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: Linking vs. Plagiarizing (Re: Turbulence.org)
hi francis,
you're talking about inlining, which is different than deep linking. worldtimezone says in their message that they don't mind you deep linking. Actually, your talking about user-directed inlining, so you are right that it gets weird. I wonder if Mark Napier gets the same auto-generated warning messages as you for his shredder and riot pieces.
[As a quirky side note, I'm the very user who visited worldtimezone.com via your piece. I remember doing it. But of course I didn't know they would send you a cease + desist.]
The topic is not uninteresting to me. I instigated a type of open html bulletin board mayhem with this project ( http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?2261 ). now people who do this type of bbs "hacking" will often import images from my sites. Which is a flattering allusion I guess.
BUT, occasionally someone on a bbs will use an image from my site as their "avatar" image, which means every time they post, that image appears, and my logs register the thread to which they posted as a referrer link. This means that every time anybody reads the thread, my image is requested and a hit shows up in my logs.
Now here's the fun part. Most of the people doing this are inlining some sort of abstract image that I made, and it's all part of their "cool" online persona in their particular community. The catch is, I have write permission to the very image that they are using to represent themselves in that community. So, rather than asking them to stop "using my bandwidith" (boo hoo), here's what I like to do:
1. I find out what their screen name at the bbs is (say it's "zanthus")
2. I find the image of mine to which they are linking (say it's "cubes.gif")
3. I can't simply remove the image, since a page on my site is using it as well. So I rename "cubes.gif" to "zanthus.gif", and then change the corresponding "img" tag on my html page to call in the new name. So my page remains unchanged, and if zanthus comes hunting to find out what happened to his old avatar image, he finds that it now has his own name. creepy.
4. Then, I go and search for some ridiculously dorky image (usually of some bollywood 70s love guy), crop it to the dimensions of the original "cubes.gif", name it "cubes.gif", and place it on my server.
5. So the next time that zanthus's buddies read his comments on their bbs, there will be his new cheezy avatar, looking like a hindu lounge lover, or scott baio, or whomever.
Without fail, the next day in my logs, the link to "cubes.gif" miraculously disappears. Yes, Zanthus can be taught!
+++++++++++++++++++++++
francis said:
> I also like the idea of having a bot that reads your access logs, looks for image requests from other servers, does an automatic WHOIS lookup and then sends an automated cease-and-desist letter.
you're talking about inlining, which is different than deep linking. worldtimezone says in their message that they don't mind you deep linking. Actually, your talking about user-directed inlining, so you are right that it gets weird. I wonder if Mark Napier gets the same auto-generated warning messages as you for his shredder and riot pieces.
[As a quirky side note, I'm the very user who visited worldtimezone.com via your piece. I remember doing it. But of course I didn't know they would send you a cease + desist.]
The topic is not uninteresting to me. I instigated a type of open html bulletin board mayhem with this project ( http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?2261 ). now people who do this type of bbs "hacking" will often import images from my sites. Which is a flattering allusion I guess.
BUT, occasionally someone on a bbs will use an image from my site as their "avatar" image, which means every time they post, that image appears, and my logs register the thread to which they posted as a referrer link. This means that every time anybody reads the thread, my image is requested and a hit shows up in my logs.
Now here's the fun part. Most of the people doing this are inlining some sort of abstract image that I made, and it's all part of their "cool" online persona in their particular community. The catch is, I have write permission to the very image that they are using to represent themselves in that community. So, rather than asking them to stop "using my bandwidith" (boo hoo), here's what I like to do:
1. I find out what their screen name at the bbs is (say it's "zanthus")
2. I find the image of mine to which they are linking (say it's "cubes.gif")
3. I can't simply remove the image, since a page on my site is using it as well. So I rename "cubes.gif" to "zanthus.gif", and then change the corresponding "img" tag on my html page to call in the new name. So my page remains unchanged, and if zanthus comes hunting to find out what happened to his old avatar image, he finds that it now has his own name. creepy.
4. Then, I go and search for some ridiculously dorky image (usually of some bollywood 70s love guy), crop it to the dimensions of the original "cubes.gif", name it "cubes.gif", and place it on my server.
5. So the next time that zanthus's buddies read his comments on their bbs, there will be his new cheezy avatar, looking like a hindu lounge lover, or scott baio, or whomever.
Without fail, the next day in my logs, the link to "cubes.gif" miraculously disappears. Yes, Zanthus can be taught!
+++++++++++++++++++++++
francis said:
> I also like the idea of having a bot that reads your access logs, looks for image requests from other servers, does an automatic WHOIS lookup and then sends an automated cease-and-desist letter.
Re: Linking vs. Plagiarizing (Re: Turbulence.org)
t. observes:
Cory didn't ask you to remove [the deep link to his work], the funder did....
I don't think the work or artist makes any claim [that he's not a net artist]. the intro made the claim. we don't know if Cory agrees with it.
curt concurs:
precisely! which is why i bypassed the funder's credits and the intro statement and deep linked straight to the piece itself in the first place.
Cory didn't ask you to remove [the deep link to his work], the funder did....
I don't think the work or artist makes any claim [that he's not a net artist]. the intro made the claim. we don't know if Cory agrees with it.
curt concurs:
precisely! which is why i bypassed the funder's credits and the intro statement and deep linked straight to the piece itself in the first place.
Re: Re: Linking vs. Plagiarizing (Re: Turbulence.org)
Dyske,
I don't mean to discuss "art" or "not art" in terms of "what is art?"
I mention "not art" in response to Alex's satement (found in the text
intro to Data Diaries) that Cory is "not a net artist."
Deep/Young has deep linked and recontextualized plenty of other works
by "non net artists," but this is the only time anyone ("non net
artist," "established net artist," or otherwise) has ever required us
to point to their funding credits. I find this ironic for a work
that claims to be outside of established art traditions.
If T. is right in his assessment of Cory's work vis the 'net art
canon' and Alex is exaggerating for dramatic effect, then the above
irony is certainly less pronounced.
peace,
curt
At 10:42 PM -0500 2/24/03, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
><quote>
>evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on to the
>idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut."
></quote>
>
>Curt,
>
>Forget it. If "punk" is too open, then discussing "art" or "not art" ain't
>gonna fly.
>
>Dyske
I don't mean to discuss "art" or "not art" in terms of "what is art?"
I mention "not art" in response to Alex's satement (found in the text
intro to Data Diaries) that Cory is "not a net artist."
Deep/Young has deep linked and recontextualized plenty of other works
by "non net artists," but this is the only time anyone ("non net
artist," "established net artist," or otherwise) has ever required us
to point to their funding credits. I find this ironic for a work
that claims to be outside of established art traditions.
If T. is right in his assessment of Cory's work vis the 'net art
canon' and Alex is exaggerating for dramatic effect, then the above
irony is certainly less pronounced.
peace,
curt
At 10:42 PM -0500 2/24/03, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
><quote>
>evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on to the
>idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut."
></quote>
>
>Curt,
>
>Forget it. If "punk" is too open, then discussing "art" or "not art" ain't
>gonna fly.
>
>Dyske
Re: Linking vs. Plagiarizing (Re: Turbulence.org)
dyske,
evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on to the idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut." Alex Galloway claims in the piece's artist statement that the piece is not art (odd then that it should have an artist statement). Yet when I try to recontextualize the piece outside of its given contemporary art environment, i get slapped. this irony is noteworthy.
curt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
dyske said:
I understand Curt's assertion that not allowing re-contextualization of
Cory's work is contradictory to his presumed "punk" mentality. (Though I'm
not sure where that claim comes from. "fresh, formalist and punk-rock to the
core" Is this the line in question? If so, is this really describing Cory's
work?)
evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on to the idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut." Alex Galloway claims in the piece's artist statement that the piece is not art (odd then that it should have an artist statement). Yet when I try to recontextualize the piece outside of its given contemporary art environment, i get slapped. this irony is noteworthy.
curt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
dyske said:
I understand Curt's assertion that not allowing re-contextualization of
Cory's work is contradictory to his presumed "punk" mentality. (Though I'm
not sure where that claim comes from. "fresh, formalist and punk-rock to the
core" Is this the line in question? If so, is this really describing Cory's
work?)
Re: Re: Arcangel/Data Diaries
Chris,
Your suggestion is a good one, were the point of Deep/Young to
challenge copyright. But challenging copyright is tangential to the
goals of the project. Deep/Young seeks, in the words of Beuys, to
"produce deepened perceptions of experience. More must happen than
simply logically understandable things. Where objects are concerned
it's more the sense of an indication or suggestion." So I'd rather
this event spark dialogue about the role of wonder and
decontextualization in art than it spark dialogue about copyright law.
Plus, I'm not really down on turbulence. I did find Jo-Anne's
request kind of dorky. But, as The Italian Stallion observes, "You
want to dance, you gotta pay the band. You want to borrow, you gotta
pay the man."
Besides, there is no shortage of interesting "for passion" pieces out
there by artists (and even regular human beings) who give a fig how I
link to their work.
peace,
curt
At 4:20 PM -0500 2/24/03, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:
> > Our link to Cory's piece has regretfully been removed
> > altogether perforce.
>
>Curt, had you considered keeping your original deep link on Deep/Young
>and simply ignoring/refusing Turbulence's request to change the link?
>Although her message was a bit brusque, it's not like Jo-Anne's request
>was anything like the insidious surly legal notices typically sent by
>Big CorporationsT to intimidate innocent fair-users.
>
>You don't have to martyr yourself to make a political statement. Just
>leave the site as is, with the deep link, and wait for someone to
>actually threaten you with something real. Simple civil disobedience
>ought to suffice here.
>
>Remember, you are in the right here, at least legally*. You don't have
>to include copyrights and credits for "fair use".
>
>-Cf
>
>[christopher eli fahey]
>art: http://www.graphpaper.com
>sci: http://www.askrom.com
>biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
>
>* I am not a lawyer.
Your suggestion is a good one, were the point of Deep/Young to
challenge copyright. But challenging copyright is tangential to the
goals of the project. Deep/Young seeks, in the words of Beuys, to
"produce deepened perceptions of experience. More must happen than
simply logically understandable things. Where objects are concerned
it's more the sense of an indication or suggestion." So I'd rather
this event spark dialogue about the role of wonder and
decontextualization in art than it spark dialogue about copyright law.
Plus, I'm not really down on turbulence. I did find Jo-Anne's
request kind of dorky. But, as The Italian Stallion observes, "You
want to dance, you gotta pay the band. You want to borrow, you gotta
pay the man."
Besides, there is no shortage of interesting "for passion" pieces out
there by artists (and even regular human beings) who give a fig how I
link to their work.
peace,
curt
At 4:20 PM -0500 2/24/03, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:
> > Our link to Cory's piece has regretfully been removed
> > altogether perforce.
>
>Curt, had you considered keeping your original deep link on Deep/Young
>and simply ignoring/refusing Turbulence's request to change the link?
>Although her message was a bit brusque, it's not like Jo-Anne's request
>was anything like the insidious surly legal notices typically sent by
>Big CorporationsT to intimidate innocent fair-users.
>
>You don't have to martyr yourself to make a political statement. Just
>leave the site as is, with the deep link, and wait for someone to
>actually threaten you with something real. Simple civil disobedience
>ought to suffice here.
>
>Remember, you are in the right here, at least legally*. You don't have
>to include copyrights and credits for "fair use".
>
>-Cf
>
>[christopher eli fahey]
>art: http://www.graphpaper.com
>sci: http://www.askrom.com
>biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
>
>* I am not a lawyer.