I actually find this affinity that I see in the "microsound" scene with
concepts of purity and all white surfaces and austerity kind of creepy
actually.
the affinity you mention comes from microsound's grand cousin minimalism,
of course. purity & empty surfaces are all over art & design history, from
yves klein's empty exhibit _rien_ down to the building of the world trade
center. i think it goes without saying that pure surfaces, "spaces without
influence" as i call them, are inherently fragile. i'm sure deleuze says
something about this but one only needs to read a reporter, james gleick's
famous book _chaos_ & figure it out themselves. personally i liken any
search for purity to the platonic search for the primordial "idea": a good
drive to nowhere (as opposed to a bad drive to somewhere). of course there
is more to art than that sort of concern, but as _art_, it doesn't really
matter what shape a work takes as creativity comes in all forms, & purity
has always been a most fascinating concept to juggle with as it notably
impresses girls. now, in terms of functional design, or as a philosophical
holy grail, "total purity" is inherently flawed & should be avoided at all
costs. (for philosophy, a most striking book against plato's "idea" is of
course, karl popper's classic book _open society & its enemies_, which is
probably also a timely read in the current political context.)
of course, if you ask for my own opinion, i think most minimalist art is
fragile & thus uninteresting, but someone else might just find this very
fragility interesting; i think we need to accept that. anyway, your
initial point didn't have anything to do with minimalism but
posturing. another empty, groundless debate since in the end, most art
involves posturing. to take a random example, you saying "art must be free
of theoretical chains" is posturing for the art-for-art's-sake school of
thought. likewise (an equally random example) when i say that art must be
solid, i may be in fact posturing for realist (or ironic) art, & it helps
that i'm currently reading northrop frye (_anatomy of criticism_) who's
giving me the words to express things i felt for a long time. (wait, so
theory would serve a purpose? good golly, what a concept.) now, i
wouldn't want people to take it that groundless debate can't be interesting
(it sometimes is), i just think they rarely justify an insult or a cheap
shot. in the very least make yourself sarcastic.
i realize i'm posting to microsound again & although i have mentioned
deleuze, plato, gleick, popper & frye, i still haven't referenced the work
of mrs. spears, so allow me to do it now: