i'm not sure i understand the relation between working with conceptual
games/problems and working with sound that's being presupposed in some
of the responses like the one i will leave below (the quotes from audio
culture--which is a lovely collection in the main, even as some of the
edits are strange)...<br>
<br>it's like folk assume there's some rigid translation at work in
linking them--so what comes up against this projection (and it's
nothing more than that) seems two-fold:<br>1. if you don't use the same approaches or know the same languages, what you do is somehow less legit.<br>2. in reaction against this, there follows usually one or another defense of immediacy.<br>
<br>i don't know where that assumption comes from.<br><br>
speaking for myself, these are parallel games. i think of them as
oscillators that generate separate signals but that couple in the
process of making stuff and which through that open up different
possibilities----sometimes i try to set up constraints explicitly
presuppose theoretical questions, but more often i find that the
registers of working interact with each other almost on their own,
simply as a function of how i think in performance settings
and--especially---of how i think when i'm listening back to the
recorded maps of performances.<br>
and i find the problems that arise from trying to bend writing around
to interact with sound work without substituting it for soundwork to be
an interesting. difficult, but fun--you know.<br><br>it
appears that some folk here find this combination of pursuits to be
generative and some don't--which is fine---but i haven't seen anyone
trying to impose that combination on folk who don't work that way, and
it wouldn't have crossed my mind that this (or any other) discussion
about philo or politics here would be taken as doing that.<br>
<br>i guess i've been on this list for a while now and i've never
understood the differend that seems to come up during political or
theoretical questions surface.<br><br>=========<br>on "everyone's a situationist" i meant more or less what kim suggested...tons of folk are out there doing psychogeography these days---alot of "radical cartography" leans on it. i find some of it interesting, alot of it not so much, like anything else. <br>
<br>i've worked alot on situationist stuff and over time have become increasingly suspicious of the whole category of psychogeography (the "subjective appropriation of urban space" which was set up as a reaction against and critique of the types of urban planning that were being used in the paris of the late 1950s--you know gridspace and the creation of space for an automobile-oriented city that went along with the reworking of the parisian housing stock during the 50s, which resulted in the erasure of alot of older streets and flattening of alot of buildings---and the type of design that built structured environments for leisure--that kind of thing). it seems to me that it gives up more than it gains by retreating to the subjective. this even as i think psychogeography experiments generate cool maps.<br>
<br>am doing stuff, so have to get back to it.<br><br><br>ps thanks for the recommendations re. critiques of information theory. some i knew about, some i didn't. good.<br><br>stephen<br>