[microsound] making/erasure

[Sofus Forsberg]

yes and im not subscribed to the new one :(

jeff gburek wrote:
> 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
>>     
>
>
>       
> _______________________________________________
> microsound mailing list
> microsound at microsound.org
> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound
>
> .
>
>