Re: [microsound] food for thought

[mar© hiatt <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Wednesday, October 3, 2001, at 08:20 PM, pelagius pelagius wrote:
>> If the tool is the message and the tool is a powerbook, is the message
>> any more than a glorified Apple advertisement?
> 
> I have dealt with this issue making digital art and music and these are
> my personal conclusions:
> 
> -New technology  in itself is often interesting. So is older technology.
> In this way making computer music is similar to flower arranging.
> 
> -Technology provides interesting models for thought . Engagement with
> high-tech structures (networks, control flow, object-oriented
> programming) can provide useful ways of thinking about other things.
> These models can be used independent of technology.
> 
> -A human art practice values human experience. The quality of my life is
> decreased when I am isolated and deprived of rich sensory stimulation.
> 
> These principles have helped me relate to technology more healthily.

i think it's an interesting bind we put ourselves in. i tend to agree with a
number of people who have criticised modern society for putting the
instrumental exercise reason before its practical or aesthetic versions.
that is, in modern times we have become very good at finding _instruments_
for our reason, at manipulating nature and bringing it under control. this
is not really a problem. but the fact is that the project was taken too far.
we not only used technology to control nature, we also use it to control
people.  we pulled a trick on ourselves and became subject to our own
creations. nazi germany or capitalist america are prime examples.

different people see different solutions to this problem, that is, different
approaches to the problem of change. some have suggested that aesthetics
provides a possible response, a way of creating ourselves out of the trap.
others stress the importance of practical reason, politics, dialogue, true
democracy, as the escape route.

as artists in 2001 this poses a lot of interesting questions. being
surrounded by a technological world we become fascinated by it, often from
an early age. "higher tech" equipment (computers with internet connections)
allows us autonomy from the established rules of the culture industry. but
at the same time we often become conscious of the contradictory position in
which this puts us. how can one criticise that which one uses to create?
how can one justify making art with an instrument which could feed some
people in the world for 10 years (nb: millions live on less than $1 a day, X
365 X 10 = $3650 = 1 laptop)?

the temptation, i think is to ignore these questions, perhaps to come up
with a thin excuse and never think about it again. who would be prepared to
sell their gear to save a human life? what if it were YOUR brother or sister
or child? or can we find a convenient explanation which somehow makes it all
right not to?

marc.