I think the web site D.PART does a nice job of drawing connections
between techno, art, and the visionary architecture of Labbeus Woods
(http://music.hyperreal.org/d.part/).
As for the concrete vs. abstract distinction, I think it's a little
more complicated than Elliot Taub implies below. When we say that a
painting is abstract, we mean that it doesn't attempt to represent
something else. Even representational paintings can be somewhat
abstract, as when one becomes aware of shapes and visual
patterns--for themselves--in a Hopper painting.
But do buildings, by and large, attempt to *represent* anything? To
be sure, they do occasionally. There's a synagogue nearby (designed
by Yamasaki?) that is built to suggest a tent. Another place of
worship is built to look like hands folded in prayer.
But it seems to me that these are exceptions. What, for instance, do
the octagonal towers of Portman's Renaissance Center represent? What
about the curves of the Guggenheim or the mosque dome of the capital
building in D.C.? It seems to me the primary pleasure of structures
derives from their shapes--in themselves--not from them acting as
pointers to something else. Even the examples of the tent and folded
hands above are primarily pleasing to look at because of their
abstract visual patterns, not because we think, "Hey, that looks like
a tent."
Music is often talked about as the supremely abstract art form, but
there are many ways in which it is also concrete, especially dance
music like techno. It seems to me that techno can often "represent"
emotions more directly and concretely than visual art. I often look
at an abstract painting feel little emotional response, yet when I
listen to techno I often feel intense emotion. I realize I'm bending
the term "abstract" a little here, but it seems to me that there is a
sense in which the body-centered dimension of techno is very
concrete. Remember that one definition of concrete is "perceptible
by the senses." Surely techno fits that!
Concrete or not, as Elliot implies below, music and architecture are
both art forms and can both be talked about as expressing emotion,
communicating a message, eliciting an aesthetic response. They can
both embody ideas--as when community is "built into" a neighborhood
or is fostered by listening to techno. All of these seem fairly
robust connections, and I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I'd hate to see conversation stifled by rhetoric like "I can tell you
there is no connection whatsoever." Bit of an overstatement, no? :)
Best,
dms
I have a degree in Architecture, practiced as an architect for a few years,
and make techno. I can tell you there is no connection whatsoever, other than
superficial comparisons of musical meter to architectural structure. Music is
the only truly abstract artform, and architecture is entirely concrete (no
pun intended).
That's what I think, at least.
e
