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: ASSISTANCE: teaching materials for the digital world needed
cf: http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread768&text!276
Jason Nelson wrote:
> Here in Australia I am teaching classes in the cyberstudies program
> (griffith university) with Kominos Z. and we are trying to gather up
> various
> teaching materials and the like for our digital art, cyberpoetry,
> cyber
> theory, creting interactivity courses. So if anyone has some good
> links that
> might help.
Jason Nelson wrote:
> Here in Australia I am teaching classes in the cyberstudies program
> (griffith university) with Kominos Z. and we are trying to gather up
> various
> teaching materials and the like for our digital art, cyberpoetry,
> cyber
> theory, creting interactivity courses. So if anyone has some good
> links that
> might help.
pop quilt completed
After almost a year, the pop quilt is completed and viewable at:
http://www.playdamage.org/pop/
Now accepting submissions for the community quilt:
http://www.playdamage.org/quilt/invite.html
View all the quilts here:
http://www.playdamage.org/quilt/
_
_
http://www.playdamage.org/pop/
Now accepting submissions for the community quilt:
http://www.playdamage.org/quilt/invite.html
View all the quilts here:
http://www.playdamage.org/quilt/
_
_
Re: Re: Blog vs Board (re: Blogging Survey)
Jason Van Anden wrote:
> I see an institution like Rhizome as being in a unique position to
> facilitate this kind of community activity. As I am writing this, I
> am thinking about what Dyske said in a much earlier thread - perhaps
> it is my responsibility to initiate such things.
Hi Jason,
I'm part of this initiative in my hometown:
http://themap.org
we spent all this time focusing up, getting corporate sponsorships and local government endorsement and professional consultations and a 5 phase implementation plan, etc.; but none of that stuff in and of itself makes a creative scene. A scene is probably better instigated by a bunch of sleep-deprived freaks with no funding, sitting in the basement mixing up the medicine. One can prototype and technologize and discuss ad infinitum, but if the energy and interest is not there at a root level, it simply won't materialize. As you say, it has to do with motivating humans. As Bill Burroughs said, "Every man a god, that is if ye can qualify. You can't be the god of anything unless you can do it."
I admire artist who just started making cool stuff from the ground up. Daniel Johnston recorded his original songs onto lo-fi mono one-track cassette tapes and just walked around downtown Austin, Texas, wandering up to strangers and giving the tapes away. Howard Finster was refurbishing old bicycles for poor kids when he saw a face in a paint smudge, then he drew the face, then he heard the voice of God telling him to take a dollar bill out of his pocket and draw it. Finster protested, "But I can't draw." God responded, "How do you know? How do you know? How do you know?" So Finster drew the dollar, then he drew some pictures of Abraham Lincoln, then he spends the rest of his life making brilliant cool messed up shit.
Or my man Al Sacui, still going strong and off the radar: http://gisol.org/
So I'd say if you have a mind to start using rhizome to do something, start using it to do something and see what happens. I'm not trying to squelch the dialogue, and I hope something good comes of it, but you don't have to wait on Francis before you attempt to reinvigorate rhizome. You just have to motivate a bunch of very busy, spread-thin creative folks with varied goals and different understandings of what art is "good for."
_
> I see an institution like Rhizome as being in a unique position to
> facilitate this kind of community activity. As I am writing this, I
> am thinking about what Dyske said in a much earlier thread - perhaps
> it is my responsibility to initiate such things.
Hi Jason,
I'm part of this initiative in my hometown:
http://themap.org
we spent all this time focusing up, getting corporate sponsorships and local government endorsement and professional consultations and a 5 phase implementation plan, etc.; but none of that stuff in and of itself makes a creative scene. A scene is probably better instigated by a bunch of sleep-deprived freaks with no funding, sitting in the basement mixing up the medicine. One can prototype and technologize and discuss ad infinitum, but if the energy and interest is not there at a root level, it simply won't materialize. As you say, it has to do with motivating humans. As Bill Burroughs said, "Every man a god, that is if ye can qualify. You can't be the god of anything unless you can do it."
I admire artist who just started making cool stuff from the ground up. Daniel Johnston recorded his original songs onto lo-fi mono one-track cassette tapes and just walked around downtown Austin, Texas, wandering up to strangers and giving the tapes away. Howard Finster was refurbishing old bicycles for poor kids when he saw a face in a paint smudge, then he drew the face, then he heard the voice of God telling him to take a dollar bill out of his pocket and draw it. Finster protested, "But I can't draw." God responded, "How do you know? How do you know? How do you know?" So Finster drew the dollar, then he drew some pictures of Abraham Lincoln, then he spends the rest of his life making brilliant cool messed up shit.
Or my man Al Sacui, still going strong and off the radar: http://gisol.org/
So I'd say if you have a mind to start using rhizome to do something, start using it to do something and see what happens. I'm not trying to squelch the dialogue, and I hope something good comes of it, but you don't have to wait on Francis before you attempt to reinvigorate rhizome. You just have to motivate a bunch of very busy, spread-thin creative folks with varied goals and different understandings of what art is "good for."
_
Re: Curt, you ...
Hi Eric,
Nice to meet you. I'm not exactly sure what got you riled. I'm assuming it was this sentence in the blog vs. board thread:
"And then of course, the liberal majority always feels at liberty to perpetually slag all things un-liberal despite the fact that most of their screeds have nothing to do with new media art."
If from that sentence you construe that I support Bush, you've rushed to some conclusions. If I'm not with you, am I against you? Does everyone on the list so defacto agree with your presuppositions (whatever they are), that you need only do a little trolling and insinuating to tar and feather me? I get a creepy feeling when I get around an "insider" group of people who assume everyone agrees with them. It's like being around trailer trash rednecks and having them talk racist to you, assuming that because you are white you will surely agree with their undefended assumptions. You're tone is sort of creeping me out in the same way.
I'll respond to the stuff below, because you've misconstrued me.
c:
> The lack of any democratically sanctioned world view
> is the whole fun and challenge of rhizome.
>
> e:
> is fun a sanctioned event on this listserv?
c:
no, but the anarchy on the RAW listserv wound up being fun for me. (go figure.) if fun were sanctioned, it would probably not be as fun for me. Others might really enjoy it.
> c:
> How can I carry on a logical conversation with someone who doesn't
> believe in aristotelian logic?
>
> e:
> What idiot in the 21st century still ascribes to aristotelian logic?
c:
it seems you've come to your own conclusions on that one. the majority of humans on the planet I'm guessing. Deconstructivists will even lapse in and out of it, sometimes as an intentional rhetorical gambit, and other times because they can't escape the appeal of its unity.
> c:
> How can I carry on a conversation about aesthetics with someone who
> doesn't beleive in aesthetics?
>
> e:
> Which Aesthetic are we prescribing to? Please clarify, this is to
> general, I'd fail a student who uttered such a response.
c:
my comment is necessarily general because it was posted in the context of an entirely different topic. such aesthetics are hammered out artwork by artwork, critical dialogue by critical dialogue. All different sets of aesthetic presuppositions are brought to the list (including the presupposition that aesthetics are totally subjective), and the discussion begins in light of the inherent nature of the piece of work we are discussing.
> c:
> In some extreme situations, how can I carry on a meaningful
> conversation with someone who doesn't believe meaningful conversations
> are possible or even desirable?
>
> e:
> Who feels this way? You? Aren't all exchanges meaningfull? If I engage
> in a conversation with you doesn't it imply we have a meaningfull
> degree of engagement?
c:
many contemporary cyber-situationists feel this way. IID42 Kandinskij, NN, and others who occasionally post here. I can understand it, but I don't recommend it. They take relativism to its natural extremes, but at least they attempt to be consistent in their application of it.
> c:
> Thus the boundries of the community are hammered out rhetorically,
> post after post.
>
> e:
> Why are they hammered out? And what makes these efforts seem to be
> excercises in " meaningless post after post engangement? "
>
c:
they are hammered out because it's an open forum and not everyone subscribes to the same world view. some people choose to enter into dialogue about these differences, others choose to flame.
e:
No more Rhetoric, you've been called out.
> Use real language or silence yourself.
c:
I'm afaid you've trumped me on the rhetoric. I hope my respone meets with your satisfaction. Otherwise, you might have to "call me out" again and submit me to the rigors of your mental clarity.
true love always,
Ruprect the Monkey Boy
Nice to meet you. I'm not exactly sure what got you riled. I'm assuming it was this sentence in the blog vs. board thread:
"And then of course, the liberal majority always feels at liberty to perpetually slag all things un-liberal despite the fact that most of their screeds have nothing to do with new media art."
If from that sentence you construe that I support Bush, you've rushed to some conclusions. If I'm not with you, am I against you? Does everyone on the list so defacto agree with your presuppositions (whatever they are), that you need only do a little trolling and insinuating to tar and feather me? I get a creepy feeling when I get around an "insider" group of people who assume everyone agrees with them. It's like being around trailer trash rednecks and having them talk racist to you, assuming that because you are white you will surely agree with their undefended assumptions. You're tone is sort of creeping me out in the same way.
I'll respond to the stuff below, because you've misconstrued me.
c:
> The lack of any democratically sanctioned world view
> is the whole fun and challenge of rhizome.
>
> e:
> is fun a sanctioned event on this listserv?
c:
no, but the anarchy on the RAW listserv wound up being fun for me. (go figure.) if fun were sanctioned, it would probably not be as fun for me. Others might really enjoy it.
> c:
> How can I carry on a logical conversation with someone who doesn't
> believe in aristotelian logic?
>
> e:
> What idiot in the 21st century still ascribes to aristotelian logic?
c:
it seems you've come to your own conclusions on that one. the majority of humans on the planet I'm guessing. Deconstructivists will even lapse in and out of it, sometimes as an intentional rhetorical gambit, and other times because they can't escape the appeal of its unity.
> c:
> How can I carry on a conversation about aesthetics with someone who
> doesn't beleive in aesthetics?
>
> e:
> Which Aesthetic are we prescribing to? Please clarify, this is to
> general, I'd fail a student who uttered such a response.
c:
my comment is necessarily general because it was posted in the context of an entirely different topic. such aesthetics are hammered out artwork by artwork, critical dialogue by critical dialogue. All different sets of aesthetic presuppositions are brought to the list (including the presupposition that aesthetics are totally subjective), and the discussion begins in light of the inherent nature of the piece of work we are discussing.
> c:
> In some extreme situations, how can I carry on a meaningful
> conversation with someone who doesn't believe meaningful conversations
> are possible or even desirable?
>
> e:
> Who feels this way? You? Aren't all exchanges meaningfull? If I engage
> in a conversation with you doesn't it imply we have a meaningfull
> degree of engagement?
c:
many contemporary cyber-situationists feel this way. IID42 Kandinskij, NN, and others who occasionally post here. I can understand it, but I don't recommend it. They take relativism to its natural extremes, but at least they attempt to be consistent in their application of it.
> c:
> Thus the boundries of the community are hammered out rhetorically,
> post after post.
>
> e:
> Why are they hammered out? And what makes these efforts seem to be
> excercises in " meaningless post after post engangement? "
>
c:
they are hammered out because it's an open forum and not everyone subscribes to the same world view. some people choose to enter into dialogue about these differences, others choose to flame.
e:
No more Rhetoric, you've been called out.
> Use real language or silence yourself.
c:
I'm afaid you've trumped me on the rhetoric. I hope my respone meets with your satisfaction. Otherwise, you might have to "call me out" again and submit me to the rigors of your mental clarity.
true love always,
Ruprect the Monkey Boy
Re: Re: Blog vs Board (re: Blogging Survey)
Jason Van Anden wrote:
> I believe that if the environment felt more safe, the content on
> Rhizome might have a better chance of flourishing without having to
> touch the technology. The current structure would suggest that this
> is up to the membership. Rules of Engagement? A Constitution?
I don't think so. The lack of any democratically sanctioned world view is the whole fun and challenge of rhizome. How can I carry on a logical conversation with someone who doesn't believe in aristotelian logic? How can I carry on a conversation about aesthetics with someone who doesn't beleive in aesthetics? In some extreme situations, how can I carry on a meaningful conversation with someone who doesn't believe meaningful conversations are possible or even desirable? Thus the boundries of the community are hammered out rhetorically, post after post.
http://rhizome.org/info/index.php
"we're tired of trees" is the mantra. did it happen? no. http://rhizome.org/baseims/navbar_subtitle.gif you can't have a rhizome "at" anywhere. "AT the new museum" is more than just semantics. it's proof that a pure rhizomatic social experience is not immune to other overarching control structures. but an agreed upon constitution isn't going to make it any more rhizomatic.
So what do I want out of rhizome? When I first came to rhizome, I wanted to discover a like-minded community of creative folks who wanted to talk about art. I never quite discovered that (except for a handful of kindred spirits). What I did discover was different, but in some ways even more beneficial to me (although it took me a while to appreciate it).
"Don't rock, wobble."
- the bubblemen
working from one end to the other / and all points in between,
curt
_
> I believe that if the environment felt more safe, the content on
> Rhizome might have a better chance of flourishing without having to
> touch the technology. The current structure would suggest that this
> is up to the membership. Rules of Engagement? A Constitution?
I don't think so. The lack of any democratically sanctioned world view is the whole fun and challenge of rhizome. How can I carry on a logical conversation with someone who doesn't believe in aristotelian logic? How can I carry on a conversation about aesthetics with someone who doesn't beleive in aesthetics? In some extreme situations, how can I carry on a meaningful conversation with someone who doesn't believe meaningful conversations are possible or even desirable? Thus the boundries of the community are hammered out rhetorically, post after post.
http://rhizome.org/info/index.php
"we're tired of trees" is the mantra. did it happen? no. http://rhizome.org/baseims/navbar_subtitle.gif you can't have a rhizome "at" anywhere. "AT the new museum" is more than just semantics. it's proof that a pure rhizomatic social experience is not immune to other overarching control structures. but an agreed upon constitution isn't going to make it any more rhizomatic.
So what do I want out of rhizome? When I first came to rhizome, I wanted to discover a like-minded community of creative folks who wanted to talk about art. I never quite discovered that (except for a handful of kindred spirits). What I did discover was different, but in some ways even more beneficial to me (although it took me a while to appreciate it).
"Don't rock, wobble."
- the bubblemen
working from one end to the other / and all points in between,
curt
_