently challenges
> > faith in God.

eryk:
>That wasn't really my question, my question was whether conceptual art
>really differs on any level from Religion- whether you believe in god or
>not, both take place in the form of ideas and develop there. God can do it-
>the idea of God can turn into what some people believe is a true, real God
>inside of them, but then what is the idea of the _idea_ all about? How else
>does god get there, I guess is what I am asking, if not on the vehicle of an
>idea? (It doesn't disprove god at all, nor does it prove it- it proves that
>there is a choice to be made, personally, as to whether to choose god or
>not.) Isn't this level of _idea_ where some of the best conceptual art comes
>from? Take Cage's 4'33" for example? What if he wrote it as a hymn?

curt:
I know about God from stuff God made -- the universe, these
mountains, the fall trees on fire, all creatures great and small, me.
I know about God from stuff God did -- became a man, cast out demons,
healed folks, loved me and provided for me and gave me a life. So for
me, there's more to my faith than just ideas. If these things didn't
actually happen, if they are just man-made ideas, they are no more or
less useful to me than any other humanistic ism.

peace,
curt