[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] Biofeedback artists?



I tend to disagree, since context and machinery are largely objective perspectives, alterable and insignificant, especially considering the outlook of the individual (insert here arguments about what is art, etc... I'm sure that's shown up on this list more than once). I personally don't believe art has a need to be present[ed|able]. It's very credible, in my view, that an EKG display on its own can be art.

On Feb 25, 2005, at 9:10 AM, Scott Carver wrote:

Art always relies on technology (especially the kind of art we're inclined to talk about on microsound)... but I'm skeptical of the extent to which art can be nothing BUT technology. I find it difficult to imagine eeg's, galvanic skin response graphs, other such bodily data /by itself/ as being art, no matter how beautifully the data is rendered, regraphed, played back as sound, projected on the wall, etc. That's not to say that these kinds of data can /never/ be used for art, but they seem to need more context, more machinery, than this.


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