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: funding and rhizome comissions
I'm still hesitant to buy into this assumption that becoming accepted in the contemporary art wold inherently benefits an artist or a genre of art. Did Alan Kaprow book his happenings into a gallery space? Did Alexei Shulgin move to New York to break into the net art scene? Is it in the spirit of Duchamp that his urinal is now enshrined in museum plexiglass? Was May '68 instigated by overt partisan activism, or by years of perpetual underground situationist mindscrew disruption? Did Howard Finster's work improve or get worse after his being "discovered?" Did Fugazi court Warner Brothers for a record deal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW5vo-QMlFk ,
curt
Eric Dymond wrote:
> Jason, you are so dead on with this observation.
>
> The funding model for net art is certainly the source of most of the
> dissatisfaction we see in the threads related to the commissions.
> Had Rhizome a budget of say 500,000 dollars then we could have
> numerous funded community voted projects and curated exhibits (and pay
> Lauren, Patrick and Marisa what they deserve).
> Ten years ago I thought that by now, the funding model would have
> evolved into something more substantial than it is.
> Fortunately network artists continue to make net art, to our great
> benefit.
> And even more surprisingly, it continues to evolve without the support
> structures that traditional (and even non-traditional) arts enjoy.
> We are certainly driven.
>
> I don't think we should remain satisfied with the current support
> shown by *all* art institutions. It's about time some online artsists
> started to get more vocal about the lack of financial support Rhizome
> receives.
>
> There is an existing wall between traditional art venues (museums,
> galleries, funding bodies) and online art. This has to be surmounted.
> How do we address and that problem, twist their arms, embrace their
> budgets and get on to the next iteration of distributed art.
>
> Lets not forget how conservative even the most forward thinking
> institutions are compared to Rhizome.
>
> We need to find ways to bridge that gap, encourage support, without
> losing independence. Thats a tricky project but doable. When curators,
> and critics point to the flaws they see in the theory and practice of
> network based art, then we need do some educating and if necessary
> bribe them. The Abstract Expressionist once picketed the Met (when
> their work was ignored and dismissed as second rate) they helped to
> establish a new role for that artist at mid-century and gave it a face
> as well. It might be time for more active role of the networked artist
> in this new century.
>
> If they can ignore you, they will. If you make enough noise, and keep
> it up, they might just change. They definitely won't change if you are
> silent. Science Centers and Libraries are great, but lets aim for the
> mainline art institutions.
>
> Online activism is the starting point. Create a demand for support,
> and openly and loudly criticize the institutions that don't support
> you. Then get into the streets, make it a noisy summer.
>
> Eric
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW5vo-QMlFk ,
curt
Eric Dymond wrote:
> Jason, you are so dead on with this observation.
>
> The funding model for net art is certainly the source of most of the
> dissatisfaction we see in the threads related to the commissions.
> Had Rhizome a budget of say 500,000 dollars then we could have
> numerous funded community voted projects and curated exhibits (and pay
> Lauren, Patrick and Marisa what they deserve).
> Ten years ago I thought that by now, the funding model would have
> evolved into something more substantial than it is.
> Fortunately network artists continue to make net art, to our great
> benefit.
> And even more surprisingly, it continues to evolve without the support
> structures that traditional (and even non-traditional) arts enjoy.
> We are certainly driven.
>
> I don't think we should remain satisfied with the current support
> shown by *all* art institutions. It's about time some online artsists
> started to get more vocal about the lack of financial support Rhizome
> receives.
>
> There is an existing wall between traditional art venues (museums,
> galleries, funding bodies) and online art. This has to be surmounted.
> How do we address and that problem, twist their arms, embrace their
> budgets and get on to the next iteration of distributed art.
>
> Lets not forget how conservative even the most forward thinking
> institutions are compared to Rhizome.
>
> We need to find ways to bridge that gap, encourage support, without
> losing independence. Thats a tricky project but doable. When curators,
> and critics point to the flaws they see in the theory and practice of
> network based art, then we need do some educating and if necessary
> bribe them. The Abstract Expressionist once picketed the Met (when
> their work was ignored and dismissed as second rate) they helped to
> establish a new role for that artist at mid-century and gave it a face
> as well. It might be time for more active role of the networked artist
> in this new century.
>
> If they can ignore you, they will. If you make enough noise, and keep
> it up, they might just change. They definitely won't change if you are
> silent. Science Centers and Libraries are great, but lets aim for the
> mainline art institutions.
>
> Online activism is the starting point. Create a demand for support,
> and openly and loudly criticize the institutions that don't support
> you. Then get into the streets, make it a noisy summer.
>
> Eric
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
At 5:21 PM -0400 5/8/06, Pall Thayer wrote:
>But your missing the point of combining the images with the text
>(that are in no way related). The combination is what addresses all
>of the "in-betweens".
You know, there is a strange dadaist anti-logic to that. Vector
collage of cats n' dogs PLUS cut-up audio commentary of
ex-boyfriend's shortcomings EQUALS critique of panoptical
surveillance. By gum, I like it!
>But your missing the point of combining the images with the text
>(that are in no way related). The combination is what addresses all
>of the "in-betweens".
You know, there is a strange dadaist anti-logic to that. Vector
collage of cats n' dogs PLUS cut-up audio commentary of
ex-boyfriend's shortcomings EQUALS critique of panoptical
surveillance. By gum, I like it!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
Hi Pall,
Not so fast! You're assumption is that Suzy Photo/Text Blogger will eventually address all those academically-approved net.art topics. In reality, percentage-wise, your piece (which I like) will mostly be "about" pets and ex-boyfriends.
cf:
http://www.turbulence.org/Works/dynamo/
http://www.solaas.com.ar/dreamlines/p5/
peace,
curt
Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> > I challenge MTAA to make the uber-net.art project -- a single net
> > artwork simultaneously about all of the following topics:
> > http://deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/
>
> I've already made that artwork. It was my proposal for the
> commissions. It's about those and much much more. It's about
> Everything. Though I didn't make on as a finalist, the rejection gave
>
> me a spurt of energy and the work is now finished at http://
> pallit.lhi.is/on_everything
>
> Pall
>
> >
> > your affectionate uncle,
> > screwtape
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > <twhid>www.mteww.com </twhid>
>
>
>
> --
> Pall Thayer
> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
Not so fast! You're assumption is that Suzy Photo/Text Blogger will eventually address all those academically-approved net.art topics. In reality, percentage-wise, your piece (which I like) will mostly be "about" pets and ex-boyfriends.
cf:
http://www.turbulence.org/Works/dynamo/
http://www.solaas.com.ar/dreamlines/p5/
peace,
curt
Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> > I challenge MTAA to make the uber-net.art project -- a single net
> > artwork simultaneously about all of the following topics:
> > http://deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/
>
> I've already made that artwork. It was my proposal for the
> commissions. It's about those and much much more. It's about
> Everything. Though I didn't make on as a finalist, the rejection gave
>
> me a spurt of energy and the work is now finished at http://
> pallit.lhi.is/on_everything
>
> Pall
>
> >
> > your affectionate uncle,
> > screwtape
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > <twhid>www.mteww.com </twhid>
>
>
>
> --
> Pall Thayer
> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
t.whid wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand your reponse. I was actually being serious
> with
> that little sentence. d'oh!
I figured you were. The "art" of superbad is done little justice by your sentence (although your sentence is well written and technically accurate). The more an artwork traffics in the visceral, a-lingual, and dys-conceptual, the less reducible its "art" is to words, the more banal it sounds when described by words, the less chance it stands of getting a grant like this. And that's fine. As Ryan Griffis points out, the commodity gallery market and entertainment industry financially support their fair share of "spectacular" (his derogatory term) work. I'm just pointing out the skew.
> I'm not sure I understand your reponse. I was actually being serious
> with
> that little sentence. d'oh!
I figured you were. The "art" of superbad is done little justice by your sentence (although your sentence is well written and technically accurate). The more an artwork traffics in the visceral, a-lingual, and dys-conceptual, the less reducible its "art" is to words, the more banal it sounds when described by words, the less chance it stands of getting a grant like this. And that's fine. As Ryan Griffis points out, the commodity gallery market and entertainment industry financially support their fair share of "spectacular" (his derogatory term) work. I'm just pointing out the skew.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
t.whid wrote:
> An exploration of visual design, animation and non-linear interaction
> within
> the web browser with an eclectic and sometimes absurd subject matter
> culled
> from the vagaries of the artist's interest in pop cultural flotsom,
> the news
> of the day and niche science.
"Niche science" is good because I don't know what it means. Sounds like it might have something to do with folksonomies, so I'm in. Still, you sure you can't throw in some podcasting, blog culture, or at least a couple of surveilance cameras to sweeten the deal?
I challenge MTAA to make the uber-net.art project -- a single net artwork simultaneously about all of the following topics:
http://deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/
your affectionate uncle,
screwtape
> An exploration of visual design, animation and non-linear interaction
> within
> the web browser with an eclectic and sometimes absurd subject matter
> culled
> from the vagaries of the artist's interest in pop cultural flotsom,
> the news
> of the day and niche science.
"Niche science" is good because I don't know what it means. Sounds like it might have something to do with folksonomies, so I'm in. Still, you sure you can't throw in some podcasting, blog culture, or at least a couple of surveilance cameras to sweeten the deal?
I challenge MTAA to make the uber-net.art project -- a single net artwork simultaneously about all of the following topics:
http://deepyoung.org/current/dyskonceptual/
your affectionate uncle,
screwtape