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.
i'm seeing objektz
Everything is different, but the same... things are more moderner
than before... bigger, and yet smaller... it's computers... San Dimas
High School football rules!"
http://www.logosfoundation.org/kursus/2005kraakdoos.gif
http://www.vi-anec.de/Trance-Art/Evo-Kunst/Evo-Kunst-Bilder/Gesamt-Kun
stprozess3.GIF
http://www.badrat.com/rhodes/ch11/fig11-2.jpg
http://www.ctrlaltdel.org/objekt_14/data.html
http://goldbergs.com/dervish/
http://galatea.stetson.edu/~mroberts/dropbox/downloads.html
http://m9ndfukc.org/nato.0+55.modular/antisense.025/
_
_
than before... bigger, and yet smaller... it's computers... San Dimas
High School football rules!"
http://www.logosfoundation.org/kursus/2005kraakdoos.gif
http://www.vi-anec.de/Trance-Art/Evo-Kunst/Evo-Kunst-Bilder/Gesamt-Kun
stprozess3.GIF
http://www.badrat.com/rhodes/ch11/fig11-2.jpg
http://www.ctrlaltdel.org/objekt_14/data.html
http://goldbergs.com/dervish/
http://galatea.stetson.edu/~mroberts/dropbox/downloads.html
http://m9ndfukc.org/nato.0+55.modular/antisense.025/
_
_
playdamage turns 50
when i was down beside the sea
a wooden spade they gave to me
to dig the sandy shore.
my holes were empty like a cup.
in every hole the sea came up,
till it could come no more.
http://www.playdamage.org
_
_
a wooden spade they gave to me
to dig the sandy shore.
my holes were empty like a cup.
in every hole the sea came up,
till it could come no more.
http://www.playdamage.org
_
_
Re: Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]
t.whid wrote:
If one's experience with contemporary art is limited than their
> opinions might seem limited to other's whose experience is more rich
> and varied. call it snobbery, call it elitism, call it taste; call it
> whatever you want, but (allow me one of my analogies) when i need
> wine recommendations I don't ask the 18-year-old clerk at the local
> Piggly Wiggly.
curt laments:
the clerk at the piggly wiggly, is it? after all we've been through,
i rate no higher than the 18-year old clerk at THE PIG! I would have
hoped you could at least concede me clerking at Food Lion, or Food
Tiger if nothing else! But no, I see how you are.
I've got a better one. MAYBE (just maybe), while you're down at some
lower east side wine merchant's shop sampling the merlot, i'm up on
cold mountain with the apple dumpling gang stoking the corn mash
still.
http://ps2.praystation.com/pound/assets/2001/09-04-2001/
http://www.deepyoung.org
cheers,
curt
If one's experience with contemporary art is limited than their
> opinions might seem limited to other's whose experience is more rich
> and varied. call it snobbery, call it elitism, call it taste; call it
> whatever you want, but (allow me one of my analogies) when i need
> wine recommendations I don't ask the 18-year-old clerk at the local
> Piggly Wiggly.
curt laments:
the clerk at the piggly wiggly, is it? after all we've been through,
i rate no higher than the 18-year old clerk at THE PIG! I would have
hoped you could at least concede me clerking at Food Lion, or Food
Tiger if nothing else! But no, I see how you are.
I've got a better one. MAYBE (just maybe), while you're down at some
lower east side wine merchant's shop sampling the merlot, i'm up on
cold mountain with the apple dumpling gang stoking the corn mash
still.
http://ps2.praystation.com/pound/assets/2001/09-04-2001/
http://www.deepyoung.org
cheers,
curt
Re: Re: Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]
Hi Eryk,
Yes, you get my critical approach.
Three further thoughts:
1. My critical approach works particularly well in a medium where:
a. an entire piece of work can be experienced by anyone anywhere. No
longer just black and white snapshots of a distant happening in an
art history textbook. Thus the experts can't say, "This picture
doesn't really do it justice. You have to travel to Paris and
actually SEE his brush strokes up close," or whatever. Now everyone
has equal access to the source "texts," the works themselves.
b. anyone can publish their opinion from anywhere to anywhere,
without having to grow a beard, or live in a certain area, or wear a
certain uniform, or walk a certain way, or attend certain functions.
2. The approach only works if one is allowed to use the English
language unencumbered to explain what she is talking about, and if
the merit of one's arguments are given credence in a somewhat
aristotilean system, where rules of logic and sense (and yes even
courtesy) are more or less adhered to.
3. I would never tackle feminism with such a critical approach
(although I realize that's not exactly what you did), because
feminism is a totally human construct. So it must mean what people
say it means, because people made it up. To dialogue in that
"language" is to be subject to the rules of the language. Art is
different because every piece is its own text, it presents itself as
such, and can be "read" as such by anybody.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why would anybody want to take art (a language always dialoguing in
some sense with "reality" and the senses up until the last century)
and make it a human construct? To prove some theoretical/moral point
like "the senses are cheats. nothing is based in reality. all human
communication, even art, is based on relativistic human constructs of
our own devising." But if I don't subscribe to that point of view
(and I don't), then I don't have to buy into that system of criticism
(and I don't). My approach must still be admitted by
"context-dependent" art critics [here someone may even try to nitpick
my use of the word "context"], because they can't say it's "wrong."
They castrated themselves of the ability to declare anything wrong.
So all they can do is say, "It's mean. It's moralizing [what a
moralization]. It's uneducated and plebian [what an ironic return to
the very type of criticism they were originally trying to free
themselves from], we just don't do it that way here."
But the net is still an open system (more or less, last time I
checked), and my posts go in with the rest of them, to be chewed on
by all according to each one's personal mind and system.
peace,
john cage bubblegum
_
_
At 2:35 AM -0400 7/8/03, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>I'm not sure if this is at all relevant, but there is something about what
>Curt is saying that resonates with some of my own thoughts on the subject of
>criticism.
>
>Firstly, I am an autodidact when it comes to critique. Most of what I come
>up with is simply through reason, and frankly, I have had so many arguments
>shot down with "oh, thats a modernist idea" that it's starting to look
>really hollow, particularly since I simply don't subscribe to any of those
>labels anyway- "pomo" or "modernist" are as meaningful as "liberal" and
>"conservative" in that they are completely imaginary seperations which imply
>that the two cannot cross over, when in fact they can and oftentimes do. If
>I look at a piece without training and contextualizing histories; it's
>usually responded to with the dismissal that I simply don't know what I am
>talking about. So, what I get from Curt- and correct me if I am wrong- is
>that art can be evaluated based on zero; art can be looked at purely in
>contemporary contexts and if one does not appreciate it based on thier own
>internal reasoning, then sure- I am uneducated, but I still don't like the
>piece, and the piece still failed in that regard. It is still a criticism
>worth looking at.
>
>Plenty of people can listen to and enjoy an Aphex Twin CD without
>understanding Stockhausen. In fact, that is almost entirely what the pomo
>"anti-canon" is about. It's the heart of pop art. One can hate Harmony
>Korinne regardless of whether one understands how "Julian Donkey Boy" was
>influenced by Stan Brakhage. In short, history is only one vector towards
>understanding an art work; and history is only social agreement. A work of
>art can- and most succesful work does- transcend societal agreement. And to
>evaluate work from within social agreement is a surefire way to miss a bulk
>of potential ideas out there. I also think the academic filibustering point
>is valid- and I don't think it's intentional, it's never intentional, but
>there is a tendency to safeguard the progression of ideas by finding thier
>source code. Of course, every idea has a source code which can stifle it,
>and I rarely see any point in tracing ideas back to a particular originating
>category. I found this happening in regards to my essay on gender- the idea
>that my essay needed to include a prehistory of feminism in order for people
>to read it was, in my opinion, ridiculous. The tendency to look at an idea
>and find its seed as a means of finding its core is one way to do things,
>extrapolation of where ideas can lead are seldom considered, however, and
>rarely discussed.
>
>This whole conversation is another case in point- how many emails exchanged
>about Curts ideas, and I can't remember anything but the argument over how
>he said them. Why that happens here so often is anyone's guess. I can see
>where it would come from though. In my psych classes we are taught to read
>essays from a "critical perspective" which means looking at what school the
>writer fits into and then applying what we know are flaws in that model to
>the essay. It happens in art school too, I am sure, or theory of any kind.
>Unfortunately, it sucks for what we are doing here- trying to progress a
>medium. Critical Perspectives are not designed for progress; they are
>inherently conservative; and predicting flaws based on comparison to other
>flaws is nowhere near as much fun as extrapolating possibilities. The
>transparency of "subscribing to a school" is really evident in psychology,
>since behaviorism, psychotherapy, gestalt and cog-sci all have proven
>themselves in various ways. In art, it's even more absurd, because it yields
>no measureable results either way. It's not like you kill the patient if you
>get something about post modernism wrong, you just make art that works or
>doesn't work. Depending on what set of ideas you personally subscribe to.
>
>-e.
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Curt Cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>
>To: <list@rhizome.org>
>Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:46 PM
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]
>
>
> > t:
> > > my question would be, if not here, where? there are plenty of places
> > > to discuss 'design-y' web work. why force it in here?
> >
> > c:
> > i don't want to discuss design-y web work. I was trying to discuss
> > net art that considers a sensory aesthetic.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > why are you
> > > intent on driving one of the only places with lively 'art' discussion
> > > into discussing something else? is it because you think contemporary
> > > art discussions are simply wrong and immoral? as is the art that they
> > > surround? simply because you think it 'sucks' and should be something
> > > else? simply because there a few more conceptually-oriented artists
> > > who discuss work here and you just don't like it? (we've already
> > > established that net art isn't being held hostage by 'conceptual art'
> > > as you seem to imagine.)
> >
> > c:
> > I am not trying to derail any topic you propose. All sorts of
> > discussions occur here without the least input from me, because they
> > don't interest me or I have nothing to add to them. Quite the
> > contrary. It seems in this instance you are trying to derail a topic
> > that I have proposed. I am talking about net art, just not through
> > your grid.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > > it's only fair to judge work within the context the creator meant for
> > > it.
> >
> > c:
> > that's certainly one approach. there are others.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > you wouldn't judge a 10-year-old on his math abilities by giving
> > > him a calculus test.
> >
> > c:
> > I would if she were applying to take a course in calculus.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > i wouldn't really care to have my work ... publicly condemned within an
>art
> > > context without any clue given as to what standards are being applied.
> >
> > c:
> > i've presented my standards. you just don't subscribe to them. we
> > disagree. it happens all the time.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > I don't go to T3 expecting Citizen Kane and i
> > > don't play ps2 expecting Mark Twain.
> >
> > c:
> > Does net art = citizen kane/mark twain, or does net art = T3/ps2?
> > what do you expect out of mark twain? What do you expect out of ps2?
> > Where did you learn those expectations? Need I subscribe to your
> > expectations, or may I explore other expectations based on
> > first-person analysis of the media themselves?
> >
> > _
> > _
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
Yes, you get my critical approach.
Three further thoughts:
1. My critical approach works particularly well in a medium where:
a. an entire piece of work can be experienced by anyone anywhere. No
longer just black and white snapshots of a distant happening in an
art history textbook. Thus the experts can't say, "This picture
doesn't really do it justice. You have to travel to Paris and
actually SEE his brush strokes up close," or whatever. Now everyone
has equal access to the source "texts," the works themselves.
b. anyone can publish their opinion from anywhere to anywhere,
without having to grow a beard, or live in a certain area, or wear a
certain uniform, or walk a certain way, or attend certain functions.
2. The approach only works if one is allowed to use the English
language unencumbered to explain what she is talking about, and if
the merit of one's arguments are given credence in a somewhat
aristotilean system, where rules of logic and sense (and yes even
courtesy) are more or less adhered to.
3. I would never tackle feminism with such a critical approach
(although I realize that's not exactly what you did), because
feminism is a totally human construct. So it must mean what people
say it means, because people made it up. To dialogue in that
"language" is to be subject to the rules of the language. Art is
different because every piece is its own text, it presents itself as
such, and can be "read" as such by anybody.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why would anybody want to take art (a language always dialoguing in
some sense with "reality" and the senses up until the last century)
and make it a human construct? To prove some theoretical/moral point
like "the senses are cheats. nothing is based in reality. all human
communication, even art, is based on relativistic human constructs of
our own devising." But if I don't subscribe to that point of view
(and I don't), then I don't have to buy into that system of criticism
(and I don't). My approach must still be admitted by
"context-dependent" art critics [here someone may even try to nitpick
my use of the word "context"], because they can't say it's "wrong."
They castrated themselves of the ability to declare anything wrong.
So all they can do is say, "It's mean. It's moralizing [what a
moralization]. It's uneducated and plebian [what an ironic return to
the very type of criticism they were originally trying to free
themselves from], we just don't do it that way here."
But the net is still an open system (more or less, last time I
checked), and my posts go in with the rest of them, to be chewed on
by all according to each one's personal mind and system.
peace,
john cage bubblegum
_
_
At 2:35 AM -0400 7/8/03, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>I'm not sure if this is at all relevant, but there is something about what
>Curt is saying that resonates with some of my own thoughts on the subject of
>criticism.
>
>Firstly, I am an autodidact when it comes to critique. Most of what I come
>up with is simply through reason, and frankly, I have had so many arguments
>shot down with "oh, thats a modernist idea" that it's starting to look
>really hollow, particularly since I simply don't subscribe to any of those
>labels anyway- "pomo" or "modernist" are as meaningful as "liberal" and
>"conservative" in that they are completely imaginary seperations which imply
>that the two cannot cross over, when in fact they can and oftentimes do. If
>I look at a piece without training and contextualizing histories; it's
>usually responded to with the dismissal that I simply don't know what I am
>talking about. So, what I get from Curt- and correct me if I am wrong- is
>that art can be evaluated based on zero; art can be looked at purely in
>contemporary contexts and if one does not appreciate it based on thier own
>internal reasoning, then sure- I am uneducated, but I still don't like the
>piece, and the piece still failed in that regard. It is still a criticism
>worth looking at.
>
>Plenty of people can listen to and enjoy an Aphex Twin CD without
>understanding Stockhausen. In fact, that is almost entirely what the pomo
>"anti-canon" is about. It's the heart of pop art. One can hate Harmony
>Korinne regardless of whether one understands how "Julian Donkey Boy" was
>influenced by Stan Brakhage. In short, history is only one vector towards
>understanding an art work; and history is only social agreement. A work of
>art can- and most succesful work does- transcend societal agreement. And to
>evaluate work from within social agreement is a surefire way to miss a bulk
>of potential ideas out there. I also think the academic filibustering point
>is valid- and I don't think it's intentional, it's never intentional, but
>there is a tendency to safeguard the progression of ideas by finding thier
>source code. Of course, every idea has a source code which can stifle it,
>and I rarely see any point in tracing ideas back to a particular originating
>category. I found this happening in regards to my essay on gender- the idea
>that my essay needed to include a prehistory of feminism in order for people
>to read it was, in my opinion, ridiculous. The tendency to look at an idea
>and find its seed as a means of finding its core is one way to do things,
>extrapolation of where ideas can lead are seldom considered, however, and
>rarely discussed.
>
>This whole conversation is another case in point- how many emails exchanged
>about Curts ideas, and I can't remember anything but the argument over how
>he said them. Why that happens here so often is anyone's guess. I can see
>where it would come from though. In my psych classes we are taught to read
>essays from a "critical perspective" which means looking at what school the
>writer fits into and then applying what we know are flaws in that model to
>the essay. It happens in art school too, I am sure, or theory of any kind.
>Unfortunately, it sucks for what we are doing here- trying to progress a
>medium. Critical Perspectives are not designed for progress; they are
>inherently conservative; and predicting flaws based on comparison to other
>flaws is nowhere near as much fun as extrapolating possibilities. The
>transparency of "subscribing to a school" is really evident in psychology,
>since behaviorism, psychotherapy, gestalt and cog-sci all have proven
>themselves in various ways. In art, it's even more absurd, because it yields
>no measureable results either way. It's not like you kill the patient if you
>get something about post modernism wrong, you just make art that works or
>doesn't work. Depending on what set of ideas you personally subscribe to.
>
>-e.
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Curt Cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>
>To: <list@rhizome.org>
>Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:46 PM
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]
>
>
> > t:
> > > my question would be, if not here, where? there are plenty of places
> > > to discuss 'design-y' web work. why force it in here?
> >
> > c:
> > i don't want to discuss design-y web work. I was trying to discuss
> > net art that considers a sensory aesthetic.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > why are you
> > > intent on driving one of the only places with lively 'art' discussion
> > > into discussing something else? is it because you think contemporary
> > > art discussions are simply wrong and immoral? as is the art that they
> > > surround? simply because you think it 'sucks' and should be something
> > > else? simply because there a few more conceptually-oriented artists
> > > who discuss work here and you just don't like it? (we've already
> > > established that net art isn't being held hostage by 'conceptual art'
> > > as you seem to imagine.)
> >
> > c:
> > I am not trying to derail any topic you propose. All sorts of
> > discussions occur here without the least input from me, because they
> > don't interest me or I have nothing to add to them. Quite the
> > contrary. It seems in this instance you are trying to derail a topic
> > that I have proposed. I am talking about net art, just not through
> > your grid.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > > it's only fair to judge work within the context the creator meant for
> > > it.
> >
> > c:
> > that's certainly one approach. there are others.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > you wouldn't judge a 10-year-old on his math abilities by giving
> > > him a calculus test.
> >
> > c:
> > I would if she were applying to take a course in calculus.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > i wouldn't really care to have my work ... publicly condemned within an
>art
> > > context without any clue given as to what standards are being applied.
> >
> > c:
> > i've presented my standards. you just don't subscribe to them. we
> > disagree. it happens all the time.
> >
> >
> > t:
> > I don't go to T3 expecting Citizen Kane and i
> > > don't play ps2 expecting Mark Twain.
> >
> > c:
> > Does net art = citizen kane/mark twain, or does net art = T3/ps2?
> > what do you expect out of mark twain? What do you expect out of ps2?
> > Where did you learn those expectations? Need I subscribe to your
> > expectations, or may I explore other expectations based on
> > first-person analysis of the media themselves?
> >
> > _
> > _
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
Re: Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]
t:
> my question would be, if not here, where? there are plenty of places
> to discuss 'design-y' web work. why force it in here?
c:
i don't want to discuss design-y web work. I was trying to discuss
net art that considers a sensory aesthetic.
t:
why are you
> intent on driving one of the only places with lively 'art' discussion
> into discussing something else? is it because you think contemporary
> art discussions are simply wrong and immoral? as is the art that they
> surround? simply because you think it 'sucks' and should be something
> else? simply because there a few more conceptually-oriented artists
> who discuss work here and you just don't like it? (we've already
> established that net art isn't being held hostage by 'conceptual art'
> as you seem to imagine.)
c:
I am not trying to derail any topic you propose. All sorts of
discussions occur here without the least input from me, because they
don't interest me or I have nothing to add to them. Quite the
contrary. It seems in this instance you are trying to derail a topic
that I have proposed. I am talking about net art, just not through
your grid.
t:
> it's only fair to judge work within the context the creator meant for
> it.
c:
that's certainly one approach. there are others.
t:
you wouldn't judge a 10-year-old on his math abilities by giving
> him a calculus test.
c:
I would if she were applying to take a course in calculus.
t:
i wouldn't really care to have my work ... publicly condemned within an art
> context without any clue given as to what standards are being applied.
c:
i've presented my standards. you just don't subscribe to them. we
disagree. it happens all the time.
t:
I don't go to T3 expecting Citizen Kane and i
> don't play ps2 expecting Mark Twain.
c:
Does net art = citizen kane/mark twain, or does net art = T3/ps2?
what do you expect out of mark twain? What do you expect out of ps2?
Where did you learn those expectations? Need I subscribe to your
expectations, or may I explore other expectations based on
first-person analysis of the media themselves?
_
_
> my question would be, if not here, where? there are plenty of places
> to discuss 'design-y' web work. why force it in here?
c:
i don't want to discuss design-y web work. I was trying to discuss
net art that considers a sensory aesthetic.
t:
why are you
> intent on driving one of the only places with lively 'art' discussion
> into discussing something else? is it because you think contemporary
> art discussions are simply wrong and immoral? as is the art that they
> surround? simply because you think it 'sucks' and should be something
> else? simply because there a few more conceptually-oriented artists
> who discuss work here and you just don't like it? (we've already
> established that net art isn't being held hostage by 'conceptual art'
> as you seem to imagine.)
c:
I am not trying to derail any topic you propose. All sorts of
discussions occur here without the least input from me, because they
don't interest me or I have nothing to add to them. Quite the
contrary. It seems in this instance you are trying to derail a topic
that I have proposed. I am talking about net art, just not through
your grid.
t:
> it's only fair to judge work within the context the creator meant for
> it.
c:
that's certainly one approach. there are others.
t:
you wouldn't judge a 10-year-old on his math abilities by giving
> him a calculus test.
c:
I would if she were applying to take a course in calculus.
t:
i wouldn't really care to have my work ... publicly condemned within an art
> context without any clue given as to what standards are being applied.
c:
i've presented my standards. you just don't subscribe to them. we
disagree. it happens all the time.
t:
I don't go to T3 expecting Citizen Kane and i
> don't play ps2 expecting Mark Twain.
c:
Does net art = citizen kane/mark twain, or does net art = T3/ps2?
what do you expect out of mark twain? What do you expect out of ps2?
Where did you learn those expectations? Need I subscribe to your
expectations, or may I explore other expectations based on
first-person analysis of the media themselves?
_
_