Re: [microsound] Biofeedback artists?

[Scott Carver <fscthaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

- Scott Carver

On Feb 25, 2005, at 8:54 AM, Craque wrote:

> Why should the amount of technology involved define the relative 
> 'artisticness' of a work? Some art is nothing BUT technology - 
> especially music these days. Plenty of art relies heavy on technology; 
> of course this also depends on what you define as 'technology.'


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