RE: [microsound] to be against pure surfaces (in the morning)

[David Fodel <DFodel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"now, in terms of functional design, or as a philosophical 
holy grail, "total purity" is inherently flawed & should be avoided at all 
costs."

Susie Gablick wrote a book called "Has Modernism Failed" which addresses
this very thing... good read too.

David Fodel
Publishing Systems Manager
Wild Oats Markets
3375 Mitchell Lane
Boulder, CO 80301
Direct: 720-562-4831
Fax: 303-938-8474


> ----------
> From: 	david turgeon
> Reply To: 	microsound
> Sent: 	Friday, January 18, 2002 8:52 AM
> To: 	microsound
> Subject: 	[microsound] to be against pure surfaces (in the morning)
> 
> At 13:00 2002-01-18 +0000, you wrote:
> >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:
> 
> "___________________________________________"
> 
> have a nice day
> ~ david
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 
>