RE: [microsound] [OT] turing, AI and art

[Christopher Sorg <chris@xxxxxxxxx>]

> ( 04.01.24 23:24 -0500 ) graham miller:
> > i've always thought of art as something 'human-centric' in 
> the sense 
> > that everything audio-visual is geared to our unique sensory 
> > 'bandwidth' as a species (i.e. visible light, audible frequencies).

I believe that a very significant aspect of art and it's meanings is the
cultural context and, as mentioned before, the physiological limitations
of ourselves.  The recent article, "Song of Ourselves"
(http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/11/09/songs_of_our
selves/), suggests just that.  "Music, like the visual arts, is rooted
in our experience of the natural world" (David Schwartz)  The analysis
reported in this article suggests that our biology is not only
responsible for what we receive as sound, vision, etc, but that we
create from that very same source material.  Another quote from the
article, "many laboratory animals don't show a great affinity for the
human variety of music making", seems to suggest that we are very
"human-centric" in our art creation.  We aren't striving to make much in
the way of sound, visuals, architecture, etc, that is trying to
communicate with anyone other than our (human) selves.  I would not go
as far as suggesting that "art" is "human-centric"; we haven't even
defined what art *is*.  I would suggest that if we survive the
experience, we are very likely to create entirely new art forms and
genres of art, much like the syncretism that happens between cultures in
both positive and violent exchanges.

> well, the method of delivery [sensory bandwidth] is only one 
> part of art. for instance, a poem translated into a different 
> language than the original can still retain some of it's 
> aesthetic content. or, a piece of music played on a car radio 
> as opposed to hearing it live.
> 
> to me, art is more that the delivery method. there is some 
> meaning involved [or, meanings].
>
>\js

Addressing first the latter part of this statement: this is contrary to
much of what I've read about content and delivery method (form).  There
are distinct differences in the multiple messages that are sent when the
same piece of music is played on a radio or heard live, one being the
reproducibility of the performance.  Of course, there is the often
quoted McLuhan, where form *is* content, "medium is the message" (not
too far from the Bauhaus philosophy).  But there are many other writers
suggesting the same thing.  Walter Benjamin suggested the same, that our
art and technology are linked together.  In "Gramophone, Film,
Typewriter", Friedrich Kittler quotes Nietzsche on the use of the
typewriter for writing.  "Our writing tools are also working on our
thoughts."  As we extend our physical bodies with our tools, our "art"
expands and changes to fill those sensory voids.  And then there's the
feedback.  

This also brings into play the former part of the statement, regarding
translation.  If the form is changed, then does it "retain some of it's
aesthetic content"?  Perhaps.  But the form itself changes the
relationship and meaning.  James Elkins discusses the difficulty in
trying to include, say, Chinese painting, in the Western history of
painting.  Historicizing things in the manner in which we have
traditionally done so with arts (Hegelian, linear, progressive) makes it
very difficult to place something like Chinese paiting into a Western
history without altering the meanings of both the paintings and the
history itself.  The importance a Chinese painting may have in context
with it's culture is altered to fit it's importance relative to Western
painting, while the notions of linear and progress are disrupted to
insert another history altogether.  In the translation of writing, we
miss many of the puns, in-jokes, double-entendres and other subtleties
when translating, which can contain much of the important content as
well.  Many of us would miss the signifigance of Rimskii-Korsakov's use
of Russian folk music, and must be educated as to why it's important,
while, within it's cultural context, it was fairly understood.  This is
content that you just can't "get" unless you've become intimately
familiar with the culture.  

We also keep "old" art around for different reasons, to remind of of who
we were, where we came from, and to demonstrate our similarities and
differences.  We perform and watch Greek tragedies and Shakespearian
plays because we can relate, but we transform those experiences and
create new meanings from them.  But we create new art and new forms.  If
the "old" art was sufficient in expressing our particular human
condition, we likely wouldn't *need* to make more.

So, assuming that there might just be other life forms out there, and
there are many that believe so, why aren't we trying to make art that
isn't just "human-centric".  Is it that we just don't know what
direction to go in, we're afraid of offending or something?  How about a
sound project where we create works that are too subtle or beyond the
range of human hearing, or too mathematically complex to the human mind
to follow (like Subotnic's work :).  Turing "sound" machines or
something.  New project!  Sounds for Aliens.

Chris

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Christopher Sorg
   Multimedia Artist/Instructor
 The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
  Columbia College Chicago
   http://www.csorg.org
     csorg@xxxxxxxxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/19/2004
 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org