Quotation (was: why so little discussion?)

> A general question… It seems that 'quotation' lies
> at the heart of "postmodern" cultural production…
> That is, simulations, appropriations, and
> self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as
> both harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work" in
> the post-modern era–by Jameson, Baudrillard, and so
> many others…
>
> It's one thing to see how Warhol might appropriate an
> older image in a "newer" painting, but what of "net
> art"'s appropriation of earlier works, images,
> conversations, etc..? Does the medium make any
> difference? What of the difference between the veil of
> code and its appearance? What difference does the
> ability to forge a "real" link (vs a semi-anonymous
> reference) to an earlier work make? From
> historiographic perspective, where does the old end
> and the new (interpretation) begin?
>
> Sorry for all the quotations. It can, at times, be
> hard to keep a straight face using all these general
> terms. Plus, we are talking about """"quotation""""
> right?
>
> Marisa

hi Marisa,

re "the veil of code, its appearance" and """"quotation"""":

not long ago i was working on a piece in which the wreader may introduce
their own text. a collaborator pointed out that if she used quotation marks
in her text, the programming failed (because the programming was using
quotation marks to delimit texts). i fixed the bug so the piece could quote
the wreader and the wreader's quotations or quotations of quotations etc. it
felt like i was fixing more than a little bug, was expanding the piece
significantly.

ja
http://vispo.com

I'm always faintly taken aback when I read assertions
like this.
<It seems that 'quotation' lies
at the heart of "postmodern" cultural production…
That is, simulations, appropriations, and
self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as
both harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work">
All these characteristics can be found in most periods
of art, in music ( variations on a theme of…),
visual
art ( such and such *after* such and such) and
literature ( pretty much the whole of Shakespeare).
Its perhaps a question of degree, of the ( sometimes
deeply desperate) self consciousness of deployment
which marked the something new in post modernism.
What interests me is the feeling ( and I referred to
this specifically in an earlier post in this thread on
MTAAs wonderful 'five small videos' ) that this self
consciousness is disappearing, that we're perhaps
returning to an earlier kind of practice where
quotation (and the cloud of concepts related to it) is
merely one scarcely remarked weapon in the artist's
arsenal, to be wielded relatively unselfconsciously.
I mean I've not done a *scientific survey* or anything
- but it's a feeling that we're moving into a period
of *consolidation* of artistic language, of an
*application* of lots of the formal shenanigans of the
last half century of so to something that is concerned
more with a profound combination of the intellectual
and the affective & which is also aware of its place
in an ongoing tradition ( and this does not of course
imply massive surface complexity -what 'five small
videos' has in common with a Schubert Lied is the
appearance of *necessity* -"yes that's the only way it
could be!" - and hence simplicity, but a simplicity
which isn't exhausted the first or the second time
round but continues to reveal new layers, new meanings
on repeated engagement)
The recent work of MTAA is inceasingly beginning to
feel to me like an exemplar of this tendency ( another
significant one being for me the work of Alan Sondheim
which if people don't know they absolutely *should*
http://www.asondheim.org/ ).
The thrust (and also the appeal) of the two video
pieces seems to me not primarily formal, conceptual
or didactic in some way, but affective, rich and open
ended; aware of its place in tradition and paying due
homage to it but not simply smart commentary on it.
I can't help speculating too that this quality is not
unrelated to a revival of oppositional political ideas
at the base of society - the experience that artists
had of being part of the millions who marched against
the war and the general revival of a discourse that
not only does not accept the market but situates
itself in opposition to it ( look at the sales of
Moore's books, the massive numbers attending the
various social forums around the world, the millions
truly 'lions led by donkeys', who came into polical
activity around the Kerry campaign).
best
michael






— Marisa Olson <[email protected]> wrote:

> A general question… It seems that 'quotation' lies
> at the heart of "postmodern" cultural production…
> That is, simulations, appropriations, and
> self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as
> both harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work"
> in
> the post-modern era–by Jameson, Baudrillard, and so
> many others…
>
> It's one thing to see how Warhol might appropriate
> an
> older image in a "newer" painting, but what of "net
> art"'s appropriation of earlier works, images,
> conversations, etc..? Does the medium make any
> difference? What of the difference between the veil
> of
> code and its appearance? What difference does the
> ability to forge a "real" link (vs a semi-anonymous
> reference) to an earlier work make? From
> historiographic perspective, where does the old end
> and the new (interpretation) begin?
>
> Sorry for all the quotations. It can, at times, be
> hard to keep a straight face using all these general
> terms. Plus, we are talking about """"quotation""""
> right?
>
> Marisa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

I am always looking for this kind of maturation – the self-reflexive, self-conscious, uber-media-aware gradually being replaced by simply interesting art about existence. A good example to me is DJ Spooky's music vs. DJ Spooky's theory. The music is so rich and fascinating and autobiographical and essential. It's an urban lifestyle strategy/celebration – appropriation as talisman against personal assimilation (an intuitive solution to Bunting's proposed dilema – "own, be owned, or remain invisible"). But DJ Spooky's theoretical prose is like watching the paint dry. The fact that he is able to map mix culture backwards to 20th Century French philosophy is interesting I guess, and it may evangelize some Lev Manovich types to frequent the occasional late night electronica fest, but it's almost like reading a novelization of a film. I'd rather just listen to the mix.

Marisa asks, " Does the medium make any difference [vis appropriation]"? In terms of ease of artistic production, definitely – digital media + global networks = ease of remix.

Pre-net/google, I doubt I would have ever explored something like this:
http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/picture/

But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that "remixity" ["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or inherent to the underlying ethos of all digital art (although maybe it is, and there are sure plenty of people trumpeting the fact that it definitely is). Maybe remixity is just the most immediately obvious thing to do with digital media, and so we see a lot of it simply because the novelty hasn't worn off yet. One way or the other, it's safe to assert that digital art makes remixity and appropriation feasibly/logistically easier from a production standpoint.

_

michael wrote:

I'm always faintly taken aback when I read assertions
like this.
<It seems that 'quotation' lies
at the heart of "postmodern" cultural production…
That is, simulations, appropriations, and
self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as
both harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work">
All these characteristics can be found in most periods
of art, in music ( variations on a theme of…),
visual
art ( such and such *after* such and such) and
literature ( pretty much the whole of Shakespeare).
Its perhaps a question of degree, of the ( sometimes
deeply desperate) self consciousness of deployment
which marked the something new in post modernism.
What interests me is the feeling ( and I referred to
this specifically in an earlier post in this thread on
MTAAs wonderful 'five small videos' ) that this self
consciousness is disappearing, that we're perhaps
returning to an earlier kind of practice where
quotation (and the cloud of concepts related to it) is
merely one scarcely remarked weapon in the artist's
arsenal, to be wielded relatively unselfconsciously.
I mean I've not done a *scientific survey* or anything
- but it's a feeling that we're moving into a period
of *consolidation* of artistic language, of an
*application* of lots of the formal shenanigans of the
last half century of so to something that is concerned
more with a profound combination of the intellectual
and the affective & which is also aware of its place
in an ongoing tradition ( and this does not of course
imply massive surface complexity -what 'five small
videos' has in common with a Schubert Lied is the
appearance of *necessity* -"yes that's the only way it
could be!" - and hence simplicity, but a simplicity
which isn't exhausted the first or the second time
round but continues to reveal new layers, new meanings
on repeated engagement)
The recent work of MTAA is inceasingly beginning to
feel to me like an exemplar of this tendency ( another
significant one being for me the work of Alan Sondheim
which if people don't know they absolutely *should*
http://www.asondheim.org/ ).
The thrust (and also the appeal) of the two video
pieces seems to me not primarily formal, conceptual
or didactic in some way, but affective, rich and open
ended; aware of its place in tradition and paying due
homage to it but not simply smart commentary on it.

On Nov 22, 2004, at 11:40 AM, curt cloninger wrote:
> But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that "remixity"
> ["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or inherent to the
> underlying ethos of all digital art (although maybe it is, and there
> are sure plenty of people trumpeting the fact that it definitely is).
> Maybe remixity is just the most immediately obvious thing to do with
> digital media, and so we see a lot of it simply because the novelty
> hasn't worn off yet. One way or the other, it's safe to assert that
> digital art makes remixity and appropriation feasibly/logistically
> easier from a production standpoint.

I'd say that remixity isn't the raison d'etre of digital art, though
digital tools certainly favor remixity disproportionately over other
modes of production. Remixity is interesting for plenty of reasons on
its own; one of the big ones is that, outside of the whole whomping
intellectual property debate, it rejiggers the proportional role of the
artist in society. For one thing, it takes a long time to get down the
craftsmanship of original image- or object-crafting, whether that's
sculpting marble or using oil paint or whatever. It's a lot quicker
just to buy a bunch of LPs and learn to spin. Not to say that DJing
isn't a skill–but that you're leveraging the creativity of others in a
way that requires, on one hand, less effort from you, but on the other
hand, more effort if you want to stand out the way Pollock or Picasso
did.

(As a sidenote, I am pretty annoyed with how "DJ" in club culture has
devolved into "somebody who knows how to play records" from "somebody
who knows how to spin records". I suppose that's just my old club
snobbery popping up again.)

If we accept remixing as a creative mode that's as worthy of study as
painting or sculpture or video or performance, then the tent of fine
arts suddenly becomes a lot bigger, because people out in the world are
remixing all the time without writing an artist's statement.
16-year-old kids making mashups on their Macs at home. PC casemods.
Quilts. We probably don't have room in all our museums to show all that
stuff, too.

Francis Hwang
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: 212-219-1288x202
AIM: francisrhizome
+ + +

when you play a musical instrument, all you're doing
is remixing sounds that exist as potential in the
instrument in ways you find pleasing—when you write
a poem, all you're doing is remixing the english
language until you find your text interesting–>

ALL ART IS REMIXING—ALL CULTURE IS REMIXING—-

bliss
l


— Francis Hwang <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> On Nov 22, 2004, at 11:40 AM, curt cloninger wrote:
> > But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that
> "remixity"
> > ["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or
> inherent to the
> > underlying ethos of all digital art (although
> maybe it is, and there
> > are sure plenty of people trumpeting the fact that
> it definitely is).
> > Maybe remixity is just the most immediately
> obvious thing to do with
> > digital media, and so we see a lot of it simply
> because the novelty
> > hasn't worn off yet. One way or the other, it's
> safe to assert that
> > digital art makes remixity and appropriation
> feasibly/logistically
> > easier from a production standpoint.
>
> I'd say that remixity isn't the raison d'etre of
> digital art, though
> digital tools certainly favor remixity
> disproportionately over other
> modes of production. Remixity is interesting for
> plenty of reasons on
> its own; one of the big ones is that, outside of the
> whole whomping
> intellectual property debate, it rejiggers the
> proportional role of the
> artist in society. For one thing, it takes a long
> time to get down the
> craftsmanship of original image- or object-crafting,
> whether that's
> sculpting marble or using oil paint or whatever.
> It's a lot quicker
> just to buy a bunch of LPs and learn to spin. Not to
> say that DJing
> isn't a skill–but that you're leveraging the
> creativity of others in a
> way that requires, on one hand, less effort from
> you, but on the other
> hand, more effort if you want to stand out the way
> Pollock or Picasso
> did.
>
> (As a sidenote, I am pretty annoyed with how "DJ" in
> club culture has
> devolved into "somebody who knows how to play
> records" from "somebody
> who knows how to spin records". I suppose that's
> just my old club
> snobbery popping up again.)
>
> If we accept remixing as a creative mode that's as
> worthy of study as
> painting or sculpture or video or performance, then
> the tent of fine
> arts suddenly becomes a lot bigger, because people
> out in the world are
> remixing all the time without writing an artist's
> statement.
> 16-year-old kids making mashups on their Macs at
> home. PC casemods.
> Quilts. We probably don't have room in all our
> museums to show all that
> stuff, too.
>
> Francis Hwang
> Director of Technology
> Rhizome.org
> phone: 212-219-1288x202
> AIM: francisrhizome
> + + +
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>


=====


***************************************************************************

Lewis LaCook –>http://www.lewislacook.com/

http://www.corporatepa.com/

XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/

Collective Writing Projects–> The Wiki–> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com

i love this quote … it's my new favorite. "appropriation as talisman
against personal assimilation"

In my opinion, remixers can create new and original aesthetics (just
like other artists) but there may be an inherent distaste for mashed-art
because the process (of remixing) reveals, in a patently obvious way,
just how repetitive humans are – dare i say replicant/borg.

thanks for the great quote curt

best,

david goldschmidt
www.mediatrips.com



curt cloninger wrote:

>I am always looking for this kind of maturation – the self-reflexive, self-conscious, uber-media-aware gradually being replaced by simply interesting art about existence. A good example to me is DJ Spooky's music vs. DJ Spooky's theory. The music is so rich and fascinating and autobiographical and essential. It's an urban lifestyle strategy/celebration – appropriation as talisman against personal assimilation (an intuitive solution to Bunting's proposed dilema – "own, be owned, or remain invisible"). But DJ Spooky's theoretical prose is like watching the paint dry. The fact that he is able to map mix culture backwards to 20th Century French philosophy is interesting I guess, and it may evangelize some Lev Manovich types to frequent the occasional late night electronica fest, but it's almost like reading a novelization of a film. I'd rather just listen to the mix.
>
>Marisa asks, " Does the medium make any difference [vis appropriation]"? In terms of ease of artistic production, definitely – digital media + global networks = ease of remix.
>
>Pre-net/google, I doubt I would have ever explored something like this:
>http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/picture/
>
>But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that "remixity" ["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or inherent to the underlying ethos of all digital art (although maybe it is, and there are sure plenty of people trumpeting the fact that it definitely is). Maybe remixity is just the most immediately obvious thing to do with digital media, and so we see a lot of it simply because the novelty hasn't worn off yet. One way or the other, it's safe to assert that digital art makes remixity and appropriation feasibly/logistically easier from a production standpoint.
>
>_
>
>michael wrote:
>
>I'm always faintly taken aback when I read assertions
>like this.
><It seems that 'quotation' lies
>at the heart of "postmodern" cultural production…
>That is, simulations, appropriations, and
>self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as
>both harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work">
>All these characteristics can be found in most periods
>of art, in music ( variations on a theme of…),
>visual
>art ( such and such *after* such and such) and
>literature ( pretty much the whole of Shakespeare).
>Its perhaps a question of degree, of the ( sometimes
>deeply desperate) self consciousness of deployment
>which marked the something new in post modernism.
>What interests me is the feeling ( and I referred to
>this specifically in an earlier post in this thread on
>MTAAs wonderful 'five small videos' ) that this self
>consciousness is disappearing, that we're perhaps
>returning to an earlier kind of practice where
>quotation (and the cloud of concepts related to it) is
>merely one scarcely remarked weapon in the artist's
>arsenal, to be wielded relatively unselfconsciously.
>I mean I've not done a *scientific survey* or anything
>- but it's a feeling that we're moving into a period
>of *consolidation* of artistic language, of an
>*application* of lots of the formal shenanigans of the
>last half century of so to something that is concerned
>more with a profound combination of the intellectual
>and the affective & which is also aware of its place
>in an ongoing tradition ( and this does not of course
>imply massive surface complexity -what 'five small
>videos' has in common with a Schubert Lied is the
>appearance of *necessity* -"yes that's the only way it
>could be!" - and hence simplicity, but a simplicity
>which isn't exhausted the first or the second time
>round but continues to reveal new layers, new meanings
>on repeated engagement)
>The recent work of MTAA is inceasingly beginning to
>feel to me like an exemplar of this tendency ( another
>significant one being for me the work of Alan Sondheim
>which if people don't know they absolutely *should*
>http://www.asondheim.org/ ).
>The thrust (and also the appeal) of the two video
>pieces seems to me not primarily formal, conceptual
>or didactic in some way, but affective, rich and open
>ended; aware of its place in tradition and paying due
>homage to it but not simply smart commentary on it.
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>

There was a Creative Commons radio programme called "The Creative Remix" that takes remixing back to classical poetry (the canto).

http://radio.creativecommons.org/

Listening to "Abridged Too Far" I think the difference now is Modernist reflexivity: the remixes are very obviously remixes and the point of them is that they're remixes. There's an interesting compositional negative space aspect to it, but remixes that are rough, ready, skippy and stretchy are "orientating themselves to flatness".

In the case of ATF (which I am getting more from with each listening), there's the problem of camp (pace Sontag) as well. If this is untransformed kitsch it's kitsch, but you can't have knowing kitsch. And if it's transformative it's academic, imperialistic, disenfranchising. Deconstruction is normative.

The sweet spot for all of this would be if the work was sympathetic in some way to its source material and engaged with it to work on the assumptions of the listener. If the source material kept or problematised some context(s). Does ATF do achieve this as music or is it strain-to-hear-it "sound art"?

- Rob.

> There was a Creative Commons radio programme called "The Creative
> Remix" that takes remixing back to classical poetry (the canto).
>
> http://radio.creativecommons.org/
>
> Listening to "Abridged Too Far" I think the difference now is
> Modernist reflexivity: the remixes are very obviously remixes and
> the point of them is that they're remixes. There's an interesting
> compositional negative space aspect to it, but remixes that are
> rough, ready, skippy and stretchy are "orientating themselves to
> flatness".
>
> In the case of ATF (which I am getting more from with each
> listening), there's the problem of camp (pace Sontag) as well. If
> this is untransformed kitsch it's kitsch, but you can't have
> knowing kitsch. And if it's transformative it's academic,
> imperialistic, disenfranchising. Deconstruction is normative.
>
> The sweet spot for all of this would be if the work was
> sympathetic in some way to its source material and engaged with
> it to work on the assumptions of the listener. If the source
> material kept or problematised some context(s). Does ATF do
> achieve this as music or is it strain-to-hear-it "sound art"?

Hi Rob,

Interesting writing. One of the main things I like about ATF is that I find
it brilliantly tuneful, at points. Like in "Cattle Call" and also in "I've
Got You", as I wrote earlier. When the work is tuneful, the point is not
that it is remix, but she is trying to create new sorts of melodies and
harmonies or anti-harmonies(?) that either sound good by the standards of
the original music or by other standards.

Also, I think Vicki Bennett is sympathetic to much of the material. For
instance, about 1/3 of the way into "Ach Du" she takes a, erm, a polka or
something and puts it together with some percussive electronica that, if you
put it on the dancefloor, would rock the joint out for a few seconds. A lot
of this piece is percussive in that she's mixing rhythms toward something
wonderfully varied in rhythm that usually makes 'sense' percussively, ie,
you can follow it percussively.

Concerning 'problematising', there's quite a bit of that, like the change in
the lyrics of 'Kae Sara Sara' I mentioned concerning "I've Got You". Also,
machismo, when it appears, usually 'has the piss taken out of it' as the
brits say. And in "Close To You", I thought I heard some sympathy for the
fate of Karen Carpenter and Marilyn Monroe, and some attempt to relate those
to the music.

Concerning the transformative, well, the album has quite a historical range
of reference over considerable music from the 20th c. It doesn't dwell on
particular tunes for very long; instead it goes through a kaleidascope of
musical sounds and styles yet creates a style of its own. That I haven't
heard before.

Remix for the sake of remix would be pretty dull. What I like about ATF is
that she is actually trying to make listenable, new music in a remix mode.

I had a look at John Oswald's http://www.plunderphonics.com but the links to
the mp3's are 404 (legal issues, i presume). He became very famous for his
remix work and was recently awarded Canada's highest honor for media art.
But I have heard very little of his work, unfortunately. It would be
interesting to compare his approach with Bennett's.
http://www.plunderphonics.com/xhtml/xplunder.html is an interesting 1985
essay by Oswald called "Plunderphonics, or Audio Piracy as a Compositional
Prerogative". He talks about quotation quite a bit. "Without a quotation
system, well-intended correspondences cannot be distinguished from
plagiarism and fraud."

ja

Hi David,

The idea really is Paul Miller's. I just distilled the sound-byte,
but he's conscious that he's doing this. cf:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread455&text$021
scroll down to "I am the DJ, I am what I splay."

Regarding the repetition critique, I mostly concur and I think
Francis hit the nail on the head when he said something like, "now
that any 14 year-old can mix, the challenge becomes to distinguish
yourself by mixing especially well" [i'm paraphrasing]. In this
sense, mixing is like poetry in that the entry-level bar is set
pretty low. Not anybody can write a congent 10 page academic essay,
but anybody who can speak at all can write poetry. The challenge
then, is to write an especially good poem.

In the same way, it's easier to put together a mix tape than it is to
play three bar chords on the guitar (but not that much easier). From
the Troggs to the Sex Pistols, kids have proved that rock and roll is
not really that difficult. And then there are the Shaggs, who prove
that some human beings are actually from Mars:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00000I0QQ/

peace,
curt

_

At 11:16 PM -0800 11/24/04, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>i love this quote … it's my new favorite. "appropriation as
>talisman against personal assimilation"
>
>In my opinion, remixers can create new and original aesthetics (just
>like other artists) but there may be an inherent distaste for
>mashed-art because the process (of remixing) reveals, in a patently
>obvious way, just how repetitive humans are – dare i say
>replicant/borg.
>
>thanks for the great quote curt
>
>best,
>
>david goldschmidt
>www.mediatrips.com
>
>
>
>curt cloninger wrote:
>
>>I am always looking for this kind of maturation – the
>>self-reflexive, self-conscious, uber-media-aware gradually being
>>replaced by simply interesting art about existence. A good example
>>to me is DJ Spooky's music vs. DJ Spooky's theory. The music is so
>>rich and fascinating and autobiographical and essential. It's an
>>urban lifestyle strategy/celebration – appropriation as talisman
>>against personal assimilation (an intuitive solution to Bunting's
>>proposed dilema – "own, be owned, or remain invisible"). But DJ
>>Spooky's theoretical prose is like watching the paint dry. The
>>fact that he is able to map mix culture backwards to 20th Century
>>French philosophy is interesting I guess, and it may evangelize
>>some Lev Manovich types to frequent the occasional late night
>>electronica fest, but it's almost like reading a novelization of a
>>film. I'd rather just listen to the mix.
>>
>>Marisa asks, " Does the medium make any difference [vis
>>appropriation]"? In terms of ease of artistic production,
>>definitely – digital media + global networks = ease of remix.
>>
>>Pre-net/google, I doubt I would have ever explored something like this:
>>http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/picture/
>>
>>But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that "remixity"
>>["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or inherent to the
>>underlying ethos of all digital art (although maybe it is, and
>>there are sure plenty of people trumpeting the fact that it
>>definitely is). Maybe remixity is just the most immediately
>>obvious thing to do with digital media, and so we see a lot of it
>>simply because the novelty hasn't worn off yet. One way or the
>>other, it's safe to assert that digital art makes remixity and
>>appropriation feasibly/logistically easier from a production
>>standpoint.
>>
>>_
>>
>>michael wrote:
>>
>>I'm always faintly taken aback when I read assertions like this.
>><It seems that 'quotation' lies at the heart of "postmodern"
>>cultural production… That is, simulations, appropriations, and
>>self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as both
>>harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work"> All these
>>characteristics can be found in most periods of art, in music (
>>variations on a theme of…), visual art ( such and such *after*
>>such and such) and literature ( pretty much the whole of
>>Shakespeare). Its perhaps a question of degree, of the ( sometimes
>>deeply desperate) self consciousness of deployment which marked the
>>something new in post modernism. What interests me is the feeling (
>>and I referred to this specifically in an earlier post in this
>>thread on MTAAs wonderful 'five small videos' ) that this self
>>consciousness is disappearing, that we're perhaps returning to an
>>earlier kind of practice where quotation (and the cloud of concepts
>>related to it) is merely one scarcely remarked weapon in the
>>artist's arsenal, to be wielded relatively unselfconsciously. I
>>mean I've not done a *scientific survey* or anything - but it's a
>>feeling that we're moving into a period of *consolidation* of
>>artistic language, of an *application* of lots of the formal
>>shenanigans of the last half century of so to something that is
>>concerned more with a profound combination of the intellectual and
>>the affective & which is also aware of its place in an ongoing
>>tradition ( and this does not of course imply massive surface
>>complexity -what 'five small videos' has in common with a Schubert
>>Lied is the appearance of *necessity* -"yes that's the only way it
>>could be!" - and hence simplicity, but a simplicity which isn't
>>exhausted the first or the second time round but continues to
>>reveal new layers, new meanings on repeated engagement) The recent
>>work of MTAA is inceasingly beginning to feel to me like an
>>exemplar of this tendency ( another significant one being for me
>>the work of Alan Sondheim which if people don't know they
>>absolutely *should* http://www.asondheim.org/ ). The thrust (and
>>also the appeal) of the two video pieces seems to me not primarily
>>formal, conceptual or didactic in some way, but affective, rich and
>>open ended; aware of its place in tradition and paying due homage
>>to it but not simply smart commentary on it. +
>>-> post: [email protected]
>>-> questions: [email protected]
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>>
>>

Hi Jim,

I probably have all those plunderphonic tracks on one of my hard drives somewhere. I actually bought the original CD from him back in the day. I love it, because it is way processed, but you can still discern the original sources. But he's obviously doing it just to make his own music. None of it is even really allusive. Like Michael Jackson's "bad" becomes more of an ambient piece; it has has nothing to do with motown or pop. He's just treating it all as sound.

I sample a bit of the plunderphonic stuff in this ridiculous mix (circa 1991):
http://www.lab404.com/audio/tbomv/
The james brown/public enemy break from 5:43-6:13 is all Oswald.

peace,
curt

_

jim wrote:

I had a look at John Oswald's http://www.plunderphonics.com but the links to
the mp3's are 404 (legal issues, i presume). He became very famous for his
remix work and was recently awarded Canada's highest honor for media art.
But I have heard very little of his work, unfortunately. It would be
interesting to compare his approach with Bennett's.
http://www.plunderphonics.com/xhtml/xplunder.html is an interesting 1985
essay by Oswald called "Plunderphonics, or Audio Piracy as a Compositional
Prerogative". He talks about quotation quite a bit. "Without a quotation
system, well-intended correspondences cannot be distinguished from
plagiarism and fraud."

— Curt Cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
Not anybody can write a congent 10
> page academic essay,
> but anybody who can speak at all can write poetry.



actually, curt, i think this is more likely the other
way around….

bliss
l







> Hi David,
>
> The idea really is Paul Miller's. I just distilled
> the sound-byte,
> but he's conscious that he's doing this. cf:
>
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread455&text$021
> scroll down to "I am the DJ, I am what I splay."
>
> Regarding the repetition critique, I mostly concur
> and I think
> Francis hit the nail on the head when he said
> something like, "now
> that any 14 year-old can mix, the challenge becomes
> to distinguish
> yourself by mixing especially well" [i'm
> paraphrasing]. In this
> sense, mixing is like poetry in that the entry-level
> bar is set
> pretty low. Not anybody can write a congent 10
> page academic essay,
> but anybody who can speak at all can write poetry.
> The challenge
> then, is to write an especially good poem.
>
> In the same way, it's easier to put together a mix
> tape than it is to
> play three bar chords on the guitar (but not that
> much easier). From
> the Troggs to the Sex Pistols, kids have proved that
> rock and roll is
> not really that difficult. And then there are the
> Shaggs, who prove
> that some human beings are actually from Mars:
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00000I0QQ/
>
> peace,
> curt
>
> _
>
> At 11:16 PM -0800 11/24/04, David Goldschmidt wrote:
> >i love this quote … it's my new favorite.
> "appropriation as
> >talisman against personal assimilation"
> >
> >In my opinion, remixers can create new and original
> aesthetics (just
> >like other artists) but there may be an inherent
> distaste for
> >mashed-art because the process (of remixing)
> reveals, in a patently
> >obvious way, just how repetitive humans are – dare
> i say
> >replicant/borg.
> >
> >thanks for the great quote curt
> >
> >best,
> >
> >david goldschmidt
> >www.mediatrips.com
> >
> >
> >
> >curt cloninger wrote:
> >
> >>I am always looking for this kind of maturation –
> the
> >>self-reflexive, self-conscious, uber-media-aware
> gradually being
> >>replaced by simply interesting art about
> existence. A good example
> >>to me is DJ Spooky's music vs. DJ Spooky's theory.
> The music is so
> >>rich and fascinating and autobiographical and
> essential. It's an
> >>urban lifestyle strategy/celebration –
> appropriation as talisman
> >>against personal assimilation (an intuitive
> solution to Bunting's
> >>proposed dilema – "own, be owned, or remain
> invisible"). But DJ
> >>Spooky's theoretical prose is like watching the
> paint dry. The
> >>fact that he is able to map mix culture backwards
> to 20th Century
> >>French philosophy is interesting I guess, and it
> may evangelize
> >>some Lev Manovich types to frequent the occasional
> late night
> >>electronica fest, but it's almost like reading a
> novelization of a
> >>film. I'd rather just listen to the mix.
> >>
> >>Marisa asks, " Does the medium make any difference
> [vis
> >>appropriation]"? In terms of ease of artistic
> production,
> >>definitely – digital media + global networks =
> ease of remix.
> >>
> >>Pre-net/google, I doubt I would have ever explored
> something like this:
>
>>http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/picture/
> >>
> >>But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that
> "remixity"
> >>["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or
> inherent to the
> >>underlying ethos of all digital art (although
> maybe it is, and
> >>there are sure plenty of people trumpeting the
> fact that it
> >>definitely is). Maybe remixity is just the most
> immediately
> >>obvious thing to do with digital media, and so we
> see a lot of it
> >>simply because the novelty hasn't worn off yet.
> One way or the
> >>other, it's safe to assert that digital art makes
> remixity and
> >>appropriation feasibly/logistically easier from a
> production
> >>standpoint.
> >>
> >>_
> >>
> >>michael wrote:
> >>
> >>I'm always faintly taken aback when I read
> assertions like this.
> >><It seems that 'quotation' lies at the heart of
> "postmodern"
> >>cultural production… That is, simulations,
> appropriations, and
> >>self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited
> as both
> >>harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work">
> All these
> >>characteristics can be found in most periods of
> art, in music (
> >>variations on a theme of…), visual art ( such
> and such *after*
> >>such and such) and literature ( pretty much the
> whole of
> >>Shakespeare). Its perhaps a question of degree, of
> the ( sometimes
> >>deeply desperate) self consciousness of deployment
> which marked the
> >>something new in post modernism. What interests me
> is the feeling (
> >>and I referred to this specifically in an earlier
> post in this
> >>thread on MTAAs wonderful 'five small videos' )
> that this self
> >>consciousness is disappearing, that we're perhaps
> returning to an
> >>earlier kind of practice where quotation (and the
> cloud of concepts
> >>related to it) is merely one scarcely remarked
> weapon in the
> >>artist's arsenal, to be wielded relatively
> unselfconsciously. I
> >>mean I've not done a *scientific survey* or
> anything - but it's a
> >>feeling that we're moving into a period of
> *consolidation* of
> >>artistic language, of an *application* of lots of
> the formal
> >>shenanigans of the last half century of so to
> something that is
> >>concerned more with a profound combination of the
> intellectual and
> >>the affective & which is also aware of its place
> in an ongoing
> >>tradition ( and this does not of course imply
> massive surface
> >>complexity -what 'five small videos' has in common
> with a Schubert
> >>Lied is the appearance of *necessity* -"yes that's
> the only way it
> >>could be!" - and hence simplicity, but a
> simplicity which isn't
> >>exhausted the first or the second time round but
> continues to
> >>reveal new layers, new meanings on repeated
> engagement) The recent
> >>work of MTAA is inceasingly beginning to feel to
> me like an
> >>exemplar of this tendency ( another significant
> one being for me
> >>the work of Alan Sondheim which if people don't
> know they
> >>absolutely *should* http://www.asondheim.org/ ).
> The thrust (and
> >>also the appeal) of the two video pieces seems to
> me not primarily
> >>formal, conceptual or didactic in some way, but
> affective, rich and
> >>open ended; aware of its place in tradition and
> paying due homage
> >>to it but not simply smart commentary on it. +
> >>-> post: [email protected]
> >>-> questions: [email protected]
> >>-> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> >>+
> >>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set out in the
> >>Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>


=====


***************************************************************************

Lewis LaCook –>http://www.lewislacook.com/

http://www.corporatepa.com/

XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/

Collective Writing Projects–> The Wiki–> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

> Hi Jim,
>
> I probably have all those plunderphonic tracks on one of my hard
> drives somewhere. I actually bought the original CD from him
> back in the day. I love it, because it is way processed, but you
> can still discern the original sources. But he's obviously doing
> it just to make his own music. None of it is even really
> allusive. Like Michael Jackson's "bad" becomes more of an
> ambient piece; it has has nothing to do with motown or pop. He's
> just treating it all as sound.
>
> I sample a bit of the plunderphonic stuff in this ridiculous mix
> (circa 1991):
> http://www.lab404.com/audio/tbomv/
> The james brown/public enemy break from 5:43-6:13 is all Oswald.
>
> peace,
> curt

A local record shop had a copy of Oswald's Plunderphonics, so I bought it.
Normally I just download music. It's somehow appropriately messed up that
it'd be Plunderphonics I'd have to end up buying. These works were created
between 1969 and 1997, with most of them created in the late eighties or
early nineties. Plunderphonics comes with a 46 page interview with Norman
Igma.

I hear some of the same tunes as Vicki Bennett has used. Whether this is
allusive on Bennett's part or not, I don't know. Probably not, since they
both deal with popular music.

Listening to Oswald's Plunderphonics, I am struck with the resemblances and
dissimilarities with "Abridged Too Far". They are both trying to create new
music, as opposed to simply remixing in such a way that the source material
is more prominent than the mix. The music Oswald uses is almost always from
popular music you would hear in North America from the fifties to the
nineties, ie, rock and roll of one stripe or another (with a few exceptions,
as in "White" by 'Gibbons Cry'), whereas the ATF sounds are from popular
music from Europe and North America from the 20's to 90's.

The earlier pieces by Oswald are less articulate musically, probably because
the technology was less articulate. As the technology becomes more capable
of subtle articulation, the music becomes more originally tuneful and
interestingly percussive.

One can imagine a program that has access to a huge collection of music. The
program pre-listens to each recording and analyses the sound and categorizes
it in samples of various lengths. Then spins a composition based on whatever
logic of composition the programmer has the wit to devise.

All future machines are now possible, by the way, except if they require
faster processing than is now available.

A computer can be any machine.

So it's now no longer a matter of music progressing according to the
technology that is available. All imaginable music machines are now
possible.

But then so is AI.

ja

http://www.xach.com/img/arr-driving-me-nuts.jpg

- Rob.