Re: [microsound] tech q's

["visa" <v.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I personally think that in art a "message" without the "medium" is some
heavy
blahblah. The most obvious source of counter-arguments is literature. For
example, you woudn't claim that summarizing the main theme or point (or
message, whaterver that might mean, the concepts are a bit unclear) of a
literary work in a few sentences would be as effective or enjoyable as
reading the book, would you? Tho I do find your point a bit obscure, maybe
I'm just missing it...

In this sort of music especially the idea and the process are entirely
inseparable.

BTW. I'm writing a paper on the significance of artist's intentions to the
interpretation and evaluation of his/her work. I think I can upload it
somewhere and post a link when it's done. If anyone is interested.

       .: visa tapani

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <bitmoth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [microsound] tech q's

i don't feel the medium is the message. the medium to me is the
blahblahblah, the stuff that exists across the time axis. the message
(for lack of a less pretentious phrase) exists outside of time. it's the
impression created in the background of a work, that exists as the
spine, binding the whole thing together. it doesn't have to be out front to
be there.
so, in my opinion, the message is the message and the medium is the
fun part. you can choose the wrong medium for the message, just for
effect (the first thing that jumps to mind is the Coen Brothers, ulysses
in oldtimey setting, or phillip marlowe as a stoner comedy). i think they
are completely distinct, and it seems more interesting to me to
consider the message and the interest in that as a behind-the-scenes
framework concept. that's why i like director commentary so much.
.d:b.

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