[microsound] making/erasure

[jeff gburek]

am i still subscribed to this list...this is a test

j.ff gbk

http://www.futurevessel.com/orphansound

http://www.idiosyncratics.net/netlabel.html

http://www.con-v.org/online.html

http://www.djalma.com

http://www.mattin.org/desetxea.html


--- On Tue, 1/20/09, Charles Turner <vze26m98 at optonline.net> wrote:

> From: Charles Turner <vze26m98 at optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: [microsound] making/erasure
> To: microsound at microsound.org
> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 3:33 PM
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:37:39 -0500, Stephen Hastings-King
> wrote:
> > 1. the category of aesthetics is a problem. classical
> aesthetic 
> > theory takes the work as given for it's point of
> departure.  
> > bourgeois and materialist forms of aesthetic theory
> differ primarily 
> > in the interpretive frameworks they bring to bear on
> the artwork.
> > in both, the processes of making are erased behind the
> work as 
> > totality and are replaced with one or another version
> of the mythical 
> > Artist.
> > it seems to me that one of the many conceptual tasks
> that await 
> > us--whatever that means--out there in the world is to
> undo this 
> > category and the constraints that enframe it.
> > this isn't exactly a new idea---lots of folk have
> addressed it one 
> > way or another since the 60s at least--in alot of
> cases, the way folk 
> > went at it was to tack on autobiographical statements
> after fairly 
> > straightforward aesthetic pronouncements.
> 
> Hi Stephen-
> 
> I've always found Stefan Morawski's distinction
> between "artistic 
> value" and "aesthetic valuation" to be
> useful. (The first chapter of 
> his 1974 _Fundamentals_ book sets it out.)
> 
> Morawski was trying to justify both an historical
> materialist approach, 
> and an aesthetics that could encompass neolithic cave art,
> Poussin, and 
> Duchamp/Cage/Fluxus.
> 
> Briefly, he posits artistic values as those attributes that
> an artist 
> instills in an "object" that cause us to relate
> to it as such. Artistic 
> value is then prior to any aesthetic understanding of the
> art object. 
> (As he points out, people were making art objects long
> before there was 
> any body of aesthetic thought.)
> 
> Aesthetics is essentially a judgement of these artistic
> values, and an 
> attempt to come to terms with how general and particular
> values 
> instilled in art objects come to be significant.
> 
> But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.
> 
> Best, Charles
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> microsound mailing list
> microsound at microsound.org
> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound