Re: [microsound] compassion for hard work

[Øivind Idsø <ezueled@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gunnar Garness wrote:

> > I think you´ve misunderstood, then, as this list per se is rather
> > silent in
> > terms of actual, physical sound. We´re not swapping sound bi/ytes.
>
> That's funny, I understood her point perfectly.  Sounds to me like she's
> SIMPLY stating (which seems refreshingly rare on this list with all the
> obtuse academic theory du jour being tossed around) that your work can be
> appreciated on many levels outside of the rarefied theoretical frameworks
> that you seem to worry about so much.

Yes, of course. I wasn´t objecting, or really talking about, the fact that a
work can be appreciated on many levels. That would make me a bad, bad
deleuzian. :)

My point was more trivial: once you start talking about one of the levels you
appreciate the music on you could be entering the sphere of politics, if you
accept the notion that politics is a discussion/discourse of different/various
modes of actions/reactions, or a "tactic" if you will -- how to make your
impressions of the world be understood, and accepted, by more than one.

It´s like when Nick Hornby writes about football (soccer to americans) in Fever
Pitch. Most football fans will say that "it´s just football", while Hornby is
writing an approximation of what could be considered a "politics of football".

I´m not debating whether or not an aesthetics exists (it does, I should think),
but whether or not it exists in and for itself. I doubt it. Which is why the
phrase "just here for the sounds" could be debatable, but it seems to be such a
touchy subject, so I´ll leave it.

> some of us still believe in the value of "aesthetic objects."  What your
> point was about them I can't say because your message doesn't make sense to
> me.  I suspect from all the previous dialogs that it was some sort of
> political objection to aesthetics.

Not really. It was more like David suggested (I hope, David :) : a kind of
"politics is everywhere" attitude, and that few things are innocent (like the
"pure" aesthetic object).

Believe me: I´m all for "experience music/film/books in the moment" and I do it
all the time, but I find it hard to escape the question of what it all means.
Of course, even if theory is involved for me, although much less, and much more
vaguely, than you think, this doesn´t mean the theory is over-whelming or
absolute. But it´s there...once you open your eyes there is reason in your
glance (a lousy translated paraphrase of Norwegian poet Tor Ulven).

>  I still stand by my assertion that the
> music that you make (that supposedly manifests or represents political
> theories) is not necessarily the music we, the listeners, hear.

Agree. Sorry if that´s what you thought I said, but I didn´t mean that.

> I know it is unfashionable to not use an interdisciplinary approach to all
> studies but I've seen enough of that already.  At some point we have to
> realize for the good of our own disciplines that music IS NOT political
> theory, visual art IS NOT the same thing as philosophy, and architecture IS
> NOT literary theory (on the latter I can speak with some authority).

Agree again. Even though for example visual art can compliment philosophy (the
Magritte-Foucault axis, for instance, or Bacon-Deleuze), I wasn´t saying what
you think I was saying. Politics on top of things, to say it simple, or in the
middle of things, but as an interactive object, not (necessarily) as a fascist
force imposing itself without hesitatio on everything that comes in its way.

> Besides, I like Rebecca's attitude and I think it's refreshing.  I think
> she'd be far more fun to hang with at a party than some of the humorless
> people on this list!

Hmm...there´s that either/or distinction again: Theory = humourless.

I saw Chicken Run last night. I enjoyed it very much.

best,
/Øivind/
--
"Silence is so accurate."
            -Mark Rothko