Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap

Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
From: Michael Gogins (
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 21:06:40 EDT

Since every society has art, it's clear that art is not social but
biological or, in other words, part of "human nature." If you could show me
a society without art, I'd have to say that art was socially caused, but
that's obviously not the case.

But you're right with respect to the problems of art today. We are indeed
rootless. That doesn't mean we can't have art, but it makes it kind of

With roots, our roots would mutate underground at a deep level, and the
result would be deeper (or higher) level of formal originality - not
superficial collage and sampling.

I'm quite sure that this rootlessness is a temporary situation. The "global
village" is real and the result will be some sort of "global tribe." I think
it will take another 1 or 2 generations to really solidify. But it will be a
new kind of tribe, not defined "against an other" since there will be no
external other, only various internal others.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wentk" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap

> At 08:31 05/07/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >eg: Duchamp framing a urinal; Cage framing "silence." Art is
> >in the eyes/ears of the beholder.
> Sure. But the idea of framing and of perceiving the framed object as 'art'
> is a social convention.
> Duchamp was trying to highlight that convention in an attempt to get
> everyone to think about how it worked. I think he failed spectacularly,
> the result was the exact opposite of what he intended. Instead of
> illuminating how trite the process is, he made it respectable and
> it as a valid form of creative self-expression. (I expect he enjoyed the
> irony...)
> This is maybe one reason why all the arts are having such interesting
> problems today. A lot of what's happened since - especially sampling in
> music, and cultural and sonic quotation in EA - is just a reworking of the
> same idea. It's true it gets you to look/listen in new ways. But as
> techniques go it's a bit of a one trick pony.
> As I see it, if you make music today you can:
> Recyle old formulas literally, which is more or less where rock, dance,
> ambient, noise, jazz (sort of...) and mainstream classical are
> You can recontextualise, quote, and juxtapose, and process, which is where
> a lot of EA seems to come from
> You can develop a rather anal fascination with intricate sonic and musical
> structures, either under manual or software control - which is arguably
> the most direct post-classical lineage
> ...and overlaps and combinations too.
> But there's a rootlessness about all of these that feels very arms-length
> to me. There's something impersonal and self-conscious about all of them,
> as if signifying and stating that you're Doing Artistic Work, either with
> long tracts of official Artspeak, or just by doing your damndest to look
> like someone you've seen on MTV, has somehow substituted for actually
doing it.
> Richard

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:02 EST