[microsound] making/erasure

[Paulo Mouat]

Yes, you are. If you look at the headers, you will see you were
replying to a message sent to the "new" list, which is also how you
are receiving this reply. What made you think you were not subscribed
to it?

//p
http://www.interdisciplina.org/00.0


On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Sofus Forsberg <sofus at email.dk> wrote:
> 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
>>
>> .
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> microsound mailing list
> microsound at microsound.org
> http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound
>