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: FW: Questioning the Frame
Rob Myers wrote:
> I grew up in an age of Goth (second generation, late 80's). The
> countercultural and critical mainstream hated Goth because of its
> aestheticism. Goth was more political than punk because it
> successfully
> refused "cultural codes" and created a parallel culture unamenable to
> Thatcherism.
>
> Not anger, disdain.
"withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy."
- michael stipe quoting richard linklatter quoting brian eno
> I grew up in an age of Goth (second generation, late 80's). The
> countercultural and critical mainstream hated Goth because of its
> aestheticism. Goth was more political than punk because it
> successfully
> refused "cultural codes" and created a parallel culture unamenable to
> Thatcherism.
>
> Not anger, disdain.
"withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy."
- michael stipe quoting richard linklatter quoting brian eno
Re: Re: FW: Questioning the Frame
Hi Ryan,
I'd like to respond to this excerpt from the metamute "interview" (more like a collaborative essay) that you link:
++++++++
Ricardo Domingo: A great deal has changed in the net.art world since 1997. Many museums are now deeply involved in framing net.art for public consumption. You can certainly see a difference rt that was presented at the Whitney Biennial in 2000, which presented work by rtmark.com and fakeshop.com that was both political and performative. In 2002, the focus is on techno-formalist net.artists who are working very hard to become an objet d’art - and gain a foothold in the market. It is important for those artists working within a critical performative matrix not to be sidetracked by the latest techno-formalist fetish of museums or the gallery system. In the post 9/11 climate, it is more important than ever to push for aesthetic ‘voices’ that can bear witness to other worlds beyond the ideology of the War on Terrorism.
It is not clear whether institutions will take on the task of presenting political net.art beyond simple documentation. This may start to happen if network\_art\_activism begins to establish stronger ties with the previous generations of artists who have faced the dismantling of the political in art - both in the North and the South - so that this very immature form which is net.art can gain a sense of history about institutional critique, in order to develop both a deeper aesthetic and historical knowledge about what other artists have done before history was erased by the digital hype. I really don’t see the possibility of cultural support for political net.art works like EDT’s Zapatista FloodNet any time soon. But for projects like ‘Anchors for Witnessing’ - yes, there is interest and support. For political art projects that are about distribution - yes, but for projects that ‘disturb’ - no.
Coco Fusco: So as things now stand institutions want to fund projects that narrow the digital divide, but not ones that subvert the formalist tendencies of net.art from within.
Ricardo Domingo: Yes, projects that follow the market drive to plug everyone in, I think, will continue to gain more institutional presence and support. Those works which don’t fold into the other end of the market drive for formalist containment, or the pure presentation of code qua code, machines qua machines, like network\_art\_activism, will be left in the archives, and will never be supported as a live performance.
++++++++++
Like Rob, I smell a straw-man. There is this false dichotomy implied within net.art of "hacktivism" vs. "techno-formalism," techno-formalism being some vague derogatory term used to stand for any form of non-political net art. EDT thinks they're radical because they are alter-neo-liberal/zapatista, as if there are only two kind of relevant human activities -- zapatista style political activities and neo-libaral anti-globalism political activities. Relegated to the artistically and culturally irrelevant are the activities of beauty-making, particularly if such activities result in something resembling an object. The condescending materialist assumption is that any non-political art is part of the spectacle, reinforcing a system the opposition of which is implicitly assumed to be the noble goal of all compassionate sentient individuals.
Well what a bunch of crap. Against such assumptions I posit all the projects here:
http://deepyoung.org/sister/
but particularly http://mjt.org
The Museum of Jurassic Technology is an across-the-board paradigm hijack. Talk about changing the world one inidividual at a time, not just by reconfiguring their understanding of political activity, but by reconfiguring their understanding of understanding. The MJT to me is as culturally relevant, as ethically laudable, and as spectacle-disrupting as they come. It's so successfully "tactical" it doesn't even read as tactical, political, activist, or even art.
Domingo laments the art world's lack of interest in "hacktivism" and its increased interest in "techno-formalism." For one thing, I don't think the art world as a whole has ever been terribly interested in any form of net.art (hacktivism, tecnho-formalism, or otherwise); nor are either forms very salable (so his dis of "code qua code" net.art as intentionally catering to the object market is a lot of wind). For another thing, why does he care? It's like some punk rock band secretly pining to get on a major record label. Whereas the MJT is its own museum. It would never allow itself to be featured in a gallery or biennial, because such a contextualization would undermine the all-encompassing reality that gives the MJT its subversive cognitively leverage, not just in the art world, and not just in the political world, but in the world world -- the holistic world of human thought and action.
Perhaps alter-neo-liberal hacktivist art is indeed more interesting/disturbing/effective/of-the-people than mere neo-liberal hacktivist art -- in the same way that a Toyota is faster than a Yugo. But the MJT is flying a Concord. There are more than two ways to skin a cat. There is often more "disturbance" to "techno-formalism" (read "pretty art that's not overtly performative or political") than meets the materialist-indoctrinated eye.
peace,
curt
\_
ryan griffis wrote:
> Pall's comments are right on here (and most of Rob's). But if anyone
> has read any of the recent writings by Coco on Nettime or anywhere
> else, this polemic shouldn't be a surprise. Unfortunately, she has a
> lot of valid criticism on all kinds of concerns that get lost in the
> unreflexive ranting. This kind of arch O'Reillyism dilutes any
> substantial points that could, and need to be, made. The discussion
> between Coco and Ricardo Dominguez is a much more lucid critique of
> NM:
> http://www.metamute.com/look/article.tpl?
> IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=1&NrIssue#&NrSection&NrArticle$1&searc
> h=search&SearchKeywords=fusco&SearchLevel=0
> (URL will probably be broken)
>
I'd like to respond to this excerpt from the metamute "interview" (more like a collaborative essay) that you link:
++++++++
Ricardo Domingo: A great deal has changed in the net.art world since 1997. Many museums are now deeply involved in framing net.art for public consumption. You can certainly see a difference rt that was presented at the Whitney Biennial in 2000, which presented work by rtmark.com and fakeshop.com that was both political and performative. In 2002, the focus is on techno-formalist net.artists who are working very hard to become an objet d’art - and gain a foothold in the market. It is important for those artists working within a critical performative matrix not to be sidetracked by the latest techno-formalist fetish of museums or the gallery system. In the post 9/11 climate, it is more important than ever to push for aesthetic ‘voices’ that can bear witness to other worlds beyond the ideology of the War on Terrorism.
It is not clear whether institutions will take on the task of presenting political net.art beyond simple documentation. This may start to happen if network\_art\_activism begins to establish stronger ties with the previous generations of artists who have faced the dismantling of the political in art - both in the North and the South - so that this very immature form which is net.art can gain a sense of history about institutional critique, in order to develop both a deeper aesthetic and historical knowledge about what other artists have done before history was erased by the digital hype. I really don’t see the possibility of cultural support for political net.art works like EDT’s Zapatista FloodNet any time soon. But for projects like ‘Anchors for Witnessing’ - yes, there is interest and support. For political art projects that are about distribution - yes, but for projects that ‘disturb’ - no.
Coco Fusco: So as things now stand institutions want to fund projects that narrow the digital divide, but not ones that subvert the formalist tendencies of net.art from within.
Ricardo Domingo: Yes, projects that follow the market drive to plug everyone in, I think, will continue to gain more institutional presence and support. Those works which don’t fold into the other end of the market drive for formalist containment, or the pure presentation of code qua code, machines qua machines, like network\_art\_activism, will be left in the archives, and will never be supported as a live performance.
++++++++++
Like Rob, I smell a straw-man. There is this false dichotomy implied within net.art of "hacktivism" vs. "techno-formalism," techno-formalism being some vague derogatory term used to stand for any form of non-political net art. EDT thinks they're radical because they are alter-neo-liberal/zapatista, as if there are only two kind of relevant human activities -- zapatista style political activities and neo-libaral anti-globalism political activities. Relegated to the artistically and culturally irrelevant are the activities of beauty-making, particularly if such activities result in something resembling an object. The condescending materialist assumption is that any non-political art is part of the spectacle, reinforcing a system the opposition of which is implicitly assumed to be the noble goal of all compassionate sentient individuals.
Well what a bunch of crap. Against such assumptions I posit all the projects here:
http://deepyoung.org/sister/
but particularly http://mjt.org
The Museum of Jurassic Technology is an across-the-board paradigm hijack. Talk about changing the world one inidividual at a time, not just by reconfiguring their understanding of political activity, but by reconfiguring their understanding of understanding. The MJT to me is as culturally relevant, as ethically laudable, and as spectacle-disrupting as they come. It's so successfully "tactical" it doesn't even read as tactical, political, activist, or even art.
Domingo laments the art world's lack of interest in "hacktivism" and its increased interest in "techno-formalism." For one thing, I don't think the art world as a whole has ever been terribly interested in any form of net.art (hacktivism, tecnho-formalism, or otherwise); nor are either forms very salable (so his dis of "code qua code" net.art as intentionally catering to the object market is a lot of wind). For another thing, why does he care? It's like some punk rock band secretly pining to get on a major record label. Whereas the MJT is its own museum. It would never allow itself to be featured in a gallery or biennial, because such a contextualization would undermine the all-encompassing reality that gives the MJT its subversive cognitively leverage, not just in the art world, and not just in the political world, but in the world world -- the holistic world of human thought and action.
Perhaps alter-neo-liberal hacktivist art is indeed more interesting/disturbing/effective/of-the-people than mere neo-liberal hacktivist art -- in the same way that a Toyota is faster than a Yugo. But the MJT is flying a Concord. There are more than two ways to skin a cat. There is often more "disturbance" to "techno-formalism" (read "pretty art that's not overtly performative or political") than meets the materialist-indoctrinated eye.
peace,
curt
\_
ryan griffis wrote:
> Pall's comments are right on here (and most of Rob's). But if anyone
> has read any of the recent writings by Coco on Nettime or anywhere
> else, this polemic shouldn't be a surprise. Unfortunately, she has a
> lot of valid criticism on all kinds of concerns that get lost in the
> unreflexive ranting. This kind of arch O'Reillyism dilutes any
> substantial points that could, and need to be, made. The discussion
> between Coco and Ricardo Dominguez is a much more lucid critique of
> NM:
> http://www.metamute.com/look/article.tpl?
> IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=1&NrIssue#&NrSection&NrArticle$1&searc
> h=search&SearchKeywords=fusco&SearchLevel=0
> (URL will probably be broken)
>
Re: Re: FW: Questioning the Frame
I'm just here for the rhetorical prose. Some personal favorites so far --
+++++
rob:
Actual hacking... is the *creation* of something, the solving of a problem, a shamanic exercise of personal creative skill to answer a need, *not* just breaking something down.
+++++
coco:
>It is as if more than four decades of postmodern
>critique of the Cartesian subject had suddenly
>evaporated.
rob:
We can but hope.
+++++
joy:
If I was going to get my hackles up I would say this author is trying to
insert her own schtick into something she doesn't quite understand and feels
somehow excluded by. (the schtick, it seems, is somewhere between
unreconstituted stalinist feminism, early 90s multi-culti politically
correct-speak, and something like a bee in a bonnet).
but... oh yawn.
+++++
+++++
rob:
Actual hacking... is the *creation* of something, the solving of a problem, a shamanic exercise of personal creative skill to answer a need, *not* just breaking something down.
+++++
coco:
>It is as if more than four decades of postmodern
>critique of the Cartesian subject had suddenly
>evaporated.
rob:
We can but hope.
+++++
joy:
If I was going to get my hackles up I would say this author is trying to
insert her own schtick into something she doesn't quite understand and feels
somehow excluded by. (the schtick, it seems, is somewhere between
unreconstituted stalinist feminism, early 90s multi-culti politically
correct-speak, and something like a bee in a bonnet).
but... oh yawn.
+++++
history lesson (part 2)
http://66.195.243.203/~planetj/mbv/vids/realise.mpg
our band could be your life
real names be proof
me and mike watt
we played for years
punk rock changed our lives
we learned punk rock in hollywood
drove up from pedro
we were fucking corndawgs
we'd go drink and pogo
"mr narrator!"
this is bob dylan to me
my story could be his songs
i'm his soldier child
our band is scientist rock
but i was e bloom
then richard hell
joe strummer
and john doe
me and mike watt
playing guitar
_
our band could be your life
real names be proof
me and mike watt
we played for years
punk rock changed our lives
we learned punk rock in hollywood
drove up from pedro
we were fucking corndawgs
we'd go drink and pogo
"mr narrator!"
this is bob dylan to me
my story could be his songs
i'm his soldier child
our band is scientist rock
but i was e bloom
then richard hell
joe strummer
and john doe
me and mike watt
playing guitar
_