I would say that in this particular case (golden shield music), the
problem is the "abstractization" of the material. as Marco himself
admitted, due to the synthesis model he used, any numbers would have
triggered a not very different result, and the music alone (I don't know
the rest of the installation) doesn't let the intended meaning go through.
since someone asked how to make censorship clear, I would propose (in the
same way to make something else clear) for example to change the sound
content, so that we can get a more clear objectification of what's being
dealt with. just of the top of the head I can give a concrete realisation
(which will have a different result): instead of "abstract" tones, use
voice samples speaking out the IPs / or flustering, as being menaced / or
computer "reading" / or voice samples but with some variable distortion
(that can be controlled by the country from where the site comes, ...)
This would be a proposal so that the result is more connected with the
concept and process of the installation. Predicting some critiques,
someone can say "with the IPs I don't know what are the sites", but they
don't really have to know. It should be enough to get an idea of the
quantity of manipulated sites, I guess that was the intention of the
installation. Or then, another level could use the whois data to sonify as
well... of course the possibilities are endless.
From my side, I just resume: if you have a clear process/concept that
gives it's identity to the project, it's a bit of a pity that the final
result looses power because there isn't a strong enough "palpable"
(whatever that is) connection. Going too far with the "palpability" could
result in a "technical demonstration", but letting things too loose means
that you're not expressing anything at all, you're just making "nice
music" (which is what you said yourself you didn't want to do). The
question is finding the balance.
And of course, you can always write an article.
João
This is a classic example of the ongoing (mis)communication(s) between
artists and scientists. In this case, I think Mathieu is confusing the
purpose of art with the purpose of a scientific paper. One's aim is to
establish and demonstrate facts, the other to explore possibilities and
inspire imaginative (and often non-linear) connections.
For me, far too much of this art-science stuff errs on the side of
technical demonstration. And far too many artists lack the training to
engage with the real media of their work and instead hire technicians to
realize it for them. The flip side of that coin is that poetry is often
unquantifiable ("program me something sad" says the media artist to
their trusty technician) and causes segfaults in engineer-type brains ;-)
D.
On 12/22/10 9:18 PM, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
Matju, I see your point and I won't try to convince you that this work
is something you don't believe it to be.
However, I believe our disagreement born from a very different viewpoint
on the nature of an """"artistic"""" intervention.
Your technical analysis is excellent, but it seems to me it goes over
the real scope of the work.
--
Friedenstr. 58
10249 Berlin (Deutschland)
Tel +49 30 42020091 | Mob +49 162 6843570
Studio +49 30 69509190
jmmmp...@googlemail.com | skype: jmmmpjmmmp
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
