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.
live /// time-shifted
Dear Church Family,
On Saturday, December 11 from 10:30 AM to 12:30 PM we will be feeding
the homeless at the DSS Building on Coxe Avenue in Asheville. Please
remember to bring all gloves and knitted hats for the homeless this
Sunday. A brightly colored box is in the foyer for your donations. If
you wish to give toward these purchases, please designate such on
your envelope.
The menu will be ham, green beans, slaw, dressing, rolls, drink and
dessert. I will heat the ham; the twins will get the slaw and rolls;
Loretta is making the dressing; Kelly is doing the dessert and Vaughn
& Tina will be doing the beverage. A bag of fruit will be given to
each person.
I need three volunteers to cook the green beans. I will bring the
beans on Sunday. Please let me know if you wish to help.
Have a blessed day!
Irene
///
http://www.manovich.net/olia/
http://www.manetas.com/eo/archive/finalarchive/07_07_01/index.htm
http://www.shift.jp.org/mov/2004/works/M06_.html
http://tosic.com/document_photos/
http://www.mobilegaze.com/valerie/valerie_balthus_project.html
_
On Saturday, December 11 from 10:30 AM to 12:30 PM we will be feeding
the homeless at the DSS Building on Coxe Avenue in Asheville. Please
remember to bring all gloves and knitted hats for the homeless this
Sunday. A brightly colored box is in the foyer for your donations. If
you wish to give toward these purchases, please designate such on
your envelope.
The menu will be ham, green beans, slaw, dressing, rolls, drink and
dessert. I will heat the ham; the twins will get the slaw and rolls;
Loretta is making the dressing; Kelly is doing the dessert and Vaughn
& Tina will be doing the beverage. A bag of fruit will be given to
each person.
I need three volunteers to cook the green beans. I will bring the
beans on Sunday. Please let me know if you wish to help.
Have a blessed day!
Irene
///
http://www.manovich.net/olia/
http://www.manetas.com/eo/archive/finalarchive/07_07_01/index.htm
http://www.shift.jp.org/mov/2004/works/M06_.html
http://tosic.com/document_photos/
http://www.mobilegaze.com/valerie/valerie_balthus_project.html
_
Re: Re: Re: Re: Quotation (was: why so little discussion?)
Hi Jim,
I probably have all those plunderphonic tracks on one of my hard drives somewhere. I actually bought the original CD from him back in the day. I love it, because it is way processed, but you can still discern the original sources. But he's obviously doing it just to make his own music. None of it is even really allusive. Like Michael Jackson's "bad" becomes more of an ambient piece; it has has nothing to do with motown or pop. He's just treating it all as sound.
I sample a bit of the plunderphonic stuff in this ridiculous mix (circa 1991):
http://www.lab404.com/audio/tbomv/
The james brown/public enemy break from 5:43-6:13 is all Oswald.
peace,
curt
_
jim wrote:
I had a look at John Oswald's http://www.plunderphonics.com but the links to
the mp3's are 404 (legal issues, i presume). He became very famous for his
remix work and was recently awarded Canada's highest honor for media art.
But I have heard very little of his work, unfortunately. It would be
interesting to compare his approach with Bennett's.
http://www.plunderphonics.com/xhtml/xplunder.html is an interesting 1985
essay by Oswald called "Plunderphonics, or Audio Piracy as a Compositional
Prerogative". He talks about quotation quite a bit. "Without a quotation
system, well-intended correspondences cannot be distinguished from
plagiarism and fraud.
I probably have all those plunderphonic tracks on one of my hard drives somewhere. I actually bought the original CD from him back in the day. I love it, because it is way processed, but you can still discern the original sources. But he's obviously doing it just to make his own music. None of it is even really allusive. Like Michael Jackson's "bad" becomes more of an ambient piece; it has has nothing to do with motown or pop. He's just treating it all as sound.
I sample a bit of the plunderphonic stuff in this ridiculous mix (circa 1991):
http://www.lab404.com/audio/tbomv/
The james brown/public enemy break from 5:43-6:13 is all Oswald.
peace,
curt
_
jim wrote:
I had a look at John Oswald's http://www.plunderphonics.com but the links to
the mp3's are 404 (legal issues, i presume). He became very famous for his
remix work and was recently awarded Canada's highest honor for media art.
But I have heard very little of his work, unfortunately. It would be
interesting to compare his approach with Bennett's.
http://www.plunderphonics.com/xhtml/xplunder.html is an interesting 1985
essay by Oswald called "Plunderphonics, or Audio Piracy as a Compositional
Prerogative". He talks about quotation quite a bit. "Without a quotation
system, well-intended correspondences cannot be distinguished from
plagiarism and fraud.
Re: Re: Re: Quotation (was: why so little discussion?)
Hi David,
The idea really is Paul Miller's. I just distilled the sound-byte,
but he's conscious that he's doing this. cf:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread455&text$021
scroll down to "I am the DJ, I am what I splay."
Regarding the repetition critique, I mostly concur and I think
Francis hit the nail on the head when he said something like, "now
that any 14 year-old can mix, the challenge becomes to distinguish
yourself by mixing especially well" [i'm paraphrasing]. In this
sense, mixing is like poetry in that the entry-level bar is set
pretty low. Not anybody can write a congent 10 page academic essay,
but anybody who can speak at all can write poetry. The challenge
then, is to write an especially good poem.
In the same way, it's easier to put together a mix tape than it is to
play three bar chords on the guitar (but not that much easier). From
the Troggs to the Sex Pistols, kids have proved that rock and roll is
not really that difficult. And then there are the Shaggs, who prove
that some human beings are actually from Mars:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00000I0QQ/
peace,
curt
_
At 11:16 PM -0800 11/24/04, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>i love this quote ... it's my new favorite. "appropriation as
>talisman against personal assimilation"
>
>In my opinion, remixers can create new and original aesthetics (just
>like other artists) but there may be an inherent distaste for
>mashed-art because the process (of remixing) reveals, in a patently
>obvious way, just how repetitive humans are -- dare i say
>replicant/borg.
>
>thanks for the great quote curt
>
>best,
>
>david goldschmidt
>www.mediatrips.com
>
>
>
>curt cloninger wrote:
>
>>I am always looking for this kind of maturation -- the
>>self-reflexive, self-conscious, uber-media-aware gradually being
>>replaced by simply interesting art about existence. A good example
>>to me is DJ Spooky's music vs. DJ Spooky's theory. The music is so
>>rich and fascinating and autobiographical and essential. It's an
>>urban lifestyle strategy/celebration -- appropriation as talisman
>>against personal assimilation (an intuitive solution to Bunting's
>>proposed dilema -- "own, be owned, or remain invisible"). But DJ
>>Spooky's theoretical prose is like watching the paint dry. The
>>fact that he is able to map mix culture backwards to 20th Century
>>French philosophy is interesting I guess, and it may evangelize
>>some Lev Manovich types to frequent the occasional late night
>>electronica fest, but it's almost like reading a novelization of a
>>film. I'd rather just listen to the mix.
>>
>>Marisa asks, " Does the medium make any difference [vis
>>appropriation]"? In terms of ease of artistic production,
>>definitely -- digital media + global networks = ease of remix.
>>
>>Pre-net/google, I doubt I would have ever explored something like this:
>>http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/picture/
>>
>>But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that "remixity"
>>["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or inherent to the
>>underlying ethos of all digital art (although maybe it is, and
>>there are sure plenty of people trumpeting the fact that it
>>definitely is). Maybe remixity is just the most immediately
>>obvious thing to do with digital media, and so we see a lot of it
>>simply because the novelty hasn't worn off yet. One way or the
>>other, it's safe to assert that digital art makes remixity and
>>appropriation feasibly/logistically easier from a production
>>standpoint.
>>
>>_
>>
>>michael wrote:
>>
>>I'm always faintly taken aback when I read assertions like this.
>><It seems that 'quotation' lies at the heart of "postmodern"
>>cultural production... That is, simulations, appropriations, and
>>self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as both
>>harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work"> All these
>>characteristics can be found in most periods of art, in music (
>>variations on a theme of...), visual art ( such and such *after*
>>such and such) and literature ( pretty much the whole of
>>Shakespeare). Its perhaps a question of degree, of the ( sometimes
>>deeply desperate) self consciousness of deployment which marked the
>>something new in post modernism. What interests me is the feeling (
>>and I referred to this specifically in an earlier post in this
>>thread on MTAAs wonderful 'five small videos' ) that this self
>>consciousness is disappearing, that we're perhaps returning to an
>>earlier kind of practice where quotation (and the cloud of concepts
>>related to it) is merely one scarcely remarked weapon in the
>>artist's arsenal, to be wielded relatively unselfconsciously. I
>>mean I've not done a *scientific survey* or anything - but it's a
>>feeling that we're moving into a period of *consolidation* of
>>artistic language, of an *application* of lots of the formal
>>shenanigans of the last half century of so to something that is
>>concerned more with a profound combination of the intellectual and
>>the affective & which is also aware of its place in an ongoing
>>tradition ( and this does not of course imply massive surface
>>complexity -what 'five small videos' has in common with a Schubert
>>Lied is the appearance of *necessity* -"yes that's the only way it
>>could be!" - and hence simplicity, but a simplicity which isn't
>>exhausted the first or the second time round but continues to
>>reveal new layers, new meanings on repeated engagement) The recent
>>work of MTAA is inceasingly beginning to feel to me like an
>>exemplar of this tendency ( another significant one being for me
>>the work of Alan Sondheim which if people don't know they
>>absolutely *should* http://www.asondheim.org/ ). The thrust (and
>>also the appeal) of the two video pieces seems to me not primarily
>>formal, conceptual or didactic in some way, but affective, rich and
>>open ended; aware of its place in tradition and paying due homage
>>to it but not simply smart commentary on it. +
>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>>
>>
The idea really is Paul Miller's. I just distilled the sound-byte,
but he's conscious that he's doing this. cf:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread455&text$021
scroll down to "I am the DJ, I am what I splay."
Regarding the repetition critique, I mostly concur and I think
Francis hit the nail on the head when he said something like, "now
that any 14 year-old can mix, the challenge becomes to distinguish
yourself by mixing especially well" [i'm paraphrasing]. In this
sense, mixing is like poetry in that the entry-level bar is set
pretty low. Not anybody can write a congent 10 page academic essay,
but anybody who can speak at all can write poetry. The challenge
then, is to write an especially good poem.
In the same way, it's easier to put together a mix tape than it is to
play three bar chords on the guitar (but not that much easier). From
the Troggs to the Sex Pistols, kids have proved that rock and roll is
not really that difficult. And then there are the Shaggs, who prove
that some human beings are actually from Mars:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00000I0QQ/
peace,
curt
_
At 11:16 PM -0800 11/24/04, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>i love this quote ... it's my new favorite. "appropriation as
>talisman against personal assimilation"
>
>In my opinion, remixers can create new and original aesthetics (just
>like other artists) but there may be an inherent distaste for
>mashed-art because the process (of remixing) reveals, in a patently
>obvious way, just how repetitive humans are -- dare i say
>replicant/borg.
>
>thanks for the great quote curt
>
>best,
>
>david goldschmidt
>www.mediatrips.com
>
>
>
>curt cloninger wrote:
>
>>I am always looking for this kind of maturation -- the
>>self-reflexive, self-conscious, uber-media-aware gradually being
>>replaced by simply interesting art about existence. A good example
>>to me is DJ Spooky's music vs. DJ Spooky's theory. The music is so
>>rich and fascinating and autobiographical and essential. It's an
>>urban lifestyle strategy/celebration -- appropriation as talisman
>>against personal assimilation (an intuitive solution to Bunting's
>>proposed dilema -- "own, be owned, or remain invisible"). But DJ
>>Spooky's theoretical prose is like watching the paint dry. The
>>fact that he is able to map mix culture backwards to 20th Century
>>French philosophy is interesting I guess, and it may evangelize
>>some Lev Manovich types to frequent the occasional late night
>>electronica fest, but it's almost like reading a novelization of a
>>film. I'd rather just listen to the mix.
>>
>>Marisa asks, " Does the medium make any difference [vis
>>appropriation]"? In terms of ease of artistic production,
>>definitely -- digital media + global networks = ease of remix.
>>
>>Pre-net/google, I doubt I would have ever explored something like this:
>>http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/picture/
>>
>>But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that "remixity"
>>["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or inherent to the
>>underlying ethos of all digital art (although maybe it is, and
>>there are sure plenty of people trumpeting the fact that it
>>definitely is). Maybe remixity is just the most immediately
>>obvious thing to do with digital media, and so we see a lot of it
>>simply because the novelty hasn't worn off yet. One way or the
>>other, it's safe to assert that digital art makes remixity and
>>appropriation feasibly/logistically easier from a production
>>standpoint.
>>
>>_
>>
>>michael wrote:
>>
>>I'm always faintly taken aback when I read assertions like this.
>><It seems that 'quotation' lies at the heart of "postmodern"
>>cultural production... That is, simulations, appropriations, and
>>self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as both
>>harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work"> All these
>>characteristics can be found in most periods of art, in music (
>>variations on a theme of...), visual art ( such and such *after*
>>such and such) and literature ( pretty much the whole of
>>Shakespeare). Its perhaps a question of degree, of the ( sometimes
>>deeply desperate) self consciousness of deployment which marked the
>>something new in post modernism. What interests me is the feeling (
>>and I referred to this specifically in an earlier post in this
>>thread on MTAAs wonderful 'five small videos' ) that this self
>>consciousness is disappearing, that we're perhaps returning to an
>>earlier kind of practice where quotation (and the cloud of concepts
>>related to it) is merely one scarcely remarked weapon in the
>>artist's arsenal, to be wielded relatively unselfconsciously. I
>>mean I've not done a *scientific survey* or anything - but it's a
>>feeling that we're moving into a period of *consolidation* of
>>artistic language, of an *application* of lots of the formal
>>shenanigans of the last half century of so to something that is
>>concerned more with a profound combination of the intellectual and
>>the affective & which is also aware of its place in an ongoing
>>tradition ( and this does not of course imply massive surface
>>complexity -what 'five small videos' has in common with a Schubert
>>Lied is the appearance of *necessity* -"yes that's the only way it
>>could be!" - and hence simplicity, but a simplicity which isn't
>>exhausted the first or the second time round but continues to
>>reveal new layers, new meanings on repeated engagement) The recent
>>work of MTAA is inceasingly beginning to feel to me like an
>>exemplar of this tendency ( another significant one being for me
>>the work of Alan Sondheim which if people don't know they
>>absolutely *should* http://www.asondheim.org/ ). The thrust (and
>>also the appeal) of the two video pieces seems to me not primarily
>>formal, conceptual or didactic in some way, but affective, rich and
>>open ended; aware of its place in tradition and paying due homage
>>to it but not simply smart commentary on it. +
>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>>
>>
Re: Re: Re: why so little discussion?
Hi Michael,
Well said.
Not by way of argument, but just riffing:
There's a contemporary genre of gallery artwork that foregrounds
value exchange systems in relation to art, relativism, and the art
market. Whereas here we've been hinting at something which to me is
much more interesting -- an earlier, less convoluted, more primordial
art/value/exchange system.
And it makes me think of this wonderful project:
http://www.dream-dollars.com
I dote on this project. It works for me on about 20 different
levels. It is gradually becoming one of my favorite pieces of net
art.
Just to whet your appetite, the following passage is from the
biography of Samuel Brundt, co-founder of the utopian Colony of
Nadiria, for whom the antarctic dream dollars were currency:
+++++++++
"Life is an exchange," Samuel Brundt was wont to say. "An exchange of
heat, energy, force, love, hate, art. There are spiritual and
material transactions occurring every minute. Our monetary system is
a microcosm of this." (Excerpt from, The Great Transaction, by Samuel
Brundt, New York 1843) The Church of Spiritual Commerce grew out of
the philosophy and teachings of Samuel and Constance Brundt. It
officially formed in New York City on January 1, 1838 as a
metaphysical society of like-minded thinkers, and had an initial
membership of 16 people...
++++++++
It goes on and on and just gets weirder and weirder. Brilliant and
highly recommended.
peace,
curt
_
Michael Wrote:
>And of course you're right about people making gifts
>to these ascetics of their own free will. They still
>had to *produce* it though; their gifts still formed
part of a pattern of *distribution*.
Well said.
Not by way of argument, but just riffing:
There's a contemporary genre of gallery artwork that foregrounds
value exchange systems in relation to art, relativism, and the art
market. Whereas here we've been hinting at something which to me is
much more interesting -- an earlier, less convoluted, more primordial
art/value/exchange system.
And it makes me think of this wonderful project:
http://www.dream-dollars.com
I dote on this project. It works for me on about 20 different
levels. It is gradually becoming one of my favorite pieces of net
art.
Just to whet your appetite, the following passage is from the
biography of Samuel Brundt, co-founder of the utopian Colony of
Nadiria, for whom the antarctic dream dollars were currency:
+++++++++
"Life is an exchange," Samuel Brundt was wont to say. "An exchange of
heat, energy, force, love, hate, art. There are spiritual and
material transactions occurring every minute. Our monetary system is
a microcosm of this." (Excerpt from, The Great Transaction, by Samuel
Brundt, New York 1843) The Church of Spiritual Commerce grew out of
the philosophy and teachings of Samuel and Constance Brundt. It
officially formed in New York City on January 1, 1838 as a
metaphysical society of like-minded thinkers, and had an initial
membership of 16 people...
++++++++
It goes on and on and just gets weirder and weirder. Brilliant and
highly recommended.
peace,
curt
_
Michael Wrote:
>And of course you're right about people making gifts
>to these ascetics of their own free will. They still
>had to *produce* it though; their gifts still formed
part of a pattern of *distribution*.
Re: Re: Quotation (was: why so little discussion?)
I am always looking for this kind of maturation -- the self-reflexive, self-conscious, uber-media-aware gradually being replaced by simply interesting art about existence. A good example to me is DJ Spooky's music vs. DJ Spooky's theory. The music is so rich and fascinating and autobiographical and essential. It's an urban lifestyle strategy/celebration -- appropriation as talisman against personal assimilation (an intuitive solution to Bunting's proposed dilema -- "own, be owned, or remain invisible"). But DJ Spooky's theoretical prose is like watching the paint dry. The fact that he is able to map mix culture backwards to 20th Century French philosophy is interesting I guess, and it may evangelize some Lev Manovich types to frequent the occasional late night electronica fest, but it's almost like reading a novelization of a film. I'd rather just listen to the mix.
Marisa asks, " Does the medium make any difference [vis appropriation]"? In terms of ease of artistic production, definitely -- digital media + global networks = ease of remix.
Pre-net/google, I doubt I would have ever explored something like this:
http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/picture/
But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that "remixity" ["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or inherent to the underlying ethos of all digital art (although maybe it is, and there are sure plenty of people trumpeting the fact that it definitely is). Maybe remixity is just the most immediately obvious thing to do with digital media, and so we see a lot of it simply because the novelty hasn't worn off yet. One way or the other, it's safe to assert that digital art makes remixity and appropriation feasibly/logistically easier from a production standpoint.
_
michael wrote:
I'm always faintly taken aback when I read assertions
like this.
<It seems that 'quotation' lies
at the heart of "postmodern" cultural production...
That is, simulations, appropriations, and
self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as
both harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work">
All these characteristics can be found in most periods
of art, in music ( variations on a theme of...),
visual
art ( such and such *after* such and such) and
literature ( pretty much the whole of Shakespeare).
Its perhaps a question of degree, of the ( sometimes
deeply desperate) self consciousness of deployment
which marked the something new in post modernism.
What interests me is the feeling ( and I referred to
this specifically in an earlier post in this thread on
MTAAs wonderful 'five small videos' ) that this self
consciousness is disappearing, that we're perhaps
returning to an earlier kind of practice where
quotation (and the cloud of concepts related to it) is
merely one scarcely remarked weapon in the artist's
arsenal, to be wielded relatively unselfconsciously.
I mean I've not done a *scientific survey* or anything
- but it's a feeling that we're moving into a period
of *consolidation* of artistic language, of an
*application* of lots of the formal shenanigans of the
last half century of so to something that is concerned
more with a profound combination of the intellectual
and the affective & which is also aware of its place
in an ongoing tradition ( and this does not of course
imply massive surface complexity -what 'five small
videos' has in common with a Schubert Lied is the
appearance of *necessity* -"yes that's the only way it
could be!" - and hence simplicity, but a simplicity
which isn't exhausted the first or the second time
round but continues to reveal new layers, new meanings
on repeated engagement)
The recent work of MTAA is inceasingly beginning to
feel to me like an exemplar of this tendency ( another
significant one being for me the work of Alan Sondheim
which if people don't know they absolutely *should*
http://www.asondheim.org/ ).
The thrust (and also the appeal) of the two video
pieces seems to me not primarily formal, conceptual
or didactic in some way, but affective, rich and open
ended; aware of its place in tradition and paying due
homage to it but not simply smart commentary on it.
Marisa asks, " Does the medium make any difference [vis appropriation]"? In terms of ease of artistic production, definitely -- digital media + global networks = ease of remix.
Pre-net/google, I doubt I would have ever explored something like this:
http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/picture/
But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that "remixity" ["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or inherent to the underlying ethos of all digital art (although maybe it is, and there are sure plenty of people trumpeting the fact that it definitely is). Maybe remixity is just the most immediately obvious thing to do with digital media, and so we see a lot of it simply because the novelty hasn't worn off yet. One way or the other, it's safe to assert that digital art makes remixity and appropriation feasibly/logistically easier from a production standpoint.
_
michael wrote:
I'm always faintly taken aback when I read assertions
like this.
<It seems that 'quotation' lies
at the heart of "postmodern" cultural production...
That is, simulations, appropriations, and
self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as
both harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work">
All these characteristics can be found in most periods
of art, in music ( variations on a theme of...),
visual
art ( such and such *after* such and such) and
literature ( pretty much the whole of Shakespeare).
Its perhaps a question of degree, of the ( sometimes
deeply desperate) self consciousness of deployment
which marked the something new in post modernism.
What interests me is the feeling ( and I referred to
this specifically in an earlier post in this thread on
MTAAs wonderful 'five small videos' ) that this self
consciousness is disappearing, that we're perhaps
returning to an earlier kind of practice where
quotation (and the cloud of concepts related to it) is
merely one scarcely remarked weapon in the artist's
arsenal, to be wielded relatively unselfconsciously.
I mean I've not done a *scientific survey* or anything
- but it's a feeling that we're moving into a period
of *consolidation* of artistic language, of an
*application* of lots of the formal shenanigans of the
last half century of so to something that is concerned
more with a profound combination of the intellectual
and the affective & which is also aware of its place
in an ongoing tradition ( and this does not of course
imply massive surface complexity -what 'five small
videos' has in common with a Schubert Lied is the
appearance of *necessity* -"yes that's the only way it
could be!" - and hence simplicity, but a simplicity
which isn't exhausted the first or the second time
round but continues to reveal new layers, new meanings
on repeated engagement)
The recent work of MTAA is inceasingly beginning to
feel to me like an exemplar of this tendency ( another
significant one being for me the work of Alan Sondheim
which if people don't know they absolutely *should*
http://www.asondheim.org/ ).
The thrust (and also the appeal) of the two video
pieces seems to me not primarily formal, conceptual
or didactic in some way, but affective, rich and open
ended; aware of its place in tradition and paying due
homage to it but not simply smart commentary on it.