[SUB-SPACE (ma chronosphere)] [^^fleeding HOME page]
mfa: Aesthetic
mfa: [Intro] [Aesthetics] [creativity] [modeling] [tools] [Text] [ZeitRaum - Time/Space]
See also:
On this page:
Part 1: {Introduction}
{Line}
{Shadow and Light}
{Time}
{Surface}
{Repetition
{Authenticity}
{Sound and Silence}
{Gesture} -_
{Movement}
{Stillness}
Part 2: {The Aesthetics of Words}
{The Aesthetic of Poem}
{The Aesthetics of Text}
{The Aesthetics of Story}
{The Aesthetics of Spoken Silence}
Part 3: {The Aesthetics of Being}
{The Aesthetics of Thought}
{The Aesthetics of the Subjective and The Objective}
{The Aesthetics of the Hidden} (and other mysteries)
Part 4: {The Aesthetics of the Creative Process}
{Translation from one Medium to Another}
{creation}
{Destruction}
{The Creative Process -- Redux}
-^_6
sPart 1
Introduction
Aesthetics is of course at the heart of what we do as artists, but
more specifically the particular version of aesthetic that we use
as our base from which all of our works spring is quite reduced.
I would maintain that we have a starting point of the way in which
we see the world. Part of this is thru training, and part of it is
inherrent in the kind of artist that we are. For instance, i do not
particularly think in terms of 3-d; although, i have studied the
cannon of art literature, and am at least slightly versed in the
ideas inherent in THAT way of thinking.
So the purpose of this work is to explore the several natures of
the newer areas of art (as if there ever were such things) that
are concerned with:
Light and shadow as drawing elements; either in 2-d, 3-d, or 4-d.
Sound and Image as elements in art.
Air, smoke, and reflection as elements in art.
Naturally, we must start at the beginning of so-called "traditional"
art. I start with the elments that art historians and narrators, such
as the late, great Helen Gardner would agree were the essentialls.
Although, i am certain that she would quickly embrace the newer elements that are available to the modern artist.
The Aesthetics of Line
In one sense, line must have a surface upon which to be. However, as
we know we can create a line with a laser light and or a beam of
ordinary light using smoke.
Traditionally, line has had the qualities of thickness, texture, and
of course colour. (We take it as read that both white and black are
colours although not in the strict, classical sense.) If we add at
least 2-d to the equation, then a line can be a curve (and in 3-d,
it can become a curve in space). A line can aloso intersect (or not)
other lines. These are the basic geometric ideas of line that we then
blend with other aspects of a composition to create the aesthetic sense
that we are seeking.
Ever sense dada and all of the various forms of that tumltuous period
of human history, the idea of collage has been firmly entrenched as a
possible aesthetic concept. Indeed, we might consdier some the "serial"
sculptures of Donald Judd to be an expression of line. Indeed, we could
use found objects (eg, transparent plastic drinking cups) as "dots" to
make up a line. These could be takced to a wall and thus, from a line
as much as any pencil, charcoal, or other traditional drawing material
might be.
In the same sense, we might take acrylic paint and apply very flatly to
a matrix (a canvas, a wall, an assemblage) to create lines. Or we might
take very thickly applied oil paint or small cast items to create lines.
The limit of this process is of course to create so many lines in a speac
that they then become cross-hatching, and thus a surface rather than "just
a line".
Again turning our attention to light, we can create lines of light with
light and if so-desired, use coloured light (obeying the physics of
Red-Green-Blue, rather than the subtractive rules of Red-Yellow-Blue)
to form lines. These lines (for the present, due to the limitations of
technology) can only form intersection or fields of light with little
possibility of stoping the light to make "dots" out of it. We might
consider one beam of light passing thru a space (or along a wall, and
an array of other beams of light intersecting it at regular points
along it's path to change the colour or intensity of the light. Thus,
we would have one primary beam and a series of spaced out light sources
intersecting it at regular (or not) intervals.
But, with the introduction of light comes the implicit introduction of
shadow; which, we now disucuss.
The Aesthetics of Shadow and Light
We know from traditional techniques that when we draw a line on almost
any surface, we create immediately to the side of it an implied bit
of shadow. This was exhautively (but probably not completely) investigated
by artists such as Joseph Albers and ??name?? Seurat. Of course, they
were primarily concerned with the way that the eye mixes colours not
not necessarily shades of light and dark. For that, the sculptor enters
the picture. We are all familiar with the classic example of the lighting
of the Statue of Lincoln, as well with numerous examples in various
cathedrals with their portrature in 3-d of the Saints, etc.
When we think about it, we can see that light has varying shades of
intensity, and that when an object (solid or translucent or transparent)
is placed in the beam's path, then shadow is formed. That we can have
shadow within shadow is but a small leap in aesthetic thinking.
One of the most at-hand examples is the shadows of leaves caused by the
sun striking them various angles and intensities. Clearly one of the
earlist artists to think about such things was Paul Ceszane ??sp?? and
other impressionists. Along this line of reasoning, Vincent Van Gogh
wrote to his brother, Theo, saying that if he was painting a picture
of a newspaper, then why shouldn't he just use white and black; as
opposed to "mixing" some near-white and near-black paint which was
the cassical way of thinking about colour.
Note too that the "value" of the line has considerable lee-way as
well. It can of course be with traditional materials; eg, pencil,
chalk, charcoal, paint, ink.
However, line could be a fold in the paper/canvas, etc. It could
be cut (with a knife or torn) thru the matrix (sub-strate). It could
be black on white, or vice-versa. It could be with colour. It could
be of a constant or varying value (thick/thin, light/dark, textured/steady,
etc). It could be comprised of found objects laid out to from the "dots"
of its construction. It could be bits of paper, canvas, blotchs of
paint, crayons, light, etc. And as we shall see, it can consist of
things introuced during its production.
When we then take to LIGHT this line (surface, volume, etc), then we are
again given many choices. The concepts of stage lighting come to mind
(foot lights, key light, spot light, back lighting, and of couse all
manners of side, top and bottom lighting, etc.). We might then think
about the use of transparancy as well. Is the object on a sheet of
glass and lit from below? Behind a scrim? Next to a brightly coloured
wall, curtain, backdrip, object, person? We could "paint" people and
they could "be" the refelcting wall. Light could pass between them --
if we "design their behaviour" such that they purposefully leave gaps
between them, with transmitted light penetrating the negative space
between them. This space could be sculpted (freeze frame, dynamic,
"dansed", choreographed, etc.).
And then when take the SHADOW(s) that can be used to change the appearance
of the objects. An important thing to remember is that the shadow itself
can have a shadow. For example, if i stand next to a store window and
the sun (quite bright) shines past me to the window, it will reflect my
shadow onto the sidewalk. But, the light striking the window directly
will also be reflected onto the sidewalk. It will naturally be brighter,
than the other light; thus, my shadow acts as a negative on the sidewalk.
It is the actual absense of reflected light that is showing up as the
quite faint shadow on the sidewalk. In the same way, by using various
lighting sources (and using or not various colours) we can create
shadows within shadows; ie, these partially illuminated shadows.
And naturually into the mix of light and shadow, we could introduce light
directly thru the use of a spot light. Imagine the shadow of a person, and
at the centre of that shadow out-line introducing a "heart" made with
light passing thru a cut-out shape in a filter. The colours could be
almost endless -- a red light source passing thru a blue filter, casting
a blue halo around a red heart. Then imagine that this was done with a
projector, using some sort of animation (eg, a "Flash" animation). Then,
one could imagine the variety of "pulses" (beats, tempos, music?) that
could be brought in to play as well.
This conveniently brings us to; time.
The Aesthetics of Time
Now consider what happens when we introduce the elment of time (often
refered to as 4-d) into the equation.
NOTE: We take it as read that 4-d (for better or worse) refers to art
that uses time as part of its composition. Not-wiht-standing the
work of Salvador Dalih's having used the "net" version of a geometric
4-d hypercube as the cross. At the time, starting from the later 1800's
there was a fascination with the fourth dimension. And then when Albert
Eisnstein used it as part of this theory of relativity, there was no
longer the possibility of completely ignoring the fourth dimension
either as a time axis, or simply a hyper-space axis continuing the
geometric series (x, y, z, ...) with "w" being the most common
representation of this fourth dimension.
That is we have: x, y, z, t -- space-time (space being sherical
in its properties, with t (time)
begin cylindrical. Thus, the
Earth revolving about the Sun,
forms a 4-dimensional helix,
of 3-d circle (approximiately)
moving thru time perpendicualrly.
and x, y, z, w -- four-dimensional space, with all
co-ordinates being of equal
importance.
As i have mentioned, the first of these two *views* is the more commonly
accepted use of the idea of "4-d".
Clearly, when we use time we get the possiblity of art that changes.
This could be as simple and common as the preservatory practices of
art conservators in maintaining paintins, sculptures and other art
works entrusted to their care.
It can also clearly be seen that the shadows of trees almost never
reamain static; shifting with the gentelist of breezes, and of course
their grown in teim, as well as defoliation of the leaves during
autumn, etc.
Also, consider that a person walking along various places, might stop
and read a bit of poetry. Thus, "introducing sound into" the space.
Walking to where the next "dot of sound" is to be placed, they might
then read a bit more poetry, or play a bit of music on an instrument,
or boom-box. We could also imagine a line already in place as being
composed of several boom-boxes arranged along the wall (or across a
floor, up into space, requiring the use of lift); the artist, then
travels from each boom-box to the next and plays (or selects and plays)
a track on a CD (or a DVD) and that "some-how" illuminates or changes
a series of other art works on the wall, placed on pedistals. The
objects could as well be poets who would speak, etc.
By the same manner, we might think of a "drawing" consisting of danses
who emulate dots. They might be brought into the viewing space (a stage,
a side street, or any public space) and "placed" there by the artist.
An excellent example of this kind of transforming art is given in the
case of four planters outside the art building at UT Dallas. When
winter approaches, the plants (usually banana plants) are removed
and the pots are left empty. At times the large pots (about 1 metre
acroos, and shapped like traditional, round plant pots) are removed
and the place where they stand is filled with gravel.
That this "implied" line is so strong could make for an interesting
aethetic experience if four people (overtly dansers, but not necessarily)
could perform some sort of danse inside the art building (commonly, and
lovinngly refered to as "The Art Barn") and at some time, the artist
(a line artist rather than a danser artist) leads them outide and
places (draws) them onto each gravel mound. That this could be
accompanied by music, sound, poetry, text-speech would bring in an
additional element.
But, alas; i, digress.
For the most part we think of time in several ways:
1) A non-repeating flow of events. (Which may be connected causally,
although we well recall the early Russian Montagist experiments
that humans are so tied to causality, that placeing one event
after another quite strongly implies cause and effect. This is
of course at odds with much of creative efforts; eg, if i film
a cup of coffee and show the liquid flowing in circles in the
cup (close up), and then next cut to an atomic explostion, the
viewer's first impression is that of causality, when in fact i
may be wanting to compare the similarities in chaotic motion.
2) A re-occuring event that is brought in to re-anchor a scene or
state of mind. In the movie "Pi", the sequence of "Max" (played
by Sean Gillette ??sp??) taking his medication indicates the
re-occurence of his migrane headaches. So prevalent is this
idea of re-occurence in our own lives, that it is used as a
standard in most film work. Notice too that since the various
episodes that occur as part of Max's migrane heedaches are so
VARIED that the use of the exact same footage him taking the
pills creates what should be the start of the same series of
actions (so firmly is the concpet of causality embedded in our
minds). Thus, the use of the un-varying pill taking followed by
vastly different and un-controllable migrane episodes intensifies
the migrane experience for the viewer.
3) Abstract time. The most common of this is history or the future.
In terms of the present, we tend to negate space; eg, if we read
about something in today's paper that just happened, we will for
a brief moment "be there" -- both in the time it occured and the
exact space. This rarely happens in abstract time -- we must make
a conscious effort to "be there" either in the past or the future.
Also, note that a "dillution effect" occurs (law of diminshing
returns, or familiarity, etc) so that we find it easier to think
about an event the more often that we think about it. This is
particularly true of some future event that we can cast a "model"
of in terms of our past experience. The outcome of such reasoning
is of course to reduce "abstract time" to "experience time" and
thus make it (events, things, ideas) more tangable.
4) Time as un-structured events. In the pure form of time-collage, we
would not see any connection to the events. This is of course in
keeping with the principles of classic Dada, fluxist events, etc.
Regardless, as we know the viewer/participant will try to bring
some order to the events -- in keeping with the basic survival
skills inherent in humans.
How we bring these elements to bear in a performance or even in a static
work of art (with at least some time element; eg, a slide show), is of
course the question to answered. Also note, that while i might refer to
a "film" or a "performnace", these can all be mixed and matched in numerous
combinations. At one end, tradtional theatre, at the other "happenings"
as well as computer-interactive pieces (eg, the "exploratorium"
concept of some museums. [Exporatorium] (dictionary)
From one extreme (traditional theatre) to the other (pure dada, or
possibly the surrealist game of the "extreme corpse") the types of
interplay are almost endless. To explore these concepts in their
entirity is beyond the scope of the present work, so a few ideas
are presented.
a) A sequence of events (being consciously built up) can be broken
only with diffictulty. At some point one might insert a "card"
with the phrase on it "The following has nothing to do with what
you have just seen". This attempt to "de-centre" the action from
the viewer's experience was used by George Lukas ??sp?? in his
film "Star Wars" with the phrase "In a galaxy long, long ago, far,
far awayt".
b) A sequence can be built into a non-sequence with any kind of unifying
event. This was accomplished in the BBC TV series "Monty Python's
Flying Circus" by using a common start of the show: "And now for
something completely different". This could be used anywhere in the
show to stop the show and re-start it, or to connect the viewer back
to the fact that it WAS a show. Similarly, their use of "Start again"
as a break had much the same effect.
One should also know that two or more sequences could be placed in
progress inter-mixing these. This is the much over-used "cutting
between Story A and Story B" used in film today. In the end, the
stories converge to a single series of events. One of the masters
of this (who had the saving grace of having done it early on) was
Arthur Haley ??sp?? and can be seen as an exemplar in "Airport"
-- sadly, imitated until the only way out was farce; eg "Airplane!"
by the Zucker brothers and company.
The inter-twining sequences need not be connected, and in fact this
led writers such as ??name?? Stoppard to develop his play "Rosencrantz
and Guildernstern are Dead" ??sp??. Along this same line of reasoning
also lay hyper-medial references to the production itself. For example,
in an episode of "Saturday Night Live" enttitled "The Kill Crhistmas
Trees", one of the detectives says, "Yes, but what about him?"
(refering to the person holding up the killer xmas tree which has just
stabbed another victim. The other detective replies, "Oh, never mind
him. He's just a stage hand." And of course, this could lead to a play
"about nothing" down the line of our old friend the "self-referential
paradox".
c) Time sequencing can of course be used to "bound" pieces in the same
way that a canvas's frame and space between paintings do. This can
be accomplished easily with music. One of the best examples is in
Modest Musorgski's "Pictures at an Exhibition", where in the musical
experience is to create a "walk" along the pictures in a museum, with
each "piece" being indicative of the painting -- a translation from
visual art into musical terms. A linking piece called "promenade" is
used to break from one piece to the next. Note that this is DIFFERENT
than a musical "seque". In this case, the linking piece borrows from
the previous part and then slowly transforms into the next piece.
This is the equivalent to a "slow fade" or disolve. Also, think about
using a "built-up" image as a bridging device. For example, we could
show a jumble of childs blocks on the table, as the "film" progresses
(again this could be live performance, etc), the blocks are "built up"
into a words. A "corny" example would be where the final placement of
blocks spells out "The End". Similarly, a painting could be painted
progressively as the "film" progresses.
d) Finally, don't forget the use of "non-time". That is, freeze frame
(or motion or sound, etc). And then either the use of text, sound,
motion, etc -- as a contrasting element; eg, a frozen tone, then
light coming into play. The cross products for this are pretty
clear:
SOUND LIGHT SHADOW TEXT MOTION IMAGE
0 0 0 0 0 0 -- a blank screen
0 0 0 0 0 1 -- a slide
0 0 0 0 1 0 -- probably just a blur
0 0 0 0 1 1 -- a movie
...
1 0 0 0 1 1 -- a "Talkie" (eg, "The Jazz Singer)
...
1 1 1 1 1 1 -- a melage? a mess?
just mud? or genius?
Again depending on how each is brought in both in terms of
timing and intesnsity, we get different mixes in terms of
time as an aesthetic element.
The Aesthetics of Surface
As we have seens, suface is a consequence of the substrate (matrix) onto
which the lines are drawn. The limiting case of a line being either its
erasure into a single dot (or nothing at all) --or-- the area of the line
filled in so completely that it becomes a 2-d dot or small blotch of
texture, colour, in the extreme limiting case, a worn (or cut) hole
thru the substrate.
From a 2-d POV (Point of View), 3-d is simply an extension of the 2-d
step. Note that there are two dicotomies at work here:
That the lines cross or crowd each other to form a blotch
and
That the lines can curve and thus instead of requireing only
2 (or 3) dimensions to "be".
Note that in the case of 3-d space, the line will create at least one
plane and then "jump out of it" -- this is the miminum requirement of
the geometry of 3-dimensional space.
And if we admit the use of non-traditional materials, then we see that
we can "draw" lines with almost any medium as making up its compostion.
I am particularly reminded of the "thread" drawings of Lienna Glatt ??sp??.
These comprise geometic "folia" in the manner of the spiro-o-graph drawing
tool. These shapes are (or can not be, as required) produced by the
varying use of geometric means. The limiting case would be the circle,
oval, and of course any randomly drawn closed curve or loop.
Note that if a form is closed (its endpoints meet) then it may be of a
convex or concave nature; as per geometry, again. And of course the
normal concept of "tension" arises in the case of the "almost touching"
end points. This aesthetic elemetn can be done by creating any shapes
(incudling text, blocks, etc) that "almost touch"; thus, giving rise
to the tension caused by the "need for closrue" -- literally.
In 3-d space, one can imagine making surfaces in the viewing space.
In the limit, these become sculpture and inherit (if only slightly
or very greatly) the aesthetic prinicples of that way of "drawing".
Recall also, that we might have people as the "dot" or "surface"
elements. How they are clothed/painted/etc also comes into play.
And they can either be un-moving, moving, or "placed in place"
by the artist -- thus, the artist paints "using the people as
compositional elements'. In the limit, this becomes of course
choreography in the form of danse. If we push past that, introducing
either random, chaotic, or other patterns/non-patterns, then we
create the possiblity of "abstract danse" in much the same way that
Jackson Pollock created "abstract paintbrushes" out of sticks, and
such.
Remember: Limiting cases are almost always of interest -- either where
the rules are rigorously adhereed to or aboloshied altogether.
We can now imagine the combination of lines drawn to create either
2-d or 3-d (or combinations of both), expressions of line-ness and
then mixing into these the elements of sound, music, spoken text,
etc.
One particular concept comes to mind (bringing in, the element of time),
that the drawing (in part or whole) might be made by the artist(s) as
the audience watches. At this point the process of drawing incorporates
the elements of music and danse. Thus, we could imagine that the work
might consist of laying out yarn on a wall by one artist, and this
yarn (or same or differing colour, texture, etc) being tacked to the wall
(or held in place to lift out of the 2-d plane) by another artist, and
then at the end of the process, a third artist (or the first one),
removing the tacks (staples, tape, nails, etc) and re-rolling the yarn
onto a spindle. This art work could continue only once or many times,
thus introducing repetition.
The Aesthetics of Repetition
An array or a grouping of objects clearly depends on their spatial
distribution. (Again, we take it as read that the element of time might
be introduced; ie, how (in time) the ojbects are placed.)
But, in addition, we have the concept of repetition. One of the best
examples of this are many of the installed works Donald Judd. The
element the metal boxes in a regular spacing (or not), indicates the
nature of the line, and yet (like a line of un-varying value) uses
repetition as one of its "drawing elements".
Note that one of the essential aspects of Judd's work is the look
of "manufactured objects" that is: The LOSS of authenticity. (see next section)
In terms of time, repetition can include a set of performed and repeated
acts (this is the basis for much of danse's aesthetic). Note that it
is the variation of the acts that gives danse and this kind of line
drawing much of its dynamic aesthetic. We might well create tension in
the acts, by repeating them (rule of 3), and then breaking the pattern
thus created.
Again, the use of cicularity by "closing" the performance/drawing using
the same acts at the end of the piece brings us to the idea of infinity.
An excellent example of this, is the waltz by Johaan Strauss, Jr in his
work, "Perpetuum immobile" (perpetual motion). As well as in the play by
Samuel Beckett ??sp?? in his work, "Waiting for Godot".
Note too that the concept of serialisation as being (or not) a part of
the repetition is only one aspect. Consider the way that we "choreograph"
lines by drawing them with different postition. Thus, we can create a
series of identical drawings (as free-hand, printing, photography,
sound recordings, light play, etc) and thus establish a serial feel for
the work. In the limit, we can create the feeling of having no beginning
and no end.
The Aesthetics of Authenticity
Seeing as i have spent a major portion of my professional life as an artist
wrestling with the concepts of authenticity, copies, autographic vs. allographic,
and such topics -- this seems as good a place as any to address this concept.
Two of the key players (as far as i know so far) are [Linda Nochlin]
and [Nelson Goodman].
A key element is the "value" that we attach to a copy of a work of art.
We know that a copy of a dollar bill is worthless (and in fact illegal;
but that's another story). But, an original print that is in the manner
of a dollar bill (there are several artists that do this -- produce
"fake" dollar bills, that are in fact original art work).
If indeed, "repetition is the death of art", then surely, Shirly,
original art must be its life. Then we are confronted with the concept
of the "art factory" whose job it is is "roll art out" -- but in an
*authentic* manner. Then comes the problem of the print -- an artform
that Mary Cassat felt would allow even the poorest memembers of society
to have actual, fine art in their homes. A very egalatiarian idea --
clearly eschewed by not necessarily the "art loving public", but rather
by the "art collecting public" (and major collectors at that).
Well known, is the story of Richard Serra who had produced an edition
of one of his prints, and then was prompted to bring out an additional
edition (wonderfull alliteration, alas not?). Consequently, he was
taken to court. In response, he hired an excellent rifle-person to
shoot holes thru the second edition. Natch, this made them even more
valuable than the first.
But.
They were in fact a "print variant" of the first edition and so (by any
legal and even moral standard), they constituted a unique and original
work of art -- the first and original edition not-with-standing.
It is also, well know that many artists have produced several versions
of the same painting (not even counting the "working papers" or "preliminary
sketches", etc).
Thus: the problem of repetition, reproduction, and of course copying.
During a previous project, i took it upon myself to create an "altar to
Americana". This was to be a contrasting element to a fellow artist whose
work consisted of a holy shrine of religious artifacts including his own
personal copy of his holy book; which as i understand it had been presented
to him when he was quite young -- and thus had not only a spiritual but a
very personal context to it. Part of my display had an altar with the "holy
relic" (a car hub cap with manufacturerer logo clearly embossed into it),
as well as photos of the holy aspects of Americana (cars, cafes, sports,
etc). Adjacent to this was a reproduction of Warhol's "The 50 Maryilns"
of which i created an array of 5x5 -- all in black and white trying to
emulate the fading effect that graces the *original* work (silk screen).
Alas, modern photo copiers compensate for the "copy of a copy of a copy..."
and most of the (carefully numbered) copies in the SEQUENCE were pretty
much identical to the original. As a last gasp (without resorting to
computer trickery, tools, or such), i ended up having a fragmented
copy of Maryln for all of the photos (black and white xerographic) and
one 4-colour Maryln in the middle. Very nice.
Which brings us back to what it is that we do as artists.
We create unique works (hopefully: but when the rent is due, i'm as
willing as the next starving artist to purchase a "sofa-sized canvas"
and get out the bright oh-so-sellable *bright and cheery* colours...).
And hopefully, we maintain some sense of what we are "about" -- usually,
refered to as the "soul of this artist" or "the deepest sense of the
artist's inner aesthetic" and (again hopefully):
The integrity of the aritist AS artist.
Now, we face the problem of authentic vs allographic art.
Now, we face the problem of reproduction.
Now, we face the problem of authorised copies.
The manuscript of Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony is not authentic is
is allogrraphic -- except (assumein such) the original manuscript itself.
The playing of his Fifth Symphony IS autographic.
A copy of the performance is allographic.
Thus, we have dealt with the problem; and consequently, can sleep
peacefully at night.
Well.
Mostly.
I mean....
All that don't worry about such things, ... err, ah..
Like the Lady or the Tiger.
(night all)
INSERT CARTOON HERE
Mepo: Yes, yes. But, that piano piece is trivial!
A child of Nine could do better!
Why is everyone applauding so???
Gleeba: That's because she's not a musician; but a photographer.
Mepo: And what was all that mush about "The Soaring of the Human Spirit"???
What tripe!
Gleeba: You just don't understand Quantum Mechanics.
Mepo: (blink, blink)
FADE FROM SCeNe
Formal conclusion: It is when we attempt to "cross boundaries"
-- that's when the real magic happens.
Step off the cliff! Cross anything into anything else.
Count two; and on until morning.
The Aesthetics of Sound & Silence
The Aesthetics of Silence
The author would especially like to thank Professors Dufour and Riccio
for many fruitful disucssions that led to much thinking (ah,that again!)
about sound.
First off there is both sound and non-sound. Even when we would say
that it is silent, there is almost inevitably SOME sound present.
In the limiting case, we would certainly be aware of the sounds of
our own body; eg, breathing, pulse, ambient sounds, that we make,
etc.
Thus, in the same way that by even having a blank canvas, we have created
a distinguishing mark that creates the canvas (art) vis a vis the non-canvas
(and presumably the non-art). Thus, in any area of spece, by introducing
sound(s) into it, we create the sound vis a vis non-sound dichotomy.
And of course we must be aware of the surfaces onto which the sounds are
falling/reflecting/etc. A solid concrete wall reflects sound most directly,
open-faced insullation covered with canvas absorbs almost all sound.
Pitch and tone, as well as the source of the sound (timbre) will determine
its effects as well.
To proceed to a less theoretical level, let us look at a few sound
methods.
Musical instruments, the human voice, the body itself, are all
tradtional sound sources. Into this we can of course introduce
single events (dots) or repetition (line? surface? volume?) and
of course repetition of patterns. Many musical sensibilities are
based on the concept of "rule of three" -- three things being the
usual minimum to establish a pattern.
If we look at the human voice, then we can consider words as one
of the primary components. This could be speech/conversation/monolog/etc,
lists of meaningless words, text "blocked out" with gestures or not,
poetry, folk music, rap, slam, all the way up to complex operetic arias,
choirs, etc.
These can be then combined (or not) with instrumentation. These range
from penny whistel tunes, to orchestral arrangemetns with voice. Not
to forget the work of Cage and others in "tuned piano" experiments,
as well as stomp (where even a brick wall becomes an instrument), etc.
In the same way that we think of "contrasting" and "complementary"
elements in visual design, so to we use the ideas in sound design.
Additionally, we then see how the VISUAL and AUDIAL elements work
together: Enhancing or dis-enhancing, re-enforcing or negating, etc.
The (current?) limitiation of sound, is that don't (yet?) have the
equivalent of a "sound laser" where we could create a beam of sound
thru which the person could pass. Or a surface of sound. In the same
way that we can drape down ribbons of colour to create walls thru
which the spectator can pass, we would eventually like to be able to
do the same with sound. At present, we are limited to created ROOMS
into which sounds are carefully introduced, and (hopefully) contained.
We could think of a series of rooms in the first one is a certain
kind of music, then as the person passed into the next room (a
segue room) containing some sort of linking music or sound to the
third room, where-in a new kind of sound would be experienced.
Naturally, we can control the TIME-ING of sound. We can blend many
sounds together, slowly reducing one or another to "sculpt" (cause
to emerge) the sound as we wish. Also, don't forget the work of
Charles Ives when he had two bands start playing the same music
at the same time, then they marched off in different directions,
and when they returned, they were SLIGHTLY out of time with each
other. This can be accomplished by having two different recordings
of the same music played on two boom boxes -- just slightly out of
time. In a particular piece i did ("In memory of a dead bird") i
used two different recordings of Beethovan's 4th symphony. As the
recording progresssed, they would at times come back into sync,
even though the two recordings were by different orchestras and
conductors. This could be applied to ANY music. As it turns out,
there are the two works "Throw Your Hands in the Air" (which i
discovered while watching the film "Mystery Men") has exactly the
same rhythms as the Concord Night Concert of Dave Brubeck's "Take
Five" -- the effect of using these radically different kinds of
music (hip-hop & orchestral jazz) in the same "sound canvas"
staggers the imagination (well, at least mine!). And these things
aren't just going to happen! Get out there and experience as much
and many kinds of music and sound as you can; otherwise, you'll
never understand the myteries of the "Third eye vision; five star
dimension".
And remember a typewriter and a siren are NOT musical instruments,
after all how can one trust Erik Satie who warned us never to visit
people who didn't own furniture music? Especially on a tuesday?
(thanks for TOm Robbins for that one)
The Aesthetics of Gesture
{
The Aesthetics of Movement
motion as fiction -- Zeno's paradox.
motion as life --
motion is frozne by a camera, but then the aesthetic of motion enter into
it, and multiple-exposrues are sought, etc.
motion redux
{
The Aesthetics of Stillness
--30--
Part 2
The Aesthetics of Words
At the very centre of the aesthetic of words are the aesthetic of a single
word and the aesthetic of a poem. Everything else is text, and therfore
a form of story not poem.
To briefly contradict Plato:
The one thing that we as (visual) artists must do is lie.
The one thing that we as poets must doe is to tell the truth.
Consider the absurdist words "wibble" ["Black Adder Goes Forth"] and
"hope" ["Waiting for Godot"]. In both cases, the words are actually
of extreme importance to the narrative (story)
See also: -{The Aesthetics of Poetry}-
In this section: {Intro}
{Lines}
{Lines: Redux}
{Text}
{Sound and Spoken Silence}
-^_6
Defense of Poetry makes perhaps
greater claims for the poet than anyone had ever
dared. Beginning with familiar Romantic distinction
between *imagination* (synthesis) and *reason* [emphasis mine]
(analysis), Shelley proceeds to t attribut to the
products of imagination immense spirtual and
cultural powers. [P. 498]
Thus the two aspects of a poet are revealed in the two
treatments of the Myth of Aphrodite by Ghislin:
[Ghislin, OpCit, P. 128]
The image of Venus; perhaps like the Botticellian
figure standing on the shoreward shell, which can
never cease to affect our sensibility. But now [ie,
the now-ness of Ghislin's poem] she is seen
advancing into the waves. Behind her is the land,
where she has sojourned and become human. Now she
rides no magical shell blown by rose-scattering
winds. She is only a woman wading into the ocean
on an autumn morning.
Yet in that image of a woman are qualities which
the divine Aphrodite was created to embody. Her
thighs are curved like the Venus'-shell, the
antique cowry, whose wave-shedding form suggest
the collaborations of life and sea and whose
wheat-grain shape is the natural symbol of
fecundity and of love. Entering the water, she
is returning to something obscured or lost while
she was on land: Her own mystery,k her proper
self. In a return to her Anadyomenean nature,
without ceasing to be woman in the real and
present world, she is made whole again.
The form, therefore, is a comment on our knowledge
and on the abstracitons
[P.128/129]
by which we live. It is a way of saying that a woman
may be something more than our current defintions
comprehend.
[Pp. 128-129, Ghislin, OpCit]
Indeed, by examinging the various aspects -- whether we limit our
selves to ONE view (eg, artistist, spiritualist, fractalist, etc)
-- we then explode the thing observed using the juxtapostion of
cross-product ideas.
I treat the aesthetics of "the hidden" in a separate section of
this paper: -{The Aesthetics of The Hidden}-
However, we can see that part of the poet's job is to reveal these
multiple views to us. In the same way the surrealists tried to
"get at" these multiple views of an object using visual dynamics
(multiple points of view, simultaneous representations of motion
captured on a still canvas - but not in the way that a camera
freezes motion), dream-recovery (eg, Odilon Redon), autonomous
writing/painting (eg, "Kublah Kahn" by Colledridge, trance painting,
etc), as well as translation from one medium to another.
Additional reading (when we get time)
Mythology: "The Three" Edith Hamilton, Robert Graves, and of course
Bullfinch.
{Back to the TEXT}
-^_6