curt cloninger
Since the beginning
Works in Canton, North Carolina United States of America

ARTBASE (7)
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.
Discussions (1122) Opportunities (4) Events (17) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]


t.whid wrote:

> in art criticism, there is a model which defines the 3 main
> properties
> of an artwork: form, content, subject and crits art on how these 3
> properties interact. your definitions fit this model but you collapse
> subject and content into one property called 'concept'. it's a
> modernist view of art.

Eduardo Navas wrote:

> "I am all out for challenging definitions and labels, but one needs to
> know
> them in order to question them."

curt responds:

Both statements above implicitly assume that contemporary models of
art criticism are the default standard for net art discussions. Why
should this necessarily be so?

My reading is in media theory, literary criticism, Biblical studies,
interface design, Appalachian culture, and audio production. I've
been approaching net art on this particular thread from a
McLuhan-esque perspective.

The question is not which of these models of understanding is
"right." The question is not even which of these models of
understanding leads to interesting discussion. The question (for me)
is which of these models of understanding leads to the production of
interesting art in this particular medium.

media theory:
medium / message

semiotics:
signifier / signified

human-computer interface studies:
user >> interface << machine

medieval art practice:
man >> act/agent of worship >> God

programming:
data >> processing >> information

the list goes on and on.

So why is contemporary art history the default context in which to
discuss the future of creative net art processes? Why must it pro
forma be addressed before dialogue can proceed? Because it is the
majority standard? I don't believe that. Because rhizome raw has
been earmarked for formalistic/academic contemporary art criticism?
I don't believe that. Because smart people read in the field of
contemporary art history? Because important / fancy / well-funded
people read in that field? Because art-history-writin' people read
in that field?

If the latter explanations are even implicitly argued, then the
Marxists have failed to eradicate a priviledged position of critique.
They have merely replaced a good-looking priviledged position with a
barren-looking and more historically-dependent priviledged position.

What's the big deal about being remembered anyway? Remembered by
whom? In what circles? For how long? With the art history "canon"
increasingly slouching toward the scatalogical, why do I want to be
archived on that compilation CD anyway? File me under "seventh son"
in your personal experiential database, and I will have left my
desired dent. "No page in history, baby / that I don't need / I just
wanna make some eardrums bleed" - Spinal Tap

And so we return full circle to my initial barb that sparked this diversion:
"There is an entire culture of Flash-prodigy experimental web
designers that visit Rhizome and say, 'all that net art crap looks
the same.' But our ideas of 'legitimate' net art are more 'right'
than their ideas because...? Because Duchamp [mis-]signed a urinal 80
years ago, our predecessors agreed that his doing so mattered, and we
assented?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jeremy: My footnotes for my nineteenth book. This is my standard
procedure for doing it, and while I'm composing it, I'm also
reviewing it.

John Lennon: Well, did you notice it's good?

Jeremy: It's my policy never to read my reviews.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

peace,
curt
_
_

DISCUSSION

Re:conceptual art was:[best work with Flash?]


Hi all,

I have been offline in Kentucky. I'll try address what I perceive to
be cruxy issues:

+++++++++++++++++++++

1.
There is no patent on the English adjective "conceptual." It existed
before the 60s. One can use the word "conceptual" to mean
"conceptual," even in a discussion about art, even in a discussion
about contemporary art.

Duchamp's fountain is conceptual and anti-object. Magritte's "this
is not a pipe" paintings address similar issues. There was talk
about the tyranny of the object prior to the 60s.

2.
Eduardo, your form of art criticism [What was the artist trying to
achieve? How well did he achieve his stated or implicit goals?] is
too relativistic for me. I believe in truth and beauty beyond any
single human perspective, and I think it's fair (although admittedly
dicey) to approach art with said belief in mind. An artist chooses
to fail, and he makes some piece of crap that fails. He succeeds
according to your critical approach, but I still think he fails.

T., your form of art criticism [to understand a work in its
historical context, in relation to previous historical movements,
considering extant texts by the artist and critics describing the
piece] is too academic and socio-political for me.

I believe art is most beneficially judged one piece at a time, with
the art speaking for itself as its own "text." Art unable to do this
fails to me. Which is why I'm going to value art that imbues its
object with meaning. If I had to ally my critical approach with any
single historical camp, it would be most akin to the literary
criticism of the New Critics (alan tate, john crowe ransom, andrew
lytle, etc.).

I'm not going to abandon my critical perspective simply because
others have done some coursework.

3.
I don't consider Rhizome raw an academic publication. There are
numerous academic fora where my conversational theorizing would be
disallowed without the requisite footnotes. But rhizome raw seems
more like a place where artists talk shop, one to another. At least
that's how I approach it and what I hope to get out of it.

So I think it's fair to ask me to define what I mean by "conceptual,"
but once I explain what I mean, to take me to task for meaning the
wrong thing is to avoid the discussion put forward. It comes across
as academic filibustering.

I'm interested in talking about creative process from the "maker" end
of things. I mentioned the work of beuys and hirst, not to re-write
art history, but to reference a confined body of known work and to
discuss it (from my critical perspective) in terms of a creative
continuum I am proposing.

If I abandon the term "conceptual" and substitute the totally new
term "idea-ual;" if I confine my references only to net art work
created within the last 10 years, then can we revisit the dialogue
itself without re-hashing meta-critical issues, or is such a "good
faith" conversation not possible?

The continuum I am proposing (with idea-ualism on one side and
sensory aesthetics on the other), far from being obtuse, seems
pertinent and instructive to our medium, particularly given its
development over the last few years. (It seemed particularly
applicable to the Flash discussion.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Tim, you say "own, be owned, or remain invisible" is just as idea-ual
and object-ephemeral as playdamage.org. I disagree. The issue is
not about the physicality of the bits (just as it never was about the
physicality of the paint [if you'll allow me to talk about paint]).
It's about sensory perception. It's about the senses. Bunting's
piece could have been set in any typeface, the text could have been
any height, the background of the page could have been any color.
None of these sense-affecting changes would have affected the impact
of the piece, because the piece is not dialoguing in the senses at
all. It's an idea-ual piece. playdamage.org is (in part) about the
senses. It is dialoguing (in part) in the realm of the senses. Turn
off your speakers and you greatly affect the impact of the piece.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Eryk wrote:

> I am really at a loss for this argument. Am I right, Curt, that your
> position is:
>
> 1. Art that concerns itself primarily with aesthetics is dull

no. I usually like that kind of art a lot. Klee rocks my world.

> 2. Art that concerns itself primarily with concept is dull

if the concept is not encoded aesthetically into media that dialogues
with the senses in some way, yes, on the whole.

> 3. Art that concerns itself with a little of both is just right.

it has the potential to be just right. it depends on the piece, of course.

> In general it seems like you need to budget your critique instead of
> spending it all in one place; you can't write off "conceptual art"-

Dang! If I ask nicely may I?

> maybe
> one day a piece of conceptual art may bowl you over, and what will you
> do
> then?

cross that bridge. Maybe one day I'll be sexually attracted to a 500
lb. skinhead albino midget named Gary. But until then....

+++++++++++++++++++++

"i never did see that movie / i never did read that book,"
curt

_
_

DISCUSSION

Re: best work with Flash? [ following curt ]


twhid:
> I'm not trying to dismiss you but simply pin you down so that our
> discussion doesn't fizzle out from misunderstandings due to the fact
> that we're talking about 2 different things. It seemed that that may
> be the case from your examples of conceptualists, you're applying the
> term much more broadly than it's generally used. I don't use it so
> broadly and gave a specific explanation of what I think constitutes
> conceptual art. You seem to apply the term to anything that has a
> goal other than the aesthetic. that definition is way to broad and
> that's not how I would use it (see below).

curt:
OK. I understand. You're right. I'm applying the term broadly.

1.
What Eduardo defines as historical conceptualism I think of as pure
conceptualism or anti-object conceptualism. This is art whose medium
is the artist statement. I realize "idea" is supposed to be the
medium, but ideas can't be transfered mind to mind, so the medium in
fact becomes the artist statement (aka "formalistic prose text").
Survey says: "Boring Sidney, Boring. Exterminate! Exterminate!"

2.
Then there is what I would call object-incidental conceptualism,
where an object is used as a prop to convey an idea, but there's no
real aesthetic intention invested in the object. Without the artist
statement or the title of the piece, the object itself doesn't convey
much. Survey says: "Are we there yet? I have to go to the bathroom."

3.
Then there is object-intentional conceptualism, where the craft and
cunning invested in the object itself conveys the lion's share of the
concept. Survey says: "Fix me down a palette on your floor."

Note also, I doubt there even exists an artistic approach that has an
exclusively aesthetic goal. Even a landscape painting has some
concept [here I'm using the English word "concept" to mean
"concept"]. No art, from Bosch to Klee, is void of concept. And it
seems to me the great "art" of "art" has generally involved using
aesthetics to address "concepts" in a less than
pedantic/didactic/textual/cerebral way. "Art is for all the things
you can't say out loud." - entropy8

Visceral, multimedia communication is more technichally possible on
the web now than it was in 1996. And yet hi-res visuals are still
not possible. Methinks it is an interesting time to explore work
that falls toward the object-intentional side of my proposed
conceptual spectrum. In 1996, a piece like Heath Bunting's "Own, Be
Owned, Or Remain Invisible" (which falls toward the anti-object end
of my proposed conceptual spectrum) may have been the best we could
do given the constraints of the medium. Now we no longer HAVE to go
that route.

t:
> perhaps what you mean is that there has been a devolution of art
> quality in general because of conceptual art's influence?

curt:
Not exactly, although I agree with that too. According to my above
historically incorrect hack-job definitions, I am considering beuys
an object-intentional conceptualist. I am considering Hirst an
object-incidental conceptualist.

_
_

DISCUSSION

Re: best work with Flash? [ following curt ]


t:
> Is curt simply talking about anything whose goal isn't simply
> aesthetic? the dreaded pomo? what?

curt:
I hope I'm talking about what I'm talking about. I'm trying discuss
in concrete detail, as clearly as possible, specific paradigmatic
approaches toward net art creation. Yes, I am questioning the value
of entire movements and approaches that have been accepted as
established artistic practice in academic, critical, and professional
art circles since the 60s. I'm wanting to discuss their particular
merit in terms of our current medium. If this seems quixotic or
irksome, if you've already settled these issues to your own
satisfaction, I'm easily dismissed with a few historical references
and a glib, "Can he be serious?"

t:
I find it extremely weird that you
> would include Hirst under a conceptualist definition but let Beuys
> off
> the hook.

curt:
You're misreading me. I'm highlighting the devolution of
conceptualism. Beuys was an earlier conceptualist whose craft and
sensory aesthetics were more intrinsically related to his concepts.
Hirst is a later conceptualist whose craft and sensory aesthetics are
less intrinsically related to his concepts. Beuys is a conceptualist
whose work I like. I consider him a sculptor and an experimental
educator. Hirst is a conceptualist whose work I find mildly amusing
at best. I consider him a well-meaning byproduct of art world
foppery.

peace,
curt

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: best work with Flash? [ following curt ]


marc.garrett wrote:
>You must hate my work Curt...

Hi Marc,

we've talked about this before, and I'm not sure whether this is the
"right answer," but I find your noflesh series an evocative critique
of the emptiness of sex without intimacy. Those image treatments
make me very sad.

cf:
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/a/alltouch.html

peace,
curt

>marc
>
>
> > t wrote:
> > the point was that one who's main
> > > objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
> > > delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
> > > paintings etc.
> >
> > ...i think of
> > > exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
> > > be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
> > > information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
> > > visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
> > > extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
> > > reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
> > > essential nature of the net in it's present state.
> >
> > &
> >
> > marisa wrote:
> > > ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
> > > of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
> > > "other" artists are conceptless...
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > curt writes:
> > we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
> > high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
> > technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
> > compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
> > his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
> > aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
> > concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
> > objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
> > incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
> > They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
> > "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
> > fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
> > self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
> > separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
> >
> > Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
> > converging, and all these different artists from all these different
> > perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
> > low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
> > must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
> > symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
> > aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
> > bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
> > concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
> > onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
> > Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
> > the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
> > sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
> >
> > Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
> > the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
> > with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
> > audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
> > strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
> > environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
> > many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
> >
> > It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
> > discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
> > pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
> > David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
> > discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
> > a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
> > it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
> > decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
> >
> > _
> > _
> > + 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
> >