RE: [microsound] compassion for hard work

[Gunnar Garness <ggarness@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Ashline [mailto:bashline@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> Theory is not something to be afraid of.  We needn't tremble when
> confronted
> with yet another mode of communication that attempts to get at the
> conditions of our modernity.  Artists have been reading theory for quite
> some time to good affect (Rauschenberg and Johns in the sixties and
> seventies, Kathy Acker and Barbara Krueger in the eighties and nineties,
> etc.).

I certainly do not tremble when I read theory (and I do from time to time
although I draw inspiration from many other sources as well, much of the
time from literature) but I DO believe in clear communication.  When
something can be said simply and concisely in complete sentences why not say
it that way?  Your response makes all the sense in the world to me and I
would not argue with you on any of your points with the exception of the
interdisciplinary debate. :)  My point was that the casual use of
theoretical jargon in a hastily written message which already misuses words
AND which is missing simple things like verbs does not make communication
any easier.  Did we not take English 101 as part of our core classes before
we moved on to Postmodern Theory? (sarcasm)  I realize English is not the
native language of everyone on this list but we are trying to communicate
here, are we not?

> Invoking the rhetoric of "fashion" is always the knee-jerk response one
> expects from one who fails to "hear," who dwells in his or her "reactive"
> senses.  What's truly fashionable is the notion of a "timeless aesthetic
> sense," a fashion that lingers like an ugly coat beyond the time of its
> usefulness.

> >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).
>
> Please speak with authority, since "authority" is the political issue par
> excellence.  At one moment, academic theory is "obtuse" and presumably
> indecipherable.  Then, one becomes an "authority" on "literary theory" to
> the point of deciding it's of no use for architecture.  Why do we
> need to be
> concerned about the "good" of our disciplines?  What's bad about our
> disciplines is their "disciplinariness" (I'm aware it's not a word but I
> reserve the right to invoke a short term invention--it's ok, I
> teach writing
> and I won't let my students do it ever [smiley emoticon here]).  When one
> addresses one's time, everything comes into play when it's necessary.  We
> needn't hang on gloomily to disciplinary boundaries rigidly imposed for a
> few centuries.

I speak with "authority" since I am an architect and I began my education in
a time when literary theory was very "fashionably" being transposed to the
discipline of architecture.  What does Derrida have to do with buildings?
His ideas were developed in response to certain notions about reading and
writing.   We (the architects) then said..."but you can READ a building,
right?  And hey, wouldn't it be cool if we "dislocated" people's
expectations of a how you use a building by cutting holes in floors or
"challenging" their notions of an entrance by shifting, and fracturing the
forms"  The basics of what it means to build were ignored (and subsequently
not taught to students) for novel ideas about form that were supposed to add
so much needed meaning.  What it "means" when the structure has decayed and
fallen apart in five years because the "craft" of architecture was
unfashionable is anyone's guess.

However, the same "knee jerk" criticism you make towards me can be pointed
at you when you use such loaded phrases as "We needn't hang on GLOOMILY to
boundaries RIGIDLY imposed for a few centuries." (my emphasis)  I am not
talking about hanging on to the past but about rediscovering it and drawing
from it with a contemporary mindset.  I am certainly not conservative but I
do have to acknowledge that there is a lot to learn from the tradition of
architecture.  And then we can take that knowledge and transpose it into our
present in a form that is appropriate TODAY.  Drawing from other disciplines
is a great development of our time but not when it is at the expense of the
basics which we are often flippantly willing to forget.  And that IS for the
good of each of our disciplines.  See?

How directly one can make an analogy between these notions about
architecture and corresponding ones about music is uncertain. But I think
there is some connection.  I would like to know how some eof the musicians
feel.

I enjoyed your response by the way :).

With respect,
Gunnar Garness