Subject: Re: WG: Prix Ars Electronic 99 (Computer Music) (fwd)
From: Barry Truax (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jul 16 1999 - 03:39:07 EDT
You may recall seeing the posting of the email I sent to the Prix Ars
Electronica people. Below is their reply and my response. To date, two
weeks later, there has not been a reply from Naut Human.
> From email@example.com
> > Dear Mr. Truax,
> > when we strted Prix Ars Electronica in 1987 we already had in mind to
> > understand the competition as an open forum for the computer arts . We also
> > understand the Prix Ars Electronica as a showcase of contemporary wworks in
> > the wide range of digital media. That why we set up a new category for
> > interactive arts in 1990 and replaced 2D computergraphics by a .net category
> > in 1995. This year we changed the music category from pure computermusic to
> > electronica/digital musics. I don't say we dropped computermusic but we
> > widend the field.
> > You know better than I do that computermusic already got its position in the
> > field of contemporary music. What we are looking for is the genre of
> > experimental music.
> > We also forwarded you mail to Naut Humon - we worked out together the
> > changes in the new category. Guess he'll also respond.
> > best regards
> > Christine Schoepf
> Thank you for your reply to my email concerning the computer music
> category. I have no problem in a "broadening" of the category, but I
> disagree with the implication in your reply that "experimental music" is
> distinct from "computer music" - all styles and genres of electroacoustic
> music have their more conventional instances and those which push the
> boundaries of the art form in some sense.
> This leads me back to my original point which was the discrepancy
> between your assurances that all styles were "welcome" and the result of
> the jury which appeared biased in one direction. I believe that a less
> biased jury would have found works worthy of recognition from a wider
> variety of styles.
> I would personally prefer to see a jury drawn from those with a familiarity
> of a wide range of current work, with their selections reflecting that
> range - also the jury should change every year to ensure as many points of
> view as possible. Your current approach may lead to a narrowing, not a
> broadening, of the works submitted and selected.
> Barry Truax
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:02 EDT