Re: art not music

Subject: Re: art not music
From: pmw music (
Date: Wed Feb 23 2005 - 20:13:30 EST

Well, it's an interesting subject, I may as well throw
in my two-penneth;

Surely the simplest description of art is as an
invitation from the creator of the work to a 'general'
public - this is at the centre of any work whatever
the medium it is expressed in or is exploring, be it
Rembrandt, Rossini or Rodin.

Music is art and music is music. Ea is art, and ea is
ea, and the two can live happily (or in happy
conflict) together.

Subdivisions, categorisations in art give academics
something to talk about but they do little for art
itself except to place imagined boundaries in front of


> >From:
> >Subject: Ea: art, not music
> >
> >This topic was broached, yet not actually discussed
> in any detail.
> Ok. Here's a golden opportunity.
> >Obviously this is divisive subject,
> Not necessarily.
> >we are in a music program (at Concordia) as it is
> and many will
> >simply take that as being the answer to whether or
> not
> >electroacoustics is music or art.
> It is art. Read on.
> >Some will also say that they are one and the same.
> THis I don't
> >believe to be true.
> They certainly aren't the same.
> >Music and Art are not the same (IMO) they follow
> different paths.
> One being temporal and one being based around
> (non-timebased) visual
> perception, with the exception of sculpture.
> >Music has at its core a language that is not
> translateable to ea.
> There may be some possibilities of borrowings, and
> electroacoustic
> music is the hybrid of music and electroacoustics.
> >Ea has at its core, no specific language (or one
> that is very limited).
> I think one can draw from the experience of a
> granite monument where
> the object can be understood as being that which it
> is not -- the
> parts excluded from inclusion.
> >The fact that ea is sound based is the link between
> the two, this
> >leads to the understanding of ea as music.
> Possibly not. Where the two intersect in sound would
> be considered
> electroacoustic music. (This term produced 80,700
> hits on Google.)
> >... (IMO), the understanding of ea as music
> constrains it to
> >be time based, which while true does not allow it
> to function
> >completely as a seperate art form.
> There is no problem for me in having multiple
> time-based art forms.
> Theater, cinema, mobiles and sculpture are all
> time-based art forms
> and one would not be likely to confuse mobiles and
> music.
> >If the context of music is taken out of ea
> But ea is a language, not constrained by the
> historical
> considerations related to music.
> >then ea can function as a much greater entity, an
> entity that allows
> >for understanding not simply on a sonic level, it
> can in the end
> >function more closely to the visual art domain
> I feel that this is too broad a use of the term
> "visual art"s, but
> would propose that ea functions more closely to
> abstract visual art,
> one not dependent upon 'objects' and objectification
> of objects.
> The purest abstract art is like the purest
> electroacoustic art, not
> beholding to anyone or anything, except itself.
> Electroacoustics is a language that excludes music
> and sounds derived
> from musical traditions. Beats, notes, harmony and
> melody have no
> real place in electroacoustics. To find out how to
> work with beats
> and metric structures, notes (pitches and pitch
> classes), harmony and
> pitch simultaneities in equal temperament, the place
> to study this is
> in a music composition class.
> While it is not too easy to state the internal
> limits of ea, as noted
> above, it is pretty straightforward to denote those
> things that don't
> fit, and a re-prioritization of those that are
> common between music,
> electroacoustic music and electroacoustic art.
> Similarly, it is
> possible to delimit those areas that fall outside of
> ea-art into
> radiophonic art, soundscaping, audio and
> installation art.
> A central premise of ea-art is that of 'timbre and
> gesture'. Of these
> two, IMV, gesture is the more central. In general,
> the identity of a
> work will not be lost with shifts in timbre and
> spectral content.
> Proof of this is that a piece can be played through
> a wide range of
> sound systems and remain the same (identifiable)
> piece, but to flip a
> gesture (ie, play it backwards), or displace it in
> relation to other
> sounds may quickly lead to its loss of identity.
> Electroacoustic art is about the invention of
> sounds, sound objects
> and new, unrealized relationships. The musique
> concret school got it
> wrong when they failed to work towards the invention
> of new sounds
> rather than the collaging and re-contextualization
> of existing sounds.
> >thougths? arguements? anything.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Andrew McCallum
> >

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