Re: [-empyre-] Wednesday, 18th: Sound Art, Technology and Innovation
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- This is in response to Anna's question: I have not been on juries that deal strictly with sound art but my experience on Canadian visual arts peer evaluation has generally addressed the category of artistic merit to weigh more heavily on the conceptual and content side than what I would call the formal side (technical finesse as innovation). I'm curious as to what you are thinking of in terms of problematizing the term innovation. Do you feel sound artists have become slaves to their own technology? Is it paradoxical that such an avant garde format is actually less conceptually and critically focused because of a reliance on more complex technology? It seems a far cry from the era of early video art for example where visual artists had much more freedom and I feel innovation with their media because of its directness and low level of technology. On 14-06-18 3:08 PM, Christoph Cox wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- Questions about technology (about sonic production, recording, circulation, etc.) surely have some importance in the consideration of sonic (and any other) art. But I confess that, as a critic and philosopher, I almost entirely tune out when the conversation (especially among artists) turns to gear and tools rather than sensual/conceptual content. Factual talk about gear too often substitutes for the more difficult and, to my mind, infinitely more important, talk about aesthetic and historical value. Take, for example, /Leonardo Music Journal/. Though I serve on the journal's editorial board, I'm rarely interested in the essays, which so often concern the how? instead of the why?. This is relevant to Anna's question: In my experience, grants and academic positions so often seem to go not to the most interesting or important artists (by my lights, of course) but to much less interesting artists who can tell a story about their innovative use of hardware and software. On 6/18/14, 10:43 AM, Paul Dolden wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- First,I like to thank Jim for inviting me, and have greatly enjoyed the discussion so far. Well I will start today, since I have not participated yet.( I am responsible for question #2, about opera using recorded signals. N.B. my question was more a joke i sent out to alot of friends with some sarcastic comment about concert hall practice and its contemporary relevance.) If you look at the many comments for the New York Times article, people are scandalized that an opera company would think of using samples to replace the orchestra to keep costs down. One thinks immediately of Foucault's discussion of authenticity in the arts. But I do not want to go in that direction please. As much as I would like to discuss that the depth of Wagners' timbres are not possible with the Vienna Symphonic library in which all instruments were recorded with the same small diaphragm microphones, which creates bad phasing when huge densities of instruments are used. I will repress the gear geek in me and proceed. The story, of the opera, came out while reading last week's highly theoretical discussions, which were amazing, but left me still thinking that we as cultural workers have created almost no shift in how people think about the art of sound reproduction and music consumption. For your average person recordings are their experience of music. They consume recordings in their car, home and office. If they are walking down the street and are not wearing ear buds, they are confronted with street musicians, most of whom are jamming to a pre-recorded tape! By contrast when we try to interest the public in just listening whether in the art gallery or concert hall with nothing to see, people think they are being ripped off. And yet our use of technology is far more interesting and subtle than the new Celion Dion album. (n.b. and please: nothing to see-I am thinking of more than electroacoutic music and its diffusion ideas!-even though i live in Quebec!) Where do we go from here, in making the audio format, (which may or may not involve some type of live performance) to be more understood and appreciated for your average person? Or to put the question in even simpler terms,and make it personal(indulge me for a moment, the people who know me at this forum know my dry wit): Why can i always interest and amaze your average person with my guitar wanking, than the extreme detailed work i have to do to mix and project 400 tracks of sound? For bio, music excerpts, recordings,reviews etc go to: http://www.electrocd.com/en/bio/dolden_pa/ To see a video of a chamber orchestra work go to: http://vimeo.com/channels/575823/72579719 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:29:12 AM,
[-empyre-] Wednesday, 18th: Sound Art, Technology and Innovation
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Hi Folks, Yesterday's questions about sound in its cultural context didn't seem to gain much traction with the group -- or were there comments that didn't get through? If the former was the case, then we'll move on to the next topic, which is Sound Art, Technology and Innovation. Ryan Diduck, Paul Dolden, Anna Friz and Lewis Kaye have offered questions that address the influence of technology on sound art production, along with the pressures of artists themselves to develop new technologies. 1) Ryan Diduck: What is the relationship between users and innovations? This is an important question to consider for music making, as well as its reproduction. How are sound or music technologies -- such as formats like LPs and MP3s, or instruments like pianos and electronic synthesizers -- and their users mutually produced? To what extent do users stimulate technological innovations, or vice versa, in the sonic realm? 2) Paul Dolden: Why do cultural workers have so little impact on introducing the use of technology into the field of art music? Such as the incident of opera musicians being replaced by a digital orchestra recently reported in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/arts/music/a-digital-orchestra-for-opera-purists-take-and-play-offense.html?emc=eta1 3) Anna Friz: Artists working with sound are judged by many of the same criteria as media artists when it comes to applying to various funding bodies, festivals, prizes and awards, and so on. Of these, to my mind the most contentious condition is that the work must be innovative. What counts as innovation for sound and audio art? Too often 'innovation' is still framed in terms of technical development and mastery, where techné is understood operationally rather than relationally and aesthetically. This can be the case whether the sound works in question use extensive multi-channel systems, self-made software, or DIY instruments. I am interested to problematize this focus on innovation, both in terms of working with sound technologies and in terms of how it effects the sound art scene, the kind of work that is programmed or supported and where. 4) Lewis Kaye: What is the status of an audio artwork when the actual sonic aesthetics of the piece are contingent on the technical system used to reproduce it? Is the technical system thus an integral element in the audio art work? If Ryan, Paul, Anna or Lewis would like to further elaborate, please do! Best, Jim ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Wednesday, 18th: Sound Art, Technology and Innovation
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- First,I like to thank Jim for inviting me, and have greatly enjoyed the discussion so far. Well I will start today, since I have not participated yet.( I am responsible for question #2, about opera using recorded signals.N.B. my question was more a joke i sent out to alot of friends with some sarcastic comment about concert hall practice and its contemporary relevance.) If you look at the many comments for the New York Times article, people are scandalized that an opera company would think of using samples to replace the orchestra to keep costs down. One thinks immediately of Foucault's discussion of authenticity in the arts. But I do not want to go in that direction please. As much as I would like to discuss that the depth of Wagners' timbres are not possible with the Vienna Symphonic library in which all instruments were recorded with the same small diaphragm microphones, which creates bad phasing when huge densities of instruments are used. I will repress the gear geek in me and proceed. The story, of the opera, came out while reading last week's highly theoretical discussions, which were amazing, but left me still thinking that we as cultural workers have created almost no shift in how people think about the art of sound reproduction and music consumption. For your average person recordings are their experience of music. They consume recordings in their car, home and office. If they are walking down the street and are not wearing ear buds, they are confronted with street musicians, most of whom are jamming to a pre-recorded tape! By contrast when we try to interest the public in just listening whether in the art gallery or concert hall with nothing to see, people think they are being ripped off. And yet our use of technology is far more interesting and subtle than the new Celion Dion album. (n.b. and please: nothing to see-I am thinking of more than electroacoutic music and its diffusion ideas!-even though i live in Quebec!) Where do we go from here, in making the audio format, (which may or may not involve some type of live performance) to be more understood and appreciated for your average person? Or to put the question in even simpler terms,and make it personal(indulge me for a moment, the people who know me at this forum know my dry wit): Why can i always interest and amaze your average person with my guitar wanking, than the extreme detailed work i have to do to mix and project 400 tracks of sound? For bio, music excerpts, recordings,reviews etc go to: http://www.electrocd.com/en/bio/dolden_pa/ To see a video of a chamber orchestra work go to: http://vimeo.com/channels/575823/72579719 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:29:12 AM, Jim Drobnick j...@displaycult.com wrote: Hi Folks, Yesterday's questions about sound in its cultural context didn't seem to gain much traction with the group -- or were there comments that didn't get through? If the former was the case, then we'll move on to the next topic, which is Sound Art, Technology and Innovation. Ryan Diduck, Paul Dolden, Anna Friz and Lewis Kaye have offered questions that address the influence of technology on sound art production, along with the pressures of artists themselves to develop new technologies. 1) Ryan Diduck: What is the relationship between users and innovations? This is an important question to consider for music making, as well as its reproduction. How are sound or music technologies -- such as formats like LPs and MP3s, or instruments like pianos and electronic synthesizers -- and their users mutually produced? To what extent do users stimulate technological innovations, or vice versa, in the sonic realm? 2) Paul Dolden: Why do cultural workers have so little impact on introducing the use of technology into the field of art music? Such as the incident of opera musicians being replaced by a digital orchestra recently reported in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/arts/music/a-digital-orchestra-for-opera-purists-take-and-play-offense.html?emc=eta1 3) Anna Friz: Artists working with sound are judged by many of the same criteria as media artists when it comes to applying to various funding bodies, festivals, prizes and awards, and so on. Of these, to my mind the most contentious condition is that the work must be innovative. What counts as innovation for sound and audio art? Too often 'innovation' is still framed in terms of technical development and mastery, where techné is understood operationally rather than relationally and aesthetically. This can be the case whether the sound works in question use extensive multi-channel systems, self-made software, or DIY instruments. I am interested to problematize this focus on innovation, both in terms of working with sound
Re: [-empyre-] Wednesday, 18th: Sound Art, Technology and Innovation
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Questions about technology (about sonic production, recording, circulation, etc.) surely have some importance in the consideration of sonic (and any other) art. But I confess that, as a critic and philosopher, I almost entirely tune out when the conversation (especially among artists) turns to gear and tools rather than sensual/conceptual content. Factual talk about gear too often substitutes for the more difficult and, to my mind, infinitely more important, talk about aesthetic and historical value. Take, for example, /Leonardo Music Journal/. Though I serve on the journal's editorial board, I'm rarely interested in the essays, which so often concern the how? instead of the why?. This is relevant to Anna's question: In my experience, grants and academic positions so often seem to go not to the most interesting or important artists (by my lights, of course) but to much less interesting artists who can tell a story about their innovative use of hardware and software. On 6/18/14, 10:43 AM, Paul Dolden wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- First,I like to thank Jim for inviting me, and have greatly enjoyed the discussion so far. Well I will start today, since I have not participated yet.( I am responsible for question #2, about opera using recorded signals. N.B. my question was more a joke i sent out to alot of friends with some sarcastic comment about concert hall practice and its contemporary relevance.) If you look at the many comments for the New York Times article, people are scandalized that an opera company would think of using samples to replace the orchestra to keep costs down. One thinks immediately of Foucault's discussion of authenticity in the arts. But I do not want to go in that direction please. As much as I would like to discuss that the depth of Wagners' timbres are not possible with the Vienna Symphonic library in which all instruments were recorded with the same small diaphragm microphones, which creates bad phasing when huge densities of instruments are used. I will repress the gear geek in me and proceed. The story, of the opera, came out while reading last week's highly theoretical discussions, which were amazing, but left me still thinking that we as cultural workers have created almost no shift in how people think about the art of sound reproduction and music consumption. For your average person recordings are their experience of music. They consume recordings in their car, home and office. If they are walking down the street and are not wearing ear buds, they are confronted with street musicians, most of whom are jamming to a pre-recorded tape! By contrast when we try to interest the public in just listening whether in the art gallery or concert hall with nothing to see, people think they are being ripped off. And yet our use of technology is far more interesting and subtle than the new Celion Dion album. (n.b. and please: nothing to see-I am thinking of more than electroacoutic music and its diffusion ideas!-even though i live in Quebec!) Where do we go from here, in making the audio format, (which may or may not involve some type of live performance) to be more understood and appreciated for your average person? Or to put the question in even simpler terms,and make it personal(indulge me for a moment, the people who know me at this forum know my dry wit): Why can i always interest and amaze your average person with my guitar wanking, than the extreme detailed work i have to do to mix and project 400 tracks of sound? For bio, music excerpts, recordings,reviews etc go to: http://www.electrocd.com/en/bio/dolden_pa/ To see a video of a chamber orchestra work go to: http://vimeo.com/channels/575823/72579719 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:29:12 AM, Jim Drobnick j...@displaycult.com wrote: Hi Folks, Yesterday's questions about sound in its cultural context didn't seem to gain much traction with the group -- or were there comments that didn't get through? If the former was the case, then we'll move on to the next topic, which is Sound Art, Technology and Innovation. Ryan Diduck, Paul Dolden, Anna Friz and Lewis Kaye have offered questions that address the influence of technology on sound art production, along with the pressures of artists themselves to develop new technologies. *1) Ryan Diduck*: What is the relationship between users and innovations? This is an important question to consider for music making, as well as its reproduction. How are sound or music technologies -- such as formats like LPs and MP3s, or instruments like pianos and electronic synthesizers -- and their users mutually produced? To what extent do users stimulate technological innovations, or vice versa, in the sonic realm?
Re: [-empyre-] Wednesday, 18th: Sound Art, Technology and Innovation
--empyre- soft-skinned space--The question of technology can indeed turn to a fetishistic, geeky and fanboy discussion of tools. And this is of little interest to me as well. Such discussions often turn exclusionary, with one's competency being judged by their facility with this or that software package or technical system. Nevertheless, the question of technology has significant aesthetic implications. One's choice of monitors, amplifiers, audio format, etc. will have a significant effect on what is eventually heard (presuming the work is mediated in this way). Therefore, I'd like to suggest that the question of why is very much a part of the discussion of technology. Or perhaps, better to think critically of the relationship between the how and the why. Best, Lewis On Jun 18, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Christoph Cox c...@hampshire.edu wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- Questions about technology (about sonic production, recording, circulation, etc.) surely have some importance in the consideration of sonic (and any other) art. But I confess that, as a critic and philosopher, I almost entirely tune out when the conversation (especially among artists) turns to gear and tools rather than sensual/conceptual content. Factual talk about gear too often substitutes for the more difficult and, to my mind, infinitely more important, talk about aesthetic and historical value. Take, for example, Leonardo Music Journal. Though I serve on the journal's editorial board, I'm rarely interested in the essays, which so often concern the how? instead of the why?. This is relevant to Anna's question: In my experience, grants and academic positions so often seem to go not to the most interesting or important artists (by my lights, of course) but to much less interesting artists who can tell a story about their innovative use of hardware and software. On 6/18/14, 10:43 AM, Paul Dolden wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- First,I like to thank Jim for inviting me, and have greatly enjoyed the discussion so far. Well I will start today, since I have not participated yet.( I am responsible for question #2, about opera using recorded signals. N.B. my question was more a joke i sent out to alot of friends with some sarcastic comment about concert hall practice and its contemporary relevance.) If you look at the many comments for the New York Times article, people are scandalized that an opera company would think of using samples to replace the orchestra to keep costs down. One thinks immediately of Foucault's discussion of authenticity in the arts. But I do not want to go in that direction please. As much as I would like to discuss that the depth of Wagners' timbres are not possible with the Vienna Symphonic library in which all instruments were recorded with the same small diaphragm microphones, which creates bad phasing when huge densities of instruments are used. I will repress the gear geek in me and proceed. The story, of the opera, came out while reading last week's highly theoretical discussions, which were amazing, but left me still thinking that we as cultural workers have created almost no shift in how people think about the art of sound reproduction and music consumption. For your average person recordings are their experience of music. They consume recordings in their car, home and office. If they are walking down the street and are not wearing ear buds, they are confronted with street musicians, most of whom are jamming to a pre-recorded tape! By contrast when we try to interest the public in just listening whether in the art gallery or concert hall with nothing to see, people think they are being ripped off. And yet our use of technology is far more interesting and subtle than the new Celion Dion album. (n.b. and please: nothing to see-I am thinking of more than electroacoutic music and its diffusion ideas!-even though i live in Quebec!) Where do we go from here, in making the audio format, (which may or may not involve some type of live performance) to be more understood and appreciated for your average person? Or to put the question in even simpler terms,and make it personal(indulge me for a moment, the people who know me at this forum know my dry wit): Why can i always interest and amaze your average person with my guitar wanking, than the extreme detailed work i have to do to mix and project 400 tracks of sound? For bio, music excerpts, recordings,reviews etc go to: http://www.electrocd.com/en/bio/dolden_pa/ To see a video of a chamber orchestra work go to: http://vimeo.com/channels/575823/72579719
Re: [-empyre-] Wednesday, 18th: Sound Art, Technology and Innovation
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- This is relevant to Anna's question: In my experience, grants and academic positions so often seem to go not to the most interesting or important artists (by my lights, of course) but to much less interesting artists who can tell a story about their innovative use of hardware and software. I very much agree with this statement from an English perspective also. One of the reasons possibly for this foregrounding and appreciating of the how and what above the why, is a current crisis in knowledge, as I see it. Austerity and the cuts to education and art funding in the UK, together with a monstrous conservative government, have brought us back to the idea of one truth and one knowledge that is not discovered or produced, but that we have to be instructed in. And so work and research projects in sound art that provide a tangible technological instruction and focus will have more chance at funding and in turn artists being thus funded are preferred for academic positions and students will increasingly demand the certainty of instructions rather than the pain and doubt of a more conceptual and material engagement in sound. (sorry for being quite so negative) On Jun 18, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Christoph Cox c...@hampshire.edu wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- Questions about technology (about sonic production, recording, circulation, etc.) surely have some importance in the consideration of sonic (and any other) art. But I confess that, as a critic and philosopher, I almost entirely tune out when the conversation (especially among artists) turns to gear and tools rather than sensual/conceptual content. Factual talk about gear too often substitutes for the more difficult and, to my mind, infinitely more important, talk about aesthetic and historical value. Take, for example, Leonardo Music Journal. Though I serve on the journal's editorial board, I'm rarely interested in the essays, which so often concern the how? instead of the why?. This is relevant to Anna's question: In my experience, grants and academic positions so often seem to go not to the most interesting or important artists (by my lights, of course) but to much less interesting artists who can tell a story about their innovative use of hardware and software. On 6/18/14, 10:43 AM, Paul Dolden wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- First,I like to thank Jim for inviting me, and have greatly enjoyed the discussion so far. Well I will start today, since I have not participated yet.( I am responsible for question #2, about opera using recorded signals. N.B. my question was more a joke i sent out to alot of friends with some sarcastic comment about concert hall practice and its contemporary relevance.) If you look at the many comments for the New York Times article, people are scandalized that an opera company would think of using samples to replace the orchestra to keep costs down. One thinks immediately of Foucault's discussion of authenticity in the arts. But I do not want to go in that direction please. As much as I would like to discuss that the depth of Wagners' timbres are not possible with the Vienna Symphonic library in which all instruments were recorded with the same small diaphragm microphones, which creates bad phasing when huge densities of instruments are used. I will repress the gear geek in me and proceed. The story, of the opera, came out while reading last week's highly theoretical discussions, which were amazing, but left me still thinking that we as cultural workers have created almost no shift in how people think about the art of sound reproduction and music consumption. For your average person recordings are their experience of music. They consume recordings in their car, home and office. If they are walking down the street and are not wearing ear buds, they are confronted with street musicians, most of whom are jamming to a pre-recorded tape! By contrast when we try to interest the public in just listening whether in the art gallery or concert hall with nothing to see, people think they are being ripped off. And yet our use of technology is far more interesting and subtle than the new Celion Dion album. (n.b. and please: nothing to see-I am thinking of more than electroacoutic music and its diffusion ideas!-even though i live in Quebec!) Where do we go from here, in making the audio format, (which may or may not involve some type of live performance) to be more understood and appreciated for your average person? Or to put the question in even simpler terms,and make it personal(indulge me for a moment, the people who know me at this forum know my dry wit): Why can i always interest and amaze your average person with my guitar wanking, than the extreme detailed work i have to
