Re: art not music


Subject: Re: art not music
n_kondon@alcor.concordia.ca
Date: Wed Feb 23 2005 - 21:59:32 EST


The way I see it,

Music, Ea, painting and photography are all art.
Music and Ea are sound/time based and therefore related on many levels, much
like photography and painting are sight/timeless based and have much in common.

A painting may look like a photograph and vice versa.
Music may sound like EA and vice versa.

The characteristics of a painting and a photograph are written in stone, hence
it is easy to label a piece of art a "painting" if it is physically paint on
canvas, or a "photograph" if it was taken with a camera.

On the other hand, since the meanings of "music" and "ea" are not quite
established in our day in age, it is understandable why there are so many
debates rampant on these lists.

If everybody has their own view on what music is, then how can we seriously
compare and contrast it to EA?

Here is my attempt.

What came first? Music or EA?
I think EA.

The birds singing, the wolves howling... There is something EA about
that, but not necessarily musical. "Call and response". People used to
comunicate using EA, and they still do: babies, hardcore druggies... Those who
are in no condition to speak...

A legend says that music "started" with tribes banging on big drums to scare
away the beasts of the night...

Was this music or EA? or was it not art at all? This all depends on how you
define the labels. I say it is a good example of EA giving birth to music.

This is how I would draw the line between music and EA.
Music is a cultural manifestation of EA, and EA is a display of the universal
understanding of sound within a natural comunity.

This explains when people complain that they want to "unlearn" their musical
training in order to better understand EA. This falls in line with Andrew's
notion that EA is purer without any musical influence.

To conclude, EA is the mother of music, and one of the oldest forms of animal
art to exist. In today's context, artists compose EA for a specific, educated
audience, culturally conditioned to understand gestures be they musical or
spoken. Is it wrong, then, for an artist to use non-EA components in order to
make his or her statement? Is it still EA??

Perhaps not. Perhaps then, it becomes "sound art"... But, of course, that would

depend on our definitions...

hope this helps

nick

Quoting Kevin Austin <kevin.austin@videotron.ca>:

> This is being cross-posted from <eamt> to both <eamt> and <cec-conference>.
>
> Best
>
> Kevin
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>
> >Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:01:40 -0500
> >From: andre_mc@alcor.concordia.ca
> >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
> >almaudio@videotron.ca
>

-- 



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