Re: art not music


Subject: Re: art not music
From: miriam clinton (iriXx) (iriXx@iriXx.org)
Date: Thu Feb 24 2005 - 05:40:01 EST


:)

i think its all about th waves anyhow...

be they light waves or sound waves... all are waves to me

but i'm afflicted with synaesthesia... lol

mC2~

macCormac wrote:

>rn wrote:
>
>musique plastique! fantastique!
>acousmatics; "musique concrète all grown up"
>
>BRAVO :-) macCormac
>
>
>Rick wrote:
>
>
>
>>If you mean; is it a plastic art, like painting and sculpture, yes it
>>is. It is a time based, plastic art that uses sound. (IMO)
>>
>>Does that exempt it from being music?
>>
>>It probably depends upon the composer. The work I just finished is
>>definitely "music". The works I did last year may not have been. I
>>doubt the one I'm trying to finish now will be for sure. The
>>techniques and thinking used were very much the same, although the
>>sources had a lot to do with the outcome. I can only speak from the
>>experience in the act of creating them.
>>
>>In the same way, most of the statements I see below are well thought
>>out indications of the author's personal intent in his own art,... umm
>>I mean music.
>>
>>Does EA "exclude" rhythm and harmony? I don't think so. I think EA has
>>so many possibilities from which form can be derived that harmony and
>>rhythm are now just a subset of the composable sound world.
>>
>>I'm not of the opinion that either music or art or EA are actually
>>languages, although I suspect that there's a lot of overlap with
>>artistic discourse and linguistic discourse.
>>
>>Rick
>>
>>PS of course, I'm really only talking about my own relationship to it.
>>You could take a thousand different stances, and still do
>>good/great/bad/mediocre/brown/square/evil/sociopathic/heavenly/funny/hot/salty/chickenskin
>>work(s). After forty years, Schaeffer decided that he hadn't found a
>>way through to music. He relegated musique concrète to the domain of
>>sculpture and painting. He continued to call it musique concrète
>>though.
>>
>>rn
>>
>>musique plastique! fantastique!
>>acousmatics; "musique concrète all grown up"
>>
>>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:21:38 -0500, Kevin Austin
>><kevin.austin@videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>--
>>Rick Nance
>>De Montfort University
>>Leicester, UK
>>RickNance.org
>>Acousmatics
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 2/22/2005



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