where do we go now?

OK. Finally enought interweb time and activity have passed to allow me to contextualize this as net art:

I wrote an article about Sweet Child O' Mine here:
http://www.pastemagazine.com/action/article?article_id484

Then I ported it to an ABC World News video piece here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24538

It promptly got unilaterally critiqued at two diametrically opposed blogs:

Gawker:
http://www.gawker.com/news/abc-news/being-massive-asshole-apparently-prerequisite-for-voice-of-a-generation-designation-212186.php

and the Guns N' Roses fan site:
http://www.gnrdaily.com/news_detail.asp?id%6

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

I have been thinking about this recent phenomenon in terms of my art practice. One of my secret, subordinate agendas for my practice is to see if I can somehow redeem popular music along the way. The concensus is that it can't be done. Too many residual, subjective cultural associations attached to these songs, to use them in an art piece is like using the flag or the cross – unless you want all those residual associations flowing through and refracting around your art piece, overwhelming it and derailing it, probably best to avoid pop music altogether. There is a Warholian way to do it where the whole art piece becomes about pop culture itself, but I didn't want to do it that way. I had hoped to somehow recontextualize pop music and redeem it so that it is seen with pathos and empathy. It's tricky, because I don't want to be uber-earnest and absolutely unironic; yet I don't want to be highbrow, tongue-in-cheeck, totally ironic and not earnest at all. I think the Paste article pulls it off better than the abc talk. And of course, neither piece is really trying to be "art."

The take-away from this whole experience is that everybody wanted to talk about the person of Axl Rose, which was the last thing I wanted to talk about. I worked with the ABC producer to put the attention on the song and away from the band, but it was like there was this sort of spectacular/simulacrum tractor beam around Axl Rose that could not be resisted. The response from the Gn'R fan site and the Gawker site was instructive. Neither group wanted their banal media to be redeemed. The suggestion that there might be something sublime about pop music was strongly resisted by both camps (L.A. biker rockers and snarky NYC media hounds). The former wanted to worship pop music unredeemed; the latter wanted to ridicule it unredeemed.

WWDD (What Would Debord Do)?

So much easier to simply sculpt sound and light (I'm currently working with theremin/analog synthesizer improvisational performance and synesthetic superimposed projections) than to make a social sculpture that negotiates the tar baby of mass media without getting commodified by it. I respect Daniel: http://www.danielbozhkov.com/larry_stills/larryking.html

curt

++++++++++

curt cloninger wrote:

> I should probably try to come up with some way to contextualize this
> as net art:
> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24538
>
> here is the whole broadcast:
> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24615
>
> curt

Man, Curt, Gawker compared you to Klosterman (write of "philosophie de la sac de
douche"), and a commenter even poetically referred to you as a "tardwaffle."
Kudos. You have successfully elicted the voice of a generation - grumpy,
powerless, polemical rantings that, while hilariously bilious and well-turned,
neither accomplish anything nor uncover some fundamental truth.

In other words, I think your point was well made via the responses to it.
-Alexis


On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, curt cloninger wrote:

::Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:42:25 -0800
::From: curt cloninger <[email protected]>
::To: [email protected]
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: where do we go now?
::
::OK. Finally enought interweb time and activity have passed to allow me to contextualize this as net art:
::
::I wrote an article about Sweet Child O' Mine here:
::http://www.pastemagazine.com/action/article?article_id484
::
::Then I ported it to an ABC World News video piece here:
::http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24538
::
::It promptly got unilaterally critiqued at two diametrically opposed blogs:
::
::Gawker:
::http://www.gawker.com/news/abc-news/being-massive-asshole-apparently-prerequisite-for-voice-of-a-generation-designation-212186.php
::
:: and the Guns N' Roses fan site:
::http://www.gnrdaily.com/news_detail.asp?id%6
::
::+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
::
::I have been thinking about this recent phenomenon in terms of my art practice. One of my secret, subordinate agendas for my practice is to see if I can somehow redeem popular music along the way. The concensus is that it can't be done. Too many residual, subjective cultural associations attached to these songs, to use them in an art piece is like using the flag or the cross – unless you want all those residual associations flowing through and refracting around your art piece, overwhelming it and derailing it, probably best to avoid pop music altogether. There is a Warholian way to do it where the whole art piece becomes about pop culture itself, but I didn't want to do it that way. I had hoped to somehow recontextualize pop music and redeem it so that it is seen with pathos and empathy. It's tricky, because I don't want to be uber-earnest and absolutely unironic; yet I don't want to be highbrow, tongue-in-cheeck, totally ironic and not earnest at all. I think the P!
as!
:: te article pulls it off better than the abc talk. And of course, neither piece is really trying to be "art."
::
::The take-away from this whole experience is that everybody wanted to talk about the person of Axl Rose, which was the last thing I wanted to talk about. I worked with the ABC producer to put the attention on the song and away from the band, but it was like there was this sort of spectacular/simulacrum tractor beam around Axl Rose that could not be resisted. The response from the Gn'R fan site and the Gawker site was instructive. Neither group wanted their banal media to be redeemed. The suggestion that there might be something sublime about pop music was strongly resisted by both camps (L.A. biker rockers and snarky NYC media hounds). The former wanted to worship pop music unredeemed; the latter wanted to ridicule it unredeemed.
::
::WWDD (What Would Debord Do)?
::
::So much easier to simply sculpt sound and light (I'm currently working with theremin/analog synthesizer improvisational performance and synesthetic superimposed projections) than to make a social sculpture that negotiates the tar baby of mass media without getting commodified by it. I respect Daniel: http://www.danielbozhkov.com/larry_stills/larryking.html
::
::curt
::
::++++++++++
::
::curt cloninger wrote:
::
::> I should probably try to come up with some way to contextualize this
::> as net art:
::> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24538
::>
::> here is the whole broadcast:
::> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24615
::>
::> curt
::+
::-> post: [email protected]
::-> questions: [email protected]
::-> 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
::

Thanks Alexis,

The desire to have the most-meta-commentary online is like some sort
of addictive drug to the kooky simulacrum that is blogger culture.
If one's words are impotent, and nothing is any more "true/real" than
anything else, the only thing to be desired is to have the most
perspicacious last word at all costs.

As an aside, I tried to post to the gawker thread (something along
the lines of "I love suckling on the hind teat of your cranky love"),
and the post never made it past their list moderators. Critique all
media (except the media you use to critique all media).

Which is why I still love Rhizome RAW. "Deconstructing ourselves since 1996."

round & round,
curt



At 6:14 PM +0000 11/7/06, Alexis Turner wrote:
>Man, Curt, Gawker compared you to Klosterman (write of "philosophie
>de la sac de
>douche"), and a commenter even poetically referred to you as a "tardwaffle."
>Kudos. You have successfully elicted the voice of a generation - grumpy,
>powerless, polemical rantings that, while hilariously bilious and well-turned,
>neither accomplish anything nor uncover some fundamental truth.
>
>In other words, I think your point was well made via the responses to it.
>-Alexis
>
>
>On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, curt cloninger wrote:
>
>::Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:42:25 -0800
>::From: curt cloninger <[email protected]>
>::To: [email protected]
>::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: where do we go now?
>::
>::OK. Finally enought interweb time and activity have passed to
>allow me to contextualize this as net art:
>::
>::I wrote an article about Sweet Child O' Mine here:
>::http://www.pastemagazine.com/action/article?article_id484
>::
>::Then I ported it to an ABC World News video piece here:
>::http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24538
>::
>::It promptly got unilaterally critiqued at two diametrically opposed blogs:
>::
>::Gawker:
>::http://www.gawker.com/news/abc-news/being-massive-asshole-apparently-prerequisite-for-voice-of-a-generation-designation-212186.php
>::
>:: and the Guns N' Roses fan site:
>::http://www.gnrdaily.com/news_detail.asp?id%6
>::
>::+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>::
>::I have been thinking about this recent phenomenon in terms of my
>art practice. One of my secret, subordinate agendas for my practice
>is to see if I can somehow redeem popular music along the way. The
>concensus is that it can't be done. Too many residual, subjective
>cultural associations attached to these songs, to use them in an art
>piece is like using the flag or the cross – unless you want all
>those residual associations flowing through and refracting around
>your art piece, overwhelming it and derailing it, probably best to
>avoid pop music altogether. There is a Warholian way to do it where
>the whole art piece becomes about pop culture itself, but I didn't
>want to do it that way. I had hoped to somehow recontextualize pop
>music and redeem it so that it is seen with pathos and empathy.
>It's tricky, because I don't want to be uber-earnest and absolutely
>unironic; yet I don't want to be highbrow, tongue-in-cheeck, totally
>ironic and not earnest at all. I think the P!
> as!
>:: te article pulls it off better than the abc talk. And of course,
>neither piece is really trying to be "art."
>::
>::The take-away from this whole experience is that everybody wanted
>to talk about the person of Axl Rose, which was the last thing I
>wanted to talk about. I worked with the ABC producer to put the
>attention on the song and away from the band, but it was like there
>was this sort of spectacular/simulacrum tractor beam around Axl Rose
>that could not be resisted. The response from the Gn'R fan site and
>the Gawker site was instructive. Neither group wanted their banal
>media to be redeemed. The suggestion that there might be something
>sublime about pop music was strongly resisted by both camps (L.A.
>biker rockers and snarky NYC media hounds). The former wanted to
>worship pop music unredeemed; the latter wanted to ridicule it
>unredeemed.
>::
>::WWDD (What Would Debord Do)?
>::
>::So much easier to simply sculpt sound and light (I'm currently
>working with theremin/analog synthesizer improvisational performance
>and synesthetic superimposed projections) than to make a social
>sculpture that negotiates the tar baby of mass media without getting
>commodified by it. I respect Daniel:
>http://www.danielbozhkov.com/larry_stills/larryking.html
>::
>::curt
>::
>::++++++++++
>::
>::curt cloninger wrote:
>::
>::> I should probably try to come up with some way to contextualize this
>::> as net art:
>::> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24538
>::>
>::> here is the whole broadcast:
>::> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24615
>::>
>::> curt
>::+
>::-> post: [email protected]
>::-> questions: [email protected]
>::-> 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
>::