Re: regarding innovation


Subject: Re: regarding innovation
gogins@pipeline.com
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 09:39:25 EST


Following instinct is fine if the results justify it. In any case, good
results or bad, following instinct invariably results in the expression of
an unconscious grammar or system.

The actual creative process is largely unconscious, resulting in "aha" or
"eureka" when the creative result becomes conscious. However, it is very
clear that the creative process works on what it is loaded with. If it is
loaded with tradition, it creates within a tradition. If it is loaded with
several traditions, it crossbreeds them. If it is loaded with formal
systems, it innovates within those formal systems. If it is loaded with
contradictions or fundamental problems in formal systems, it innovates by
producing new axioms or new formal systems.

Original Message:
-----------------
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) iriXx@iriXx.org
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:43:30 +1100
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: regarding innovation

Ross Bencina wrote:

>
>
> ... i think i know it's a risk to be so "systems" centric... but
> that's how i'm thinking this morning .. and i would think someone has
> written abou this.

thats just my personal stance on things... probably i posted about it a
couple of days ago...

it depends on your personal methods... for me, i'm at a loss as to why
we need so many systems at all. perhaps this is the days of post-modern
tech and its influence on our lives. but i'm quite happy to go with
instinct and throw quantified systems out the window. i used them for a
long time, and they bogged me down... i've been freed.

then again, it depends on how your personality type and thinking work. i
am intuitive-based. someone who is more objective may find it more
satisfying to wrangle with systems, to get the system to fit - to engineer.

if the hat fits wear it.

i guess i'm saying i'm an anti-academic.... but thats an 'ism' too, and
i dont believe in isms... ;)

>
>
> Actually what I'm really interested in is music software systems and
> some concrete reasons why some people make their own, why others use
> existing systems etc. I think digging into the above might provide
> some useful clues.., does anyone want to join in?
>
yes... i think software provides a better clue. those who use max or
audiomulch :) and create their own environments - this is beyond my
thinking but it takes their music into a different world. even more
extreme for the non-visual programming languages of Csound and
SuperCollider.

then there's the sort of tools i work with - brush and paint.
AudioSculpt, ProTools - where i have a blank canvas that i can throw my
sounds onto into a visual pattern (literally) and play with my brushes
and palette (effects).

i am very strongly a visual thinker, so i need to use an environment
that is visual, and to throw the books out the window.

someone who is a verbal thinker may be the opposite. i have little
internal verbal dialogue - i think in pictures.

software choices i think are enlightening as a means of looking at the
way someone thinks. i remember as a postgrad student being able to walk
into any studio and know which of my fellow students' music was on the
screen by its visual structure. the way it was laid out and the choices
made said a lot about personality and the way particular tools suited
one personality and not another.

random rambles,

mC~

>
>
>
>
>

-- 
99% of aliens prefer Earth
--Eminem

www.iriXx.org www.copyleftmedia.org.uk

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005

-------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .



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