Re: Solo ea

Subject: Re: Solo ea
From: Michael Gogins (
Date: Sat Feb 12 2005 - 20:12:43 EST

This is an interesting point of view. However I think that technology today
really is different from past technology because it contains more decisions.
In the past when I operated a camera, I decided the f/stop and the shutter
speed and the focal point. Now when I operate my camera, the camera decides
all these things. This gives me more power and less power at the same time,
but it is certainly different.

Similarly with cars. I used to fix my own car because all I had to do was
use a gauge to measure the spark gap, the spark plug gaps, and the valve
clearances. If I really wanted to get it into I knew I could monkey with the
carbuerator (I never did). Today the engine is full of computers and
software and figures out how to tune its own fuel compression. It runs for
100000 miles without needing a mechanic to do an engine tuneup.

Similarly with music.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Solo ea

>A popular quote from The Cyborg Manifesto
> "The machine is not an it to be animated, worshipped, and dominated.
> The machine is us, our processes, an aspect of our embodiment. We can
> be responsible for machines; they do not dominate or threaten us. We
> are responsible for boundaries; we are they." Donna Haraway
> which is one suggestion on the nature of tech. I've always found
> "Tech" to be just that... an extension of ourselves, better hands to
> use in order to manipulate out surroundings. Nothing more really. And
> no different purpose than the techs of previous times.
> I find the interesting things going on in the discovery of self to be
> happening in art itself, (all versions in different times to some
> degree) and the more direct study of the "self" in things like
> neuro-phenomenology. I'd be keen to see how the ideas of biology and
> form come together and feed back into art. I know that to some degree
> the computer helps to do that, but the computer's working analogies
> are fairly simplistic compared to fleas or ants or people.
> As far as some kind of collaborative endeavor regarding multiple
> expressions of different views in one; Isn't that already done in the
> orchestra? Doesn't the instrumentalist give up a certain amount of
> control in order to realize an aspect of his own expression in the
> realization of the minute details of another's?
> Has technology become so different from its past incarnations that the
> depth and purposes we relate to each other are changed? When does it
> really turn "post-human?" What's the borderland look like?
> The solistic aspects of EA are intersting even if they aren't new.
> It's a plastic art, and the plastic arts have always tended toward
> soloistic expressions. I just think its a great (if small) thing that
> sound, after all this time affords plasticity, and adds another route
> to individual expression.
> r
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:33:19 -0800, Eliot Handelman
> <> wrote:
>> I gather the ideas I presented about post-humanity haven't resonated
>> very much here.
>> The only thing that I was saying about ea is that the soloistic aspect
>> of its
>> presentation isn't necessarily one of its very interesting aspects. It
>> would be more
>> interesting to question or challenge the nature of the individual
>> theoretically at the
>> center of expressive art. You could try to make this argument out of
>> the nature of
>> tech. I tried to do so by reference to our expanded sense of our own
>> idsentities -- that
>> every artwork is already a collaboration between a zillion factors. We
>> have a chance to
>> open things up in a new way.
>> >
>> >You referred to the idea of scoring and realizing an electroacoustic
>> >piece by two different people as "an example of trying to escape the
>> >problem of individual expression."
>> >
>> >I am not certain I understand in what way exactly. Do you mean to say
>> >that the composer did not want to deal with the burden of performance
>> >(individual expression?) thus he allowed someone else to take the
>> >reigns?
>> >
>> Well since John Cage at least the idea of not being in control, perhaps
>> in order to better apprehend reality,
>> has become an attractive choice to many artists and composers -- "let
>> the sounds be themselves." You
>> could think of that as a step towards an expanded sense of who the
>> individual is -- as composer,
>> actor, agent, etc. I can';t second-guess this guy's purpose, other than
>> to guess that by turning realization
>> over to someone he either didn't care or saw in that gesture a
>> meaningful act that was part of what he thought
>> his piece was about. Maybe he saw it in something
>> like a cagean light. If so, he may have wished to express his sense of
>> his own expanded and indefinite indivisuality
>> through decentered choices. These could be chance, serialism,
>> algorithms, AI, collaboration, inventing ways
>> of being out of control, etc.
>> I met an artist whose name I forget who dresses up in bunny suits, has
>> himself tied to a chair, then lets
>> tough guys go at him as they wish. Similar general trend, of course this
>> guy is being a little gutzier
>> in what being out of control could be understood to mean, as compared to
>> the guy who hands you his
>> elctronic music score.
>> -- eliot
> --
> Rick Nance
> De Montfort University
> Leicester, UK
> Acousmatics

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST