Re: [microsound]REvised influence vs. replica

[The pHarmanaut <pharmanaut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lance, I appreciate your take on this. Again, though, I'm not sure if it's
an "evolutionary" process. I find it more driven by artifice, invention, the
human relationship with technology, culture, and ideology (influencing
overtly or covertly). People interested in legitimizing "influence" often do
so by resorting to evolution as an organic model for how artists' relate to
each other and their works over the course of time; but too often, this gets
turned into something like a Hegelian take on History with Spirit authoring
the grand master narrative. It turns the process into a discussion of
progress, of which I'm very skeptical. Too much of artistic movement depends
on mistakes, ruptures and breaks, halts, backpedallings, revisions, and such
to rely on concepts of progress.

I prefer the notion of replicant as a new category of being that is
simultaneously an imitation and a new thing never before experienced. A new
copy. A simulacrum.

-=Trace

>
> look again...hip hop did not just form out of thin air...
> i do think though that some technology is allowing us to find new forms of
music (and other arts perhaps) which did not or could not have been possible
before. But even there, dig down into the details and it is all evolution.
small steps and giant leaps, but all in a process.
> lance