Re: [microsound] real or memorex

[dbuchwald <dagmar.buchwald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I thought it that way: if beings make sense of their world through codes and
systems of representation, that is not the whole world but only what gets through
the filter of their perception (I take it here that perception is not an innocent
given but partly conditioned by socialization and enculturation).  Those filters
are sometimes so strong that events which don't make sense in terms of this filter
(system of representation, system of making meaning) are either ignored, repressed
or considered as accidents (not destabilizing the system); sometimes other filters
come in (if something ought not to be there in terms of common sense, for example,
it might still make sense for those who use a filter such as religion -- then it
becomes a miracle e.g.).  Sometimes people who insist on a perception that does
not make sense are treated as mentally ill (that is they are reproached for using
the wrong filters).  In a broader sense systems define themselves by what they
exclude as well as by internal syntax and rules.  Nevertheless there are instances
of intrusions into a system -- not merely of what is officially defined as its
outside but of what officially doesn't exist in terms of that system.

If a person who is not aware of a glitch aesthetic puts a CD into his CD player
and the CD does not run smoothly, the interruptions of the composition (which
would here be an instance of a certain code) could either be ignored (if they are
mild) or the CD would be considered as "bad".  It would never be considered as
part of the composition.  But one could say that the interruption of the listening
process and of the recorded composition is in some sense more "real" then the
composition in that it reminds the listener that the world does not merely consist
of an ideal world of signification but also of an underlying material which is the
condition for experiencing this work.  Maybe in the sense Heidegger talks about
tools: they are only recognized in their materiality if they fail or break down,
otherwise they are ignored because their operating is simply taken for granted.
They are never foregrounded in their reality until they cease to function.

If you sample glitches and make a composition out of it this might be considered a
widening of the code (of what belongs to music), and of course, a recording of
glitch aesthetic might still be interrupted by a 'real' glitch (which wouldn't
belong to the composition then?).  On the other hand, the composition process
could be set up in a way that invites glitches to happen without controlling them
(using 'malfunctioning' tools); maybe I am too romantic here, but this invitation
of something of which you don't know what it will be like until it happens,
somehow strikes me as inviting the real in.

Maybe I am just totally confused and somehow consider 'messages' sent by the
medium as somewhat more 'real' than the message the medium was supposed to simply
convey without interfering with it.

>From the perspective of the closed system of musical notation, e.g., considered as
a system of representation, a glitch on the CD could never be represented; it
would lie completely beyond its scope, on a completely different layer of reality,
it would be unrepresentable.  (But then the question arises: would a glitch on the
CD, disrupt the system of the musical notation? Or merely the experience of the
listener of the CD? Maybe you are right with the tree falling in the forest:
neither the composition process of the piece nor the 'notation itself' would be
disrupted...).

"An observable causation"?  Hm, could one say: of course it is observable, if it
intrudes, but the cause is so far outside of the specific system, that it is not
understandable from the perspective of this system.

Does that make it more 'real'? I am not sure why I assume that it is so.

Dagmar

Kim Cascone wrote:

> > If the real is not to be signified, if it is beyond codes and systems of
> > representation, it can enter the symbolic only as "glitch," as disruption of
> > the
> > code, as noise in the channel.
> can you explain how something that is beyond 'codes and systems of
> representation' can also disrupt those systems (i.e., an observable
> causation) ...isn't that a little like 'if a tree falls in a forest...'?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org

------------------------------