RE: [313] technology vs. art
CONGRADULATIONS! you just made me feel stupid. didn't Mr. Kasparov beat the computer in the second round, or is that just a myth? if technology is art, then why are people shelling out tons of cash for a painting by a monkey??? the way i look at it is, ahhmmm, one persons trash is another persons treasure. there is no sense arguing what art is, because some one out there thinks that the george forman grill is a work of art (especailly them new colored ones that look like an iMac). It is all in the eye of the beholder. peace out jeff -Original Message- From: Mike Taylor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 11:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Hello, Admirers of the human brain were disappointed when for the first timea computer beat a human (chess champion Gary Kasparov). But the largeand powerful machine can do nothing else - well, this is an interesting concept. Deep Blue was IBM's chess project that defeated Kasparov in 1997. The way Deep Blue was set up was to use a thing called a recursive algorithm which is a fancy term for a set of rules that considers every potential permutation in a given situation. Furthermore, it also used an algorithm that considered whether a particular branch of decisions were worth considering. Even though electrical circuits sent information at the speed of light, rather than the app. 670mph that our actual neural impulses travel at, there are still a limited number of clock cycles that Deep Blue had available at its disposal for each turn. The interesting issue that this raises is that a human has so much less raw processing power for a recursive process that it uses pattern recognition from previous experience to play the game, whereas Deep Blue actually considered every aspect of the game at that moment in real time. So who was really thinking? Kasparov using the stored processing cycles of memory through pattern recognition, or Deep Blue with a recursive algorithm working the process on the spot? Furthermore, Why would the admirers of the human brain be disappointed? The best AI research is based on concepts found in the best processor that natural evolution could come up with. Deep Blue, and all other AI works on the principles of the human mind. I think what people find disturbing is that perhaps we are not the End All-Be All center of the universe, but just another rung in the evolutionary ladder. Guess what people, Homo Sapiens only have a century or two left until we become a memory. We have had creativity and technology locked down for a couple hundred millennia, but that time will come to an end in less than 2 decades. it's programmed to examinemillions of possible moves methodically and at great speed,calculating without any 'feeling' for what might be good or exciting.Even the smartest of today's computers are pretty dumb. they are based on the same concepts our minds are based on. The difference is that computers still do not have the raw processing power and memory that we do. Give the computer another 20 years and we will see how smart humans really are. But, as Marvin Minsky said, Deep Blue might have beat Gary Kasparov, but Deep Blue still wouldn't know that it should come in from the rain. The machine, the program, explores all the options, all of them exhaustively, without any insight, and then picks the one that's best in that investigation, computers have not yet to demonstrate true artificial intelligence. what is intelligence? What is insight? What is consciousness? I think they are emergent properties of the computing system we keep in our noggins. You consider what Marvin Minsky had to say about the human mind in Society Of Mind, he basically stated that we are just a large collection of _Very_ simple processes that synergistically form into what we consider consciousness. We are just a vast hierarchal arrangement of relatively dumb neural-nets. The difference is that the section of that hierarchy that we consider ourselves(the conscious mind) really does not have access to the very bottom end of the hierarchy of our minds. Think about what it takes to pick up a ball. There is the physical end, using each finger, using your elbow, your shoulder, your waist... then there is the perceptual end, looking at the ball, organizing all the information from the senses into a coherent mental framework that the mind can use to make evaluations of its situation in the external world. If you think about it, that is a massively complex project. yes a 2 year old can do this, but how complex is that toddlers mind? Every aspect of the process of picking up that ball that I just described can be sub-divided into a thousand smaller sub processes, which can again be sub-divided. Do
RE: [313] technology vs. art
humans are slow and briliant, machines are stupid and fast, together they can achieve great things... Albert Einstein (well... it's not exactly that way, but that's the point :P) CONGRADULATIONS! you just made me feel stupid. didn't Mr. Kasparov beat the computer in the second round, or is that just a myth? if technology is art, then why are people shelling out tons of cash for a painting by a monkey??? the way i look at it is, ahhmmm, one persons trash is another persons treasure. there is no sense arguing what art is, because some one out there thinks that the george forman grill is a work of art (especailly them new colored ones that look like an iMac). It is all in - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[313] Way OT Re: [313] technology vs. art
From the people I have spoken with who have them, the sound quality is about the same as a telephone call. It is a bit tinny, but the technology can only improve. When Direct Neural Interfaces enter the market, then you will see a sharp increase in the quality of these products. One of the benefits of having an aging population in the west is that there is going to be a massive amount of funding for projects like this. The idea of imparting hearing through the electrical stimulation of the nerves between the hearing canal and the brain still blows my mind. Again, the choice between profound deafness and a tinny sound seems an easy choice to me. The more I think about it, the only possible worse form of sense disability would be the lack of touch. And technically, your question about music access is already available. With current Cochlear technology and a wireless data connection, you could literally access your entire digital music collection, pull a song out of the aether, and listen to it through your implants. In 10 years it will be likely that you will not actually own a physical music collection(unless you are a specialist vinyl collector), and you will be able to access it anywhere in a metropolitan area via a wireless citywide LAN. In 25 years you will probably have cochlear implants or a decendant of the concept just as a matter of convienience. Why carry a cell phone or a MP3 player when you can just stream everything into your implant. News, Sports, Weather, anything you need will be available directly through neuro-implants. Anyway, Tristan, after the beating anyone involved with dance music has given their ears over the years, I imagine anything will sound better than our regular hearing in 2025. I will be 48, and you will be 51 I believe. ;) Take care, Mike From: Phonopsia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mike Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 09:37:40 -0500 - Original Message - From: Mike Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Do you want to die of a heart attack when you can have a replacement grown, or have a mechanical one installed? Do you want to be deaf when you can have cochlear implants(which are on the market today)? Will techno sound better through cochlear implants, and is there any way we can download music to them? Tristan -- http://ampcast.com/phonopsia - Music http://phonopsia.tripod.com - Mixes, pics, thought, travelogue info http://www.metatrackstudios.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] - email FrogboyMCI - AOL Instant Messenger _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] technology vs. art
a table so they're mixed into a big pile. Now, pick out allthe green objects, followed by red, blue and so on. Then sort thepiles into different objects. Pretty easy, wasn't it? it would not be very hard for 1000 1.4 ghz athlons working simultaneously with a years worth of training neural-nets through an evolutionary development algorithm either. It took about 4 billion years for the hominids to show up through natural evolution. It has been less than 2 centuries since Babbage started developing the Analytical Engine. Computer processing power doubles every 18 months, we have been standing still for about 200,000 years. We might still have the edge, but only for another 20 years or so. If you've got a very young brother or sister who's only three years old, they'd probably be able to do it, too. But the most sophisticated computers have trouble completing this task. There are so many requirements that need to be explained for visual recognition to work with artificial intelligence. Technology affects the way we think about everything from the environment and nuclear weapons to ethnicity, working conditions andimmigration, Its a cultural and historical framework that has profoundly shaped how we live and think of ourselves, our notions ofright and wrong, whats possible and impossible. It affects us in ways we cant even begin to articulate. I think that when computers manage to make social interaction with humans, they would be like a super pet. That would be one thing thatwould be very exciting. give them time, they will pass the Turing Test. They will be a hell of a lot more interesting than that Sony Robot Dog... :) who really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE what is the difference? Anybody who owns a pair of reading glasses is a Cyborg by the true definition of the word. I think this whole man-machine thing is a total false dialectic. We are our technology, and our technology is us. We are only going to become more interconnected with technology, and who could blame us? Do you want to die of a heart attack when you can have a replacement grown, or have a mechanical one installed? Do you want to be deaf when you can have cochlear implants(which are on the market today)? Do you want to be wheelchair bound when you can have mechanical legs? It might see weird to us in the same way TV and the Telephone seemed weird to our great-grandparents. But in 50 years it will be as normal as a heart-bypass operation or anti-biotics. Our machines will be thinking, that is one thing you can count on. To answer that unless a machine thinks: THE MAN, or rather HUMAN. And no, we have no technology in my country but we still make some gorgeous ART, that people still envies us 'till today. And yes, there will be machine art. In a couple decades it will be indistinguishable from human art. The central driving force in the universe will always be soul(will). Our machines will have soul one day, one day our machines will be indistinguishable from ourselves. the bottom line is: Technology is Art. Take care, mt From: laura gavoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:19:13 In the very same mindset -Jimi Hendrix re-wired and re-thought how to record his music so he could get his guitar to sound like the music that was in his head. -Similarly the Detroit boyz took traditional gear and re-wired/re-thought it to develop the early tech soundz that kick-started (more or less) a musical revolution. Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts: A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? I know this is a chicken / egg paradoxical type question, but as an older soul I'm finding less imagination in the place of technological brilliancewho really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE I imagine that facile people will always make relatively facile music and conversely us weirdo complicated folks will forever push the envelope to express human ponderings and intricacies in ways that have heretofore never been expressed. What do you all tink??? From: Rusty Blasco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:32:36 -0500 Regarding technology (no matter the level of intricacy), here's what my trumpet professor told me about musicianship. After listening to me labor painfully through a difficult passage in a piece of music, he would stop me (probably for the sake of his sensitive ears) and make me aware of the trumpet. While holding it up, turning it, and knocking on the bell, the man explained to me that the trumpet is merely a thing
Re: [313] technology vs. art
- Original Message - From: Mike Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Do you want to die of a heart attack when you can have a replacement grown, or have a mechanical one installed? Do you want to be deaf when you can have cochlear implants(which are on the market today)? Will techno sound better through cochlear implants, and is there any way we can download music to them? Tristan -- http://ampcast.com/phonopsia - Music http://phonopsia.tripod.com - Mixes, pics, thought, travelogue info http://www.metatrackstudios.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] - email FrogboyMCI - AOL Instant Messenger - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] technology vs. art
Speak of the devilits already startin'. The Humanoid Robot: ASIMO http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/ Glyph xx xx wrote: The picture of changes: The art of the demonstration The time of untruth and the space of events Idea of the name and the unconscious of personality System of the body and the energy of age Quality of air and the ignorance of order Process of work and the logic of the number Profession of force and error and mistake Feeling of reality and the habit of communication Closeness of the poles and the image of the archetype Shape of the line and the imprecision of drawing Type of the screen black-white and colour Background of presentation and the repetition of the presentation Abnormality of voice and the script of sound Essence of language and the skill of speaking Point of motion and the genesis of folklore Theory of origin and the origin of theory Cause of effect and the abstraction of the abstract Admirers of the human brain were disappointed when for the first time a computer beat a human (chess champion Gary Kasparov). But the large and powerful machine can do nothing else - it's programmed to examine millions of possible moves methodically and at great speed, calculating without any 'feeling' for what might be good or exciting. Even the smartest of today's computers are pretty dumb. The machine, the program, explores all the options, all of them exhaustively, without any insight, and then picks the one that's best in that investigation, computers have not yet to demonstrate true artificial intelligence. This experiment will show you have a far superior brain to a computer. All you need is a bag of coloured sweets (such as M Ms), some coloured pens and pencils, and some coloured beads. Spread all these things out a table so they're mixed into a big pile. Now, pick out all the green objects, followed by red, blue and so on. Then sort the piles into different objects. Pretty easy, wasn't it? If you've got a very young brother or sister who's only three years old, they'd probably be able to do it, too. But the most sophisticated computers have trouble completing this task. There are so many requirements that need to be explained for visual recognition to work with artificial intelligence. Technology affects the way we think about everything from the environment and nuclear weapons to ethnicity, working conditions and immigration, It#8217;s a cultural and historical framework that has profoundly shaped how we live and think of ourselves, our notions of right and wrong, what#8217;s possible and impossible. It affects us in ways we can#8217;t even begin to articulate. I think that when computers manage to make social interaction with humans, they would be like a super pet. That would be one thing that would be very exciting. who really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE To answer that unless a machine thinks: THE MAN, or rather HUMAN. And no, we have no technology in my country but we still make some gorgeous ART, that people still envies us 'till today. From: laura gavoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:19:13 In the very same mindset -Jimi Hendrix re-wired and re-thought how to record his music so he could get his guitar to sound like the music that was in his head. -Similarly the Detroit boyz took traditional gear and re-wired/re-thought it to develop the early tech soundz that kick-started (more or less) a musical revolution. Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts: A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? I know this is a chicken / egg paradoxical type question, but as an older soul I'm finding less imagination in the place of technological brilliancewho really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE I imagine that facile people will always make relatively facile music and conversely us weirdo complicated folks will forever push the envelope to express human ponderings and intricacies in ways that have heretofore never been expressed. What do you all tink??? From: Rusty Blasco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:32:36 -0500 Regarding technology (no matter the level of intricacy), here's what my trumpet professor told me about musicianship. After listening to me labor painfully through a difficult passage in a piece of music, he would stop me (probably for the sake of his sensitive ears) and make me aware of the trumpet. While holding it up, turning it, and knocking on the bell, the man explained to me that the trumpet is merely a thing of brass, incapable
Re: [313] technology vs. art
Oh yeah, they've been working on that for a while. I just watched the show on PBS last night in fact that featured this little (and I do mean little) guy. It was about robots and humans, very interesting and entertaining. Wish I video taped it. Carl Craig would be very interested in this as I've heard he's fascinated by the point where human and android/robot merge. MEK From: Glyph1001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 03:33:56 -0500 Speak of the devilits already startin'. The Humanoid Robot: ASIMO http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/ Glyph xx xx wrote: The picture of changes: The art of the demonstration The time of untruth and the space of events Idea of the name and the unconscious of personality System of the body and the energy of age Quality of air and the ignorance of order Process of work and the logic of the number Profession of force and error and mistake Feeling of reality and the habit of communication Closeness of the poles and the image of the archetype Shape of the line and the imprecision of drawing Type of the screen black-white and colour Background of presentation and the repetition of the presentation Abnormality of voice and the script of sound Essence of language and the skill of speaking Point of motion and the genesis of folklore Theory of origin and the origin of theory Cause of effect and the abstraction of the abstract Admirers of the human brain were disappointed when for the first time a computer beat a human (chess champion Gary Kasparov). But the large and powerful machine can do nothing else - it's programmed to examine millions of possible moves methodically and at great speed, calculating without any 'feeling' for what might be good or exciting. Even the smartest of today's computers are pretty dumb. The machine, the program, explores all the options, all of them exhaustively, without any insight, and then picks the one that's best in that investigation, computers have not yet to demonstrate true artificial intelligence. This experiment will show you have a far superior brain to a computer. All you need is a bag of coloured sweets (such as M Ms), some coloured pens and pencils, and some coloured beads. Spread all these things out a table so they're mixed into a big pile. Now, pick out all the green objects, followed by red, blue and so on. Then sort the piles into different objects. Pretty easy, wasn't it? If you've got a very young brother or sister who's only three years old, they'd probably be able to do it, too. But the most sophisticated computers have trouble completing this task. There are so many requirements that need to be explained for visual recognition to work with artificial intelligence. Technology affects the way we think about everything from the environment and nuclear weapons to ethnicity, working conditions and immigration, Its a cultural and historical framework that has profoundly shaped how we live and think of ourselves, our notions of right and wrong, whats possible and impossible. It affects us in ways we cant even begin to articulate. I think that when computers manage to make social interaction with humans, they would be like a super pet. That would be one thing that would be very exciting. who really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE To answer that unless a machine thinks: THE MAN, or rather HUMAN. And no, we have no technology in my country but we still make some gorgeous ART, that people still envies us 'till today. From: laura gavoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:19:13 In the very same mindset -Jimi Hendrix re-wired and re-thought how to record his music so he could get his guitar to sound like the music that was in his head. -Similarly the Detroit boyz took traditional gear and re-wired/re-thought it to develop the early tech soundz that kick-started (more or less) a musical revolution. Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts: A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? I know this is a chicken / egg paradoxical type question, but as an older soul I'm finding less imagination in the place of technological brilliancewho really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE I imagine that facile people will always make relatively facile music and conversely us weirdo complicated folks will forever push the envelope to express human ponderings and intricacies in ways that have heretofore never been expressed. What do you all tink??? From: Rusty Blasco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31
Re: [313] technology vs. art
What is interesting is this, the name- ASIMO - Asimov as in Isaac... the guy who wrote I, Robot in which Asimov created the Three Laws of Robotics which is a Ten Commandments, as such, of robot behaviour (thou shalt not cause harm to the creators ie. humans, etc.) I know that ASIMO is supposed to stand to Advanced Step in Innovative Mobility but the coincidence is startling. MEK From: Glyph1001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 03:33:56 -0500 Speak of the devilits already startin'. The Humanoid Robot: ASIMO http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/ Glyph xx xx wrote: The picture of changes: The art of the demonstration The time of untruth and the space of events Idea of the name and the unconscious of personality System of the body and the energy of age Quality of air and the ignorance of order Process of work and the logic of the number Profession of force and error and mistake Feeling of reality and the habit of communication Closeness of the poles and the image of the archetype Shape of the line and the imprecision of drawing Type of the screen black-white and colour Background of presentation and the repetition of the presentation Abnormality of voice and the script of sound Essence of language and the skill of speaking Point of motion and the genesis of folklore Theory of origin and the origin of theory Cause of effect and the abstraction of the abstract Admirers of the human brain were disappointed when for the first time a computer beat a human (chess champion Gary Kasparov). But the large and powerful machine can do nothing else - it's programmed to examine millions of possible moves methodically and at great speed, calculating without any 'feeling' for what might be good or exciting. Even the smartest of today's computers are pretty dumb. The machine, the program, explores all the options, all of them exhaustively, without any insight, and then picks the one that's best in that investigation, computers have not yet to demonstrate true artificial intelligence. This experiment will show you have a far superior brain to a computer. All you need is a bag of coloured sweets (such as M Ms), some coloured pens and pencils, and some coloured beads. Spread all these things out a table so they're mixed into a big pile. Now, pick out all the green objects, followed by red, blue and so on. Then sort the piles into different objects. Pretty easy, wasn't it? If you've got a very young brother or sister who's only three years old, they'd probably be able to do it, too. But the most sophisticated computers have trouble completing this task. There are so many requirements that need to be explained for visual recognition to work with artificial intelligence. Technology affects the way we think about everything from the environment and nuclear weapons to ethnicity, working conditions and immigration, Its a cultural and historical framework that has profoundly shaped how we live and think of ourselves, our notions of right and wrong, whats possible and impossible. It affects us in ways we cant even begin to articulate. I think that when computers manage to make social interaction with humans, they would be like a super pet. That would be one thing that would be very exciting. who really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE To answer that unless a machine thinks: THE MAN, or rather HUMAN. And no, we have no technology in my country but we still make some gorgeous ART, that people still envies us 'till today. From: laura gavoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:19:13 In the very same mindset -Jimi Hendrix re-wired and re-thought how to record his music so he could get his guitar to sound like the music that was in his head. -Similarly the Detroit boyz took traditional gear and re-wired/re-thought it to develop the early tech soundz that kick-started (more or less) a musical revolution. Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts: A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? I know this is a chicken / egg paradoxical type question, but as an older soul I'm finding less imagination in the place of technological brilliancewho really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE I imagine that facile people will always make relatively facile music and conversely us weirdo complicated folks will forever push the envelope to express human ponderings and intricacies in ways that have heretofore never been expressed. What do you all tink??? From: Rusty Blasco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: [313] technology vs. art
Re: [313] technology vs. art
The picture of changes: The art of the demonstration The time of untruth and the space of events Idea of the name and the unconscious of personality System of the body and the energy of age Quality of air and the ignorance of order Process of work and the logic of the number Profession of force and error and mistake Feeling of reality and the habit of communication Closeness of the poles and the image of the archetype Shape of the line and the imprecision of drawing Type of the screen black-white and colour Background of presentation and the repetition of the presentation Abnormality of voice and the script of sound Essence of language and the skill of speaking Point of motion and the genesis of folklore Theory of origin and the origin of theory Cause of effect and the abstraction of the abstract Admirers of the human brain were disappointed when for the first time a computer beat a human (chess champion Gary Kasparov). But the large and powerful machine can do nothing else - it's programmed to examine millions of possible moves methodically and at great speed, calculating without any 'feeling' for what might be good or exciting. Even the smartest of today's computers are pretty dumb. The machine, the program, explores all the options, all of them exhaustively, without any insight, and then picks the one that's best in that investigation, computers have not yet to demonstrate true artificial intelligence. This experiment will show you have a far superior brain to a computer. All you need is a bag of coloured sweets (such as M Ms), some coloured pens and pencils, and some coloured beads. Spread all these things out a table so they're mixed into a big pile. Now, pick out all the green objects, followed by red, blue and so on. Then sort the piles into different objects. Pretty easy, wasn't it? If you've got a very young brother or sister who's only three years old, they'd probably be able to do it, too. But the most sophisticated computers have trouble completing this task. There are so many requirements that need to be explained for visual recognition to work with artificial intelligence. Technology affects the way we think about everything from the environment and nuclear weapons to ethnicity, working conditions and immigration, It#8217;s a cultural and historical framework that has profoundly shaped how we live and think of ourselves, our notions of right and wrong, what#8217;s possible and impossible. It affects us in ways we can#8217;t even begin to articulate. I think that when computers manage to make social interaction with humans, they would be like a super pet. That would be one thing that would be very exciting. who really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE To answer that unless a machine thinks: THE MAN, or rather HUMAN. And no, we have no technology in my country but we still make some gorgeous ART, that people still envies us 'till today. From: laura gavoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:19:13 In the very same mindset -Jimi Hendrix re-wired and re-thought how to record his music so he could get his guitar to sound like the music that was in his head. -Similarly the Detroit boyz took traditional gear and re-wired/re-thought it to develop the early tech soundz that kick-started (more or less) a musical revolution. Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts: A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? I know this is a chicken / egg paradoxical type question, but as an older soul I'm finding less imagination in the place of technological brilliancewho really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE I imagine that facile people will always make relatively facile music and conversely us weirdo complicated folks will forever push the envelope to express human ponderings and intricacies in ways that have heretofore never been expressed. What do you all tink??? From: Rusty Blasco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:32:36 -0500 Regarding technology (no matter the level of intricacy), here's what my trumpet professor told me about musicianship. After listening to me labor painfully through a difficult passage in a piece of music, he would stop me (probably for the sake of his sensitive ears) and make me aware of the trumpet. While holding it up, turning it, and knocking on the bell, the man explained to me that the trumpet is merely a thing of brass, incapable of producing music without assistance (in this case, the air of a human's pursed and buzzing lips). The music is in your head, he stated, pointing
Re: [313] technology vs. art
Ken Ishii flipped the on/off switch on his Korg repeatedly until it started making weird noises... then he used it that way to make Jelly Tones From: James Bucknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: laura gavoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:27:23 -0500 you're finding less imagination? 'acid trax' was made by pulling the baterries out of the 303 and slamming them back in quickly when they couldn't work out how to program it. james www.jbucknell.com laura gavoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 10/31/2001 01:19:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org cc:(bcc: James Bucknell/Magazines/Hearst) Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art In the very same mindset -Jimi Hendrix re-wired and re-thought how to record his music so he could get his guitar to sound like the music that was in his head. -Similarly the Detroit boyz took traditional gear and re-wired/re-thought it to develop the early tech soundz that kick-started (more or less) a musical revolution. Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts: A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? I know this is a chicken / egg paradoxical type question, but as an older soul I'm finding less imagination in the place of technological brilliancewho really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE I imagine that facile people will always make relatively facile music and conversely us weirdo complicated folks will forever push the envelope to express human ponderings and intricacies in ways that have heretofore never been expressed. What do you all tink??? From: Rusty Blasco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:32:36 -0500 Regarding technology (no matter the level of intricacy), here's what my trumpet professor told me about musicianship. After listening to me labor painfully through a difficult passage in a piece of music, he would stop me (probably for the sake of his sensitive ears) and make me aware of the trumpet. While holding it up, turning it, and knocking on the bell, the man explained to me that the trumpet is merely a thing of brass, incapable of producing music without assistance (in this case, the air of a human's pursed and buzzing lips). The music is in your head, he stated, pointing to his noggin. If you can't hear it, and performed flawlessly, in your own mind, than you can't expect it to come out of the instrument. Maybe this will offer some much needed elucidation. Rusty _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] technology vs. art
At 18:19 31/10/2001 +, laura gavoor wrote: Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts: A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? People had this same argument when word processors and then software on computers were coming into form. I don't see a sudden emergence of new Hemmingways, but I also don't see a dead spot in literature. It's just different tools with the times. -- fix.er \'fik-s*r\ n : one that fixes : as : one that intervenes to enable a person to circumvent the law or obtain a political favor : one that adjusts matters or disputes by negotiation - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [313] technology vs. art
| -Original Message- | From: laura gavoor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:19 PM | | A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate | imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? Both, I reckon. The leap of imagination that was Acid Trax back in the day is much easier for people to achieve now. Some would say that elevating recording technology cheapens that sort of imagination, but it actually doesn't - it just raises the stakes. Easier to express imagination at a more basic or easy level, but harder to produce something so imaginative it stands out from the burgeoning crowd of Pierre-clones... | B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true | musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/ | uniqueness in composition?? Musicianship is a bit of an odd term; a lot of the music discussed on this list isn't the product of musicianship as such, more the creativity/imagination/uniqueness you mention. People who are skilled at musicianship will be as easy to spot as always, but (and I might be being a bit heretical here) the role of the pure musician (ie, no composing, just playing) will continue to become more like that of the calligrapher today. On the other hand, new forms of musicianship come with new instruments. Turntablists, for example, or the way some producers can rock a 303 live on stage while others can't. Bernie Worrell and Marvin Gaye's synth playing, working on the sound at the same time as on the melody. I can imagine some amazing futuristic instruments which could usher in a new age for musicianship... But you're right, boring people will continue to make boring music, weird people will go on making weird stuff, and so on... the cycle of life continues... and no old technology ever gets uninvented (apart from Body Rap...). Brendan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] technology vs. art
In the very same mindset -Jimi Hendrix re-wired and re-thought how to record his music so he could get his guitar to sound like the music that was in his head. -Similarly the Detroit boyz took traditional gear and re-wired/re-thought it to develop the early tech soundz that kick-started (more or less) a musical revolution. Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts: A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? I know this is a chicken / egg paradoxical type question, but as an older soul I'm finding less imagination in the place of technological brilliancewho really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE I imagine that facile people will always make relatively facile music and conversely us weirdo complicated folks will forever push the envelope to express human ponderings and intricacies in ways that have heretofore never been expressed. What do you all tink??? From: Rusty Blasco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:32:36 -0500 Regarding technology (no matter the level of intricacy), here's what my trumpet professor told me about musicianship. After listening to me labor painfully through a difficult passage in a piece of music, he would stop me (probably for the sake of his sensitive ears) and make me aware of the trumpet. While holding it up, turning it, and knocking on the bell, the man explained to me that the trumpet is merely a thing of brass, incapable of producing music without assistance (in this case, the air of a human's pursed and buzzing lips). The music is in your head, he stated, pointing to his noggin. If you can't hear it, and performed flawlessly, in your own mind, than you can't expect it to come out of the instrument. Maybe this will offer some much needed elucidation. Rusty _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] technology vs. art
you're finding less imagination? 'acid trax' was made by pulling the baterries out of the 303 and slamming them back in quickly when they couldn't work out how to program it. james www.jbucknell.com laura gavoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 10/31/2001 01:19:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org cc:(bcc: James Bucknell/Magazines/Hearst) Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art In the very same mindset -Jimi Hendrix re-wired and re-thought how to record his music so he could get his guitar to sound like the music that was in his head. -Similarly the Detroit boyz took traditional gear and re-wired/re-thought it to develop the early tech soundz that kick-started (more or less) a musical revolution. Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts: A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? I know this is a chicken / egg paradoxical type question, but as an older soul I'm finding less imagination in the place of technological brilliancewho really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE I imagine that facile people will always make relatively facile music and conversely us weirdo complicated folks will forever push the envelope to express human ponderings and intricacies in ways that have heretofore never been expressed. What do you all tink??? From: Rusty Blasco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:32:36 -0500 Regarding technology (no matter the level of intricacy), here's what my trumpet professor told me about musicianship. After listening to me labor painfully through a difficult passage in a piece of music, he would stop me (probably for the sake of his sensitive ears) and make me aware of the trumpet. While holding it up, turning it, and knocking on the bell, the man explained to me that the trumpet is merely a thing of brass, incapable of producing music without assistance (in this case, the air of a human's pursed and buzzing lips). The music is in your head, he stated, pointing to his noggin. If you can't hear it, and performed flawlessly, in your own mind, than you can't expect it to come out of the instrument. Maybe this will offer some much needed elucidation. Rusty _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [313] technology vs. art
A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? time is the ultimate deciding factor...i'm sure when groups like tangerine dream started using these machines it sounded like degeneration, but then again you have a resurgence of this ambient style in the early 90's which sounds like a degeneration from what they produced...what we see so far is that the production values have increased, but the content lacks originality...it takes a long time to develop your talent at making your music sound like it does in your head...and it's going to get harder because it takes a great deal more knowledge to know what your'e dealing with inside all this new technology...at some point though...a wunderkind will emerge...then everyone will imitate that for a while... B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? it's rare that you have all of these qualities rolled up into one...i mean no one like jimi has come around in a long time...prince is a good guitar player, but he's no hendrix...but some of his early compositions are very unique though...anyway, i just hope that people are still looking for any of these qualities over time as opposed to how it looks like it's goingthat is image and sales is all that matters until the machine starts operating on it's own the man is still the most important...i think the lack of creativity is a product of our society...we're over saturated...we've burned our selves out... simply b - Original Message - From: laura gavoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art In the very same mindset -Jimi Hendrix re-wired and re-thought how to record his music so he could get his guitar to sound like the music that was in his head. -Similarly the Detroit boyz took traditional gear and re-wired/re-thought it to develop the early tech soundz that kick-started (more or less) a musical revolution. Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts: A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate imagination or have the opposite effect...or both?? B. If bothhow then does one gage or distinguish true musicianship and talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition?? I know this is a chicken / egg paradoxical type question, but as an older soul I'm finding less imagination in the place of technological brilliancewho really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE I imagine that facile people will always make relatively facile music and conversely us weirdo complicated folks will forever push the envelope to express human ponderings and intricacies in ways that have heretofore never been expressed. What do you all tink??? From: Rusty Blasco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: [313] technology vs. art Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:32:36 -0500 Regarding technology (no matter the level of intricacy), here's what my trumpet professor told me about musicianship. After listening to me labor painfully through a difficult passage in a piece of music, he would stop me (probably for the sake of his sensitive ears) and make me aware of the trumpet. While holding it up, turning it, and knocking on the bell, the man explained to me that the trumpet is merely a thing of brass, incapable of producing music without assistance (in this case, the air of a human's pursed and buzzing lips). The music is in your head, he stated, pointing to his noggin. If you can't hear it, and performed flawlessly, in your own mind, than you can't expect it to come out of the instrument. Maybe this will offer some much needed elucidation. Rusty _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
