Re: [microsound] [ot] RGB freq?

[Kurt Ralske <kranning@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> this promethean attitude is useful for science, but maybe damaging for art.
> 
> Permit me to ask for clarification? I think I see what you're getting at, you
> just put it ten miles differently from how I would have.

these days, taking some data and transforming it into some other type of
data is a very popular strategy for art-making. if you like, it's alchemy:
distilling the essence and transforming the residue.

these days, Concept is King, and Process is Queen. the alchemical process
is "magic", and is used to validate the artistic endeavor. but what if only
green sludge is produced, and not gold? "well -- i did perform alchemy --
only the process is important, and the process was magic"...a poor excuse,
but this is how many artists think.

i'm sort of old-fashioned, and think that: a) putting all the emphasis on
the process is impersonal, and the resultant work is often mute and
inexpressive, and b) artists can communicate amazing things, by making good
decisions that directly shape the work, in an expressive and dynamic way,
rather than by just initiating a set of conditions + removing themselves.

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