I find it fascinating that the field of sound art (which I have deemed to be deeply reliant on the latest, most advance, fairly complex technology) does not, in fact, always depend on such. In fact, this article seems to point out the benefits of relying upon/using the exact opposite. Technology, the article noted, is designed with a very specific use in mind. It is the artist’s job to “try to go beyond what the machine was designed for.” However, the latest technology often proves to be too advanced…advanced to the point that the artist finds it difficult to take it beyond its original function. That is why, in some cases, it seems that the modern sound artist may opt for less than modern equipment. Tiffany
Two points stick out in this article: One, the meaning of concepts when broken down from 'underground' to mainstream culture. Two, the 'worth' of music that is being produced today by machines that literally anyone can learn to use.
Firstly, I've always wondered myself how exactly to handle the idea of things losing meaning once accepted by popular culture. Does it lose its worth, or does it just keep existing in the same context that it did before? Just because commercials may be using experimental video footage from the past, does the original footage lose its 'specialness'? I would have to disagree...
Secondly, the predicament of the DJ; is his/her job seen as less talented than of that of the musicians of the past? Just because someone can use fruity loops doesn't mean that they have the ability to produce interesting sounds, in my opinion. Sure, the availability of instruments has greatly increased (in the electronic form), but that does not mean that everyone has the ability or skills to utilize them properly. It's up to the listener to discern what is worthwhile, not the artists to debate amongst themselves who is better or worse.
I found this article enjoyable as a dialogue between two similar artists sharing the fun times that they have with two similar methods of exploring sound. However, there was a point in which the artists had touched upon how new technology is produced and the general public utilizes the objects in their intended ways, but the artist tends to manipulate or explore new functions to find "new means of artistic expression".
Okay, so I can relate to the idea of art being about individual expression, but jumping onto new technology, abusing it in some "unique" way, for me does not fall under "artistic expression". This is gimmick. It is all for the 30 seconds of spotlight. A painter who lives alone, paints a picture everyday, and has no concern for doing anything progressive or new, just paints because he likes it, that is artistic expression.
How many artists pounced upon the technology of the iPhone when it was first produced? Was any of this art expression of themselves as an individual, or expression of a cultural object?
I'm not arguing that this method of making isn't interesting, i just believe that it affirms the idea that artists are always attempting to jump the gun onto the "new", to produce the newest ideas with the newest "things", and essentially accepting the cycle of commodity and consumption without question, and all for an article in Art Forum.
I think true artistic expression comes from an intrinsic human drive to create and interact with humanity. New technologies of course open doors for this, but opening new doors often appeals to greed faster than it appeals to community.
But alas, I must end with "fuck it all, let's dance."
It is interesting to see the differences between the practices of sound artist working with material from two different generations. As technology evolves, artists are forced to evolve their ability to deviate from the intended use. this is an exciting challenge.
This article is unique from the rest because it is a guided conversation between two artists who work in similar ways, but are still very different. They are talking freely with someone there to guide the conversation. I think that this is a fresh way to get into the minds of the artists as opposed to having them write out something or purely talk down to other artists' styles (like with stocky vs. techy). I question how dated this article is, though. I know that I can sit down with a computer and generate every single sound and edit it however I please, thus taking the entire aspect of manipulation or using tape and over-riding cd players (which are already considered "old-school" the same way that they are thinking of record players in this article). The most impressive conversation brought up by these two men discussing aspects of their work is one small conversational blurb about when the importance of distinguishing between "abuse of technology" and "deviating of technology." This seems like a topic on which they both have valid points on, but they seem to be the "rough" and the "safe" ways of saying the same thing. I love that the the proof of a version of a medium being seen as obsolete is not a recent movement. In the context outside of sound art, there is a seemingly fake-respect of black-and-white photography, polaroids, wood carving by hand, etc. that are understood as somewhat barbaric ways of creating art now that there are iPhones that can recreate the same aesthetic feel, or 3D printers or machines that can carve something more precisely than an artists' hand ever could. This shows that, as they talk about, there is a reoccurring theme of technology and etc. improving, but we still find ourselves fucking with the original (either to make it just seem fucked with or to actually do it better than ever before). Steph Hedges.
I think that this article is both extremely interesting and very dry at the same time. I enjoyed reading the banter between two different artists, and it's extremely interesting to see who their works are so similar and different at the same time. However, some of the discussion becomes so technical that I have a difficult time staying interesting in the material. I find the manipulation of cd's by Tone to be dull, though. The way in which he manipulates them seems extremely delicate and difficult to achieve, but the digital aspect of cds is so far removed from the tactile nature of records. I like that Marclay calls record players dumb, but I agree-- they never stop playing. I tink that it's easier for me to understand manipulation of vinyl vs. manipulation of cd because I don't really understand the technology aspect of everything.
I love love LOVE the idea of using scotch tape to just barely override the program in the CD player. This reminds me of a piece where an artist used a real biological virus to attach computer data and corrupt it. Data is such a weird thing... anyway. I am still grappling with the fact that it seems like the only thing that MAKES it art (and for that matter that the other people doing the exact same thing DONT make it at) is the fact that an artist said it is art. Of course, this is an argument that spans almost everything and every practice.
I find it fascinating that the field of sound art (which I have deemed to be deeply reliant on the latest, most advance, fairly complex technology) does not, in fact, always depend on such. In fact, this article seems to point out the benefits of relying upon/using the exact opposite. Technology, the article noted, is designed with a very specific use in mind. It is the artist’s job to “try to go beyond what the machine was designed for.” However, the latest technology often proves to be too advanced…advanced to the point that the artist finds it difficult to take it beyond its original function. That is why, in some cases, it seems that the modern sound artist may opt for less than modern equipment.
ReplyDeleteTiffany
Two points stick out in this article: One, the meaning of concepts when broken down from 'underground' to mainstream culture. Two, the 'worth' of music that is being produced today by machines that literally anyone can learn to use.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I've always wondered myself how exactly to handle the idea of things losing meaning once accepted by popular culture. Does it lose its worth, or does it just keep existing in the same context that it did before? Just because commercials may be using experimental video footage from the past, does the original footage lose its 'specialness'? I would have to disagree...
Secondly, the predicament of the DJ; is his/her job seen as less talented than of that of the musicians of the past? Just because someone can use fruity loops doesn't mean that they have the ability to produce interesting sounds, in my opinion. Sure, the availability of instruments has greatly increased (in the electronic form), but that does not mean that everyone has the ability or skills to utilize them properly. It's up to the listener to discern what is worthwhile, not the artists to debate amongst themselves who is better or worse.
:Brianna Didyoung
I found this article enjoyable as a dialogue between two similar artists sharing the fun times that they have with two similar methods of exploring sound.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there was a point in which the artists had touched upon how new technology is produced and the general public utilizes the objects in their intended ways, but the artist tends to manipulate or explore new functions to find "new means of artistic expression".
Okay, so I can relate to the idea of art being about individual expression, but jumping onto new technology, abusing it in some "unique" way, for me does not fall under "artistic expression". This is gimmick. It is all for the 30 seconds of spotlight. A painter who lives alone, paints a picture everyday, and has no concern for doing anything progressive or new, just paints because he likes it, that is artistic expression.
How many artists pounced upon the technology of the iPhone when it was first produced? Was any of this art expression of themselves as an individual, or expression of a cultural object?
I'm not arguing that this method of making isn't interesting, i just believe that it affirms the idea that artists are always attempting to jump the gun onto the "new", to produce the newest ideas with the newest "things", and essentially accepting the cycle of commodity and consumption without question, and all for an article in Art Forum.
I think true artistic expression comes from an intrinsic human drive to create and interact with humanity. New technologies of course open doors for this, but opening new doors often appeals to greed faster than it appeals to community.
But alas, I must end with "fuck it all, let's dance."
PHLADKY
It is interesting to see the differences between the practices of sound artist working with material from two different generations. As technology evolves, artists are forced to evolve their ability to deviate from the intended use. this is an exciting challenge.
ReplyDeletekierstin
This article is unique from the rest because it is a guided conversation between two artists who work in similar ways, but are still very different. They are talking freely with someone there to guide the conversation. I think that this is a fresh way to get into the minds of the artists as opposed to having them write out something or purely talk down to other artists' styles (like with stocky vs. techy). I question how dated this article is, though. I know that I can sit down with a computer and generate every single sound and edit it however I please, thus taking the entire aspect of manipulation or using tape and over-riding cd players (which are already considered "old-school" the same way that they are thinking of record players in this article).
ReplyDeleteThe most impressive conversation brought up by these two men discussing aspects of their work is one small conversational blurb about when the importance of distinguishing between "abuse of technology" and "deviating of technology." This seems like a topic on which they both have valid points on, but they seem to be the "rough" and the "safe" ways of saying the same thing.
I love that the the proof of a version of a medium being seen as obsolete is not a recent movement. In the context outside of sound art, there is a seemingly fake-respect of black-and-white photography, polaroids, wood carving by hand, etc. that are understood as somewhat barbaric ways of creating art now that there are iPhones that can recreate the same aesthetic feel, or 3D printers or machines that can carve something more precisely than an artists' hand ever could. This shows that, as they talk about, there is a reoccurring theme of technology and etc. improving, but we still find ourselves fucking with the original (either to make it just seem fucked with or to actually do it better than ever before).
Steph Hedges.
I think that this article is both extremely interesting and very dry at the same time. I enjoyed reading the banter between two different artists, and it's extremely interesting to see who their works are so similar and different at the same time. However, some of the discussion becomes so technical that I have a difficult time staying interesting in the material. I find the manipulation of cd's by Tone to be dull, though. The way in which he manipulates them seems extremely delicate and difficult to achieve, but the digital aspect of cds is so far removed from the tactile nature of records. I like that Marclay calls record players dumb, but I agree-- they never stop playing. I tink that it's easier for me to understand manipulation of vinyl vs. manipulation of cd because I don't really understand the technology aspect of everything.
ReplyDelete-CAITLYN
I love love LOVE the idea of using scotch tape to just barely override the program in the CD player. This reminds me of a piece where an artist used a real biological virus to attach computer data and corrupt it. Data is such a weird thing... anyway. I am still grappling with the fact that it seems like the only thing that MAKES it art (and for that matter that the other people doing the exact same thing DONT make it at) is the fact that an artist said it is art. Of course, this is an argument that spans almost everything and every practice.
ReplyDelete