Re: [microsound] [ot] RGB freq?

[ndk <ndkent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > 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"
> Nicely put. It's not hard to see the obvious pitfalls and to also notice
> the, dare I say, pretentiousness of this approach,

I'd think pretentiousness shows itself or not depending on the details
of the presnetation. I see the general approach one part experiment one
part covering your ass. One poses something conceptual or process
oriented that has the potential in some facet to be intriguing. More
people will want to find out more about that than if the artist was an
unknown and their work had no stated concept or process. Then at the
conclusion one's ass is still covered by using words like 'experiment'
and 'impersonal', like it's not the artist's fault, it is, they didn't
have to show it to anyone. Perhaps even something truely impersonal can
even happen on it's own, why even involve an artist ;-(

> but I also can still
> appreciate some of the works that fall into this category just the same.
> But usually it's work that *just so happens* to have an interesting
> result.

Here rises the question is it interesting because of or dispite the
process? Probably neither, other factors are likely at play.

Also, if an intriguing question is posed, almost any result has some
interest at some level. 
                                                                        
                               
                                                                        
                      
> It's ironic, but the "impersonal" "process over results" approach in
> soundwork seems to sometimes also lack a certain critical objectivity of
> it's own results. So what sometimes occurs is that an artist releases a
> work that successfully attains the goal of their experiment, but instead
> of thinking to see if the idea could be taken further in order to create
> more compelling results, they settle on what they have and release it to
> the public prematurely. Perhaps this is partially what you meant when you
> refered to the emphasis on the process as "being a poor excuse" (?). Then
> again, I usually can't shake the feeling that I release most of my own
> work prematurely.. . .. .. ...   :-))                           

My feeling along these lines is one makes experiments, which is to be
encouraged. One sometimes wants to get the reactions of a few others to
verify results, fine. One should keep at it until the artist feels they
have a real discovery, they use their aesthetic judgement to do that or
to determine the direction to continue.

nicholas kent

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