Re: [microsound] Biofeedback artists?

[Julian Knowles <julianknowles@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Richard,

Let's do some interpreting... when you say 'rely too much on the 
technology' you've made an assessment and we are not party to your 
criteria for that assessment. If you want to develop a thesis argument 
then you will need to carefully consider your criteria for these kind 
of assessments within the broader context of artistic practice

Now, if I were to guess as to what you are referring to when you say 
'too much technology', I would take a stab and say that you are 
referring to a situation where the work is driven entirely by the 
readings from the sensors with little or no conscious input from the 
subject. Is that right?

You might want to refer to the large body of artworks which are sensor 
driven (or based on 'machine listening') for some context. You might 
also want to do some readings in chance and indeterminacy in arts 
practice and controller mapping in electronic music (Trends in the 
Gestural Control of Music', an IRCAM publication, would be good for the 
latter). From such a contextual you might encounter a range of work 
which has the full range of human agency, from works which behave like 
conventional musical instruments to entirely automated works with 
little or no conscious human agency on the part of the participant.

The greater the array of work you encounter, the more you come to 
realise that art is defined more by contextual factors than by some 
quality innate to the work itself. For this reason, trying to run an 
argument on what constitutes so-called 'artistic' practice is fraught 
with difficulties and you may be getting yourself in way over your head 
if you take this on. It may be better to try and gain insights into the 
artworks you are studying with a view to understanding how the 
technology is integrated into the overall artistic concepts that 
underpin the work. That is not to say that you cannot be critical of 
the use of the technology in the works you study, more that you will 
need to contain that argument to a scope which is defensible and not 
widen it to the point that you will be shot to pieces as soon as you 
write the second sentence!!!

Sorry for the thesis coaching, but it is difficult to respond to your 
question without first clarifying the context.

Cheers

Julian

On Friday, February 25, 2005, at 11:54  PM, Richard John Brill wrote:

> Hello List,
>
> I'm writing a thesis on biofeedback sound installation and the science 
> and technology behind it. What are your views on the subject, i.e., do 
> you think that installations based on biofeedback technology can be 
> called artistic if they rely too much on the technology?, such as 
> Electroencephalograms, galvanic skin respone, and other general 
> biofeedback technology.
> Thanks,


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