There a principle known as "Orientalization" in art: when an exciting new
technique or style is developed (or in some cases, discovered), neophytes
have trouble distinguishing the new technique from the creative process.
The term "Orientalization" comes from the early days of transcontinental
commerce between Europe and Asia, when people would buy artwork from the
Orient simply on the grounds that it came from the Orient rather than on
the grounds that it was good art.
This principle holds true today. For example: "The Mind's Eye" video
(circa 1987?) featuring tacky animated tableaus of 3d computer-generated
models "coming to life" before your eyes to the gut-wrenchingly saccharine
synth-puke of Jan Hammer. Absolutely 100% style and no substance. People
bought this like mad because it was the first time many of them could see
"space age" computer techniques used in a "work of art." Granted my views
on this are tainted by the fancy CG techniques used in more contemporary
movies like "The Phantom Menace," but the principle holds true with that
film as well. The focus of both "The Mind's Eye" and scenes like the
underwater journey in "The Phantom Menace" is primarily the technology
behind the creation of the work rather than any narrative concept. In 10
years, the graphics used in "The Phantom Menace" will look as tacky and
dated as those used in "The Mind's Eye" and the movie will still suffer
from the lack of a coherent plot.
The same concept holds true in modern contemporary electronic music. A
significant portion of the DSP/Glitch/Generative music created these days
showcases the output of the software rather than the vision of the
musician. Granted, in many cases the vision of the musician IS the output
of the software because the process is so new that it is difficult to see
past the novelty of the sound.
The use of new technology doesn't neccessarily detract from the artistic
merit of the work created with such technology. Especially after the
novelty wears off, artists find ways to utilize new media to advance their
art rather than using it as the focus of their art.
--
String Theory : Digital Music for Humans
http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Kent williams wrote:
quoted 34 lines You're describing two concepts that Brian Eno has written about:
> You're describing two concepts that Brian Eno has written about:
>
> 1. Technology makes technique less important, and the act of selection
> from 'found' alternatives becomes more important.
> 2. Eno has an idea of a black box with knobs on that continuously generates
> music, that the listener tweaks until it makes the music he or she
> wants to hear.
>
> There's nothing wrong with this sort of generative music. It doesn't replace
> human virtuosity; it's a different category
>
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Ed Hall wrote:
> >
> > Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Let's say
> > that Musician Bob uses the Woodmaker Fractalizer to generate a five-
> > minute musical fractal (whatever that is). Using its intuitive GUI
> > interface, he selected from dozen of parameters and in less than an
> > hour came up with a product that virtually set his ears on fire.
> >
> > What's missing from this picture, if anything? I'm sure some folks
> > would say that absolutely nothing is missing -- Bob's fans expect to
> > be taken on a thrilling sonic ride by his CD's, and he delivered.
> > But others might say that something vital is missing. Where's Bob?
> > The most one can say is that Bob "discovered" the track somewhere
> > inside the Woodmaker Fractalizer after an hour of exploring and
> > listening.
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org