Re: [microsound] glitch and/as neo-modermism?

["The pHarmanaut" <pharmanaut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Based on _The Language of New Media_ and _Generation Flash_, I don't see any
connection between Manovich and glitch. The only nod Manovich makes to music
is to DJ mixing, and the only audio software package that ever comes to mind
when reading Manovich is Sonic Foundry's ACID. You know, I really need to
get into Curtis Road's book, especially the last chapter on aesthetics, and
perhaps it will spark some thoughts on the relationship between glitch,
microsound, and modernism. I'm skeptical of the statement that glitch is a
return to pure art, especially if this means conflating glitch and
minimalism, but I don't feel fully informed to make comments on Ian's
assertion. I come from a literary background first, theory second, and I
feel sometimes that painting and music may involve somewhat different
flavors of modernism than I'm familiar with. But I really don't think I can
agree with this point that Ian made earlier: "a dominant aesthetic has
emerged that can be described as a return to the pure." I don't get the
sense of a dominant aesthetic--I feel that things are still very pluralistic
and that we have a lot of options and variations of practice. I fear that
just because there are still relatively few works on new media aesthetics
that Manovich is being placed as some kind of dominant authority figure in
the field. Too bad that Pepperell and Punt's _The Postdigital Membrane_ is
out of print. Looks like the aforementioned _Techgnosis_ by Erik Davis is
also out of print. I thought that these works pointed in much more
interesting directions.

Now I'm eagerly waiting for the arrival of this _Technoromanticism_ book. As
someone else on the list suggested, it sounds like it may be more
interesting than the whole modern/postmodern application. I guess what I'm
really wondering now, though, is why there's this desire to define our era
by grafting "techno" or "neo" or some such prefix onto an already
established "movement". Even "post-digital" doesn't quite do it for me, as
the "post" just rings too much of the postmodern, and it just makes me feel
like things are kind of tired and worn out. What bothers me about
"technoromanticism" as a term--and to an extent "techgnosis" as well--is
that it implies that our age is defined uniquely by technology. The previous
manifestations were somehow more natural, unfiltered, and now we have the
technological version. But the previous manifestations WERE technological.
18th/19th century romanticism was intensely shaped by technology, from
Wordsworthian reactions against industrialism to De Quincey's prototypcial
neuromanticist drug literature. Blake may have provided the most joyously
ambivalent embrace of industry, particularly in the realm of publishing.

-=Trace

>
> Well, due to popular demand (OK, two people), I think we should
> continue. I don't have too much to say to your points, since I'm mostly
> in agreement with what you say. But here is where I would like to
> explicitly open the discussion to others, as well as invite your
> comments. Do you think glitch is mobilizing Manovich's neo-modernism,
> perhaps even without realizing it? I'm still mulling over Ian's
> contention that glitch is a kind of neo-modernism and/or return to a
> pure art. In some ways that may be true, and yet I'm not entirely
> convinced, or perhaps just not entirely convinced that it's nec a bad
> thing.
>
> ph
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Phil Thomson
>
> http://www3.telus.net/thisisphil/
> http://centibel.vze.com/
> http://everything.does.it/
> http://www.sfu.ca/~pthomson/
>
> speaker/interlocutor (xenophony media, canada)
> scan (s'agita, italy)
> synat (acidfake, macedonia)
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at
> http://www.mail2world.com
>
>
>

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