hmmm, actually, what i was trying to do with the photography example was
not compare rejection, but compare mechanical forms of artmaking. the
reasons it was difficult for people to accept photography at first were
largely that it was mechanical (in both apparatus and in the fact that
it "reproduced reality", unlikely painting) and because people
largely didn't differentiate between the art
and craft of painting - "hey photography is just pushing a button; anyone
can do that!" now people accept photographic art because they've
come to understand that the "art" of photography is different than that of
painting - as well as the idea that art and craft are two different
things.
as to your question alex about, "why do we use computers" - i can - or
could - play several instruments and got far enough with some to be a
performance major in college - but i was always frustrated because my
craft was ok but not excellent, despite lots of practice - my mind knew
what it was trying to express, but my fingers didn't move quickly or
deftly enough to express it. (i'm also lousy at most sports). so i was
held back from this type of "artmaking" because of physical limitations.
using computers, one can push past these. (speaking of art and craft, it's
ironic that many conceptual artists reject computer art, when the "art
over craft" argument was one they were famous for.)
this all might sound strange given that vj ubergeek performances are
intentionally very physical and play with the physicality of geekish
activities like typing... but knowing what a clutz and a goofup i am,
i've designed the software so that i just have to be physical, not
terribly adroit :-)...
-_at_
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, alex wrote:
a>
a> Perhaps it is useful to say "Here is something that was once rejected
a> and is now accepted" to open minds a little, but it isn't a strong
a> argument - it doesn't follow that programming will be accepted later
a> just because it is rejected now.
a>
a> Actually I think the original question was a valid one and a deserves a
a> direct answer, even though it was raised in a over-indulgent manner.
a>
a> I played the guitar for several years but never got far enough to
a> compose something of my own. So with a maesure of honesty I could say
a> that I program music because I failed to play the guitar. However, I
a> understand that Nick can play real instruments very well but is still
a> compelled to write musical software, so there must be something in it.
a>
a> So why do we feel the need to distance ourselves from the experience of
a> plucking each individual sound out of a musical instrument?
a>
a> The answer for me is that I find it more satisfying to work in this
a> way. Any distance from the sound is an illusion. We may be a level of
a> abstraction away from the sound but that doesn't necessarily distance us
a> from it. We still have full control over the timbre, but we are working
a> on the composition at the same time. In fact we are able to think of
a> timbre and composition as different resolutions of the same thing, which
a> of course they are.
a>
a> alex
a>
a>
Received on Thu Jul 08 2004 - 19:50:02 BST