Josh: Sorry for taking this thread completely off-topic!


Your comments are very generalized, halcyon days. It’s not the fault of the institutions that there seems to be some sort of “maladjusted social subculture� pouring out of art schools, it’s just a natural byproduct of the types of people who are usually attracted to that sort of environment. That said, what good has been brought to society by the “ normal social types� pouring out of our “conventional, more respected� educational institutions? I can’t say I’m very impressed, to add to the generalizations. Personally, I’m rather glad to attend a school of “odd-ball youth�; for the most part, they seem much more refined and determined than the mainstream of higher education, although this isn’t always the case, obviously. But I’m curious; you seen very hostile towards this very abstract idea of a “outcast youth�, who are these people, exactly? I apologize if my vision isn’t quite as black and white as yours, but I don’t place people so easily into categories of “proper� and “improper�, or accepted and rejected. If I’m not mistaken, weren’t many of our most successful leaders part of this abstract minority, by their own claim?

I will agree with your comment about art students not necessarily being of “creative mind�…this is of equal fault of the institutions themselves: there seems to be a move in art instruction towards a sort of industrial manufacturing aesthetic, pumping out “artists� capable and ready for a market eager to absorb what can only be described as their cookie-cutter approach to the arts. Personally, I wouldn’t say that simply declaring oneself “a student of art" makes you an "artist"; there is no manufacturing plant for genius. I’m also very much against art instruction on a personal level. My only reason for attending an art college is for the receipt at the end, which serves as an official stamp of approval upon abilities I already had prior to admission.

However, as for your comments about "high realism", that’s rubbish and based purely on personal opinion. I'll align myself w/ the "trendy modernist crowd� and say that I can't really call myself a fan of impersonating reality...have I the skills necessary to accomplish this? Of course! However; concept, technique, originality and singularity of vision are more important, in my mind, than replicating what the eye sees of the physical world...unless of course you’re speaking instead of the ideas of the modernists, that the internal worlds we create are much more real than anything the outside world could offer. In that case, I’ll agree with you completely.


I see. Well, I do apologize that the art world is not currently operating up to your high standards. I can't wait to see your contributions, halcyon days, as you surely must be tapping into something elusive and mysterious that we're all missing. As for "relevance", I see no crime there. Would you prefer all "creative minds" merely skip along the path walked by so many others? If their aim to find relevance through originality, I see no sin there. Anyone with any sort of aspirations whatsoever desires success and recognition...how they go about it is the determining factor, I think.

As for "modern art" being imitative, that's garbage. All art is...you couldn't name me one single example of art in any medium that is not derivative, in some way, of something that had come before. Art is a process of forward, upward motion, rising up upon the foundations lad before...it's the way it's always been and always will be...

...anyway, sorry if I've also failed to meet your quality standards in this post, halcyon.

Actually I quite enjoy your post and your style, Seba. You have the intellectual rigor that I prize above many other things in life. So in that sense I think we're coming from the same place, in so far as your and my approach is concerned.

Re: mainstream institutions producing creative genius. The thing that I think you see reflected in the mainstream institutions is mostly volume; there are creative geniuses lurking all over mainstream campuses, they just dont advertise. Can you blame them? Quote 'mainstream' institutions (according to the dichotomy which you inadvertently espouse between creative and uncreative types) are responsible for massively influential advances in all walks of life.

Planck, Freud, Einstein, Godel, Quine, Wittgenstein, Popper, Macluhan, etc.

Re: the relationship of art school to creativity and to the sculpting of creative art types. Picasso is a perfect example of this: he scoffed at the academic tradition in art -- and rightly so. His sketch drawing for the final examination of artschool was produced in no time. Following that the development of his art was unfettered by any norms. Of course the question: was his genius so exceptional as to be considered as a special case? Yes and no. His technical skills were undeniable, but they never translated as directly as his ideas did in his later art. Picasso shows us that the development of ideas is as crual as their execution. Today this has even greater relevance to students of art, who are borne into the field during a time of its utter stagnation and completely contrived approach. If Nietzsche were alive today he would make an equal proclamation concerning his views on god, as on art. It's a corpse, and needs a forensic coroner... not a group of incestuous necrophiliacs in its wake.

Re: modern art being imitative. What I meant by the original statement was that all attempts made by Art Students these days are derivitaive. I say this because the modus that they examine (introspective), has already been tarred, feathered, bleached, cleaned, killed, and taxidermied, by artists in preceeding generations. Following the break with high realism the creative ideas were quickly exhausted by artists in the various traditions. Until that point the real imitative values of high realism were aesthetically praised, and the subtelties evolved through content. The entire foci of modern art is blunt, childish, and often ignorant of the necessary relationship between form and content. In a word, modern art has a tendency to be very self-absorbed and very wank. Thats a brief critique but there is obviously more to the story. And yes, I happen to enjoy much of modern art but that doesnt prevent me from criticizing its inherent weaknesses.

Re: Outcast youth. All that P.C. crap aside about 'proper and improper' (a dichotomy which I never explicitly made)... you have to realize that the attraction of art school for certain personality types is predicated on a weirdo self-conscious attitude towards individuality. Mostly the idea that external manifestations of your physical being are the best way of distinguishing yourself from the masses. Its a little unhealthy, which is imho. But personal judgements aside its quite easy to see that art students are usually eccentric -- and that eccentricity is usually a reflection of an unhealthy desire for attention and individuality.

Re: relevance. Most of the art students who graduate today, like alof of students in the social sciences and humanities in the larger and more rigorous 'mainstream' learning institutions, are stuck with trying to find relevance. Its nothing to do with them so much as it has to do with our advanced standing in all of these fields. Especially so in art, mind you, because it hit its apogee long ago -- and also because technology has diluted the aesthetic sense to the point where the distinguishing characteristic between art and other forms of media is the posture taken by the art crowd (for laughs I'll characterize them as beret-wearing, cigarette smoking, neo-bohemians... not accurate, but fun). The attitude towards 'art' has become the characteristic of it, which means that the value of art is no longer wedded to its inherent aesthetic value/function. CG killed art, but so did peoples reluctance to adopt a pretentious view towards its important. If people were only more snobby about it; if only it could have relevance in a way which is inclusive for people, instead of exclusive and vaingloriously self-referential.

Well, I'll be sure to continue our little repartee as soon as I'm able (probably later tonight)...I've an art history class to get to.

I make some music...I had lots of keyboards and modules, but nowadays I use mostly a notebook and a small keyboard, I still own some stuff like a Roland jd800 or a dx21. For programming I use Nuendo, which is very good with lots of plug-ins like stuff from native instruments or steinberg (of course there are dozen of others companys that creat great virtual instruments but I will not enter in detail here). But what's important isn't what the others use, or have, is creativity, some guys can make great music with very little stuff.
Lfoid

... BINGO...

-- drsquid

Squid Quote of the moment:
Zeus was deified, saw Suez.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Lfoid says about "great music with very little stuff". Squarepusher's first few albums are great examples of this. With a lot of various things to use, you can create a lot of different styles of music (i.e. a 20 piece drum kit compared to a 5 piece). The people that use the most minimal of things, equipment wise, and maximize the sound thats possible, has more respect from me than someone using the most they can obtain to get the same, full sound. Jazz drummers are also good examples. The can get the same type of sound, or the same smooth fluidity that a metal drummer can have with a massive set. It's all about brains behind the creative genius which is the creator.

good point Josh and Lfoid.

I also want to point out that even if you(in general) know what instruments/softwares/synths aphex twins uses, you will not be able to reproduce the same sounds with the same feelings. it is because
1. you probably don't have the same samples he has
2. you don't think like he does.
3. you and him would have totally different ways to use the equipment.

I understand if you like certain artists' style and you want to be able to do the same. but you also have to think about develop your own style, intead being a mere xerox machine.

why not walk your own path, instead of walking other people's?

and this is why me and Halcyon have been agreeing that by copying other people's styles, especially right now in the world of electronic music, it has become quite bland and uninteresting in most aspects.

I can't believe Halcyon's only been here since March, it feels longer for some reason.

IDM/etc. is definitely stale right now, the last true innovator was Squarepusher, i.e. "how the fuck did he make the drums do that?" But even he became a victim of prog mentality, i.e. "look what I can make the fuckin' drums do!".

It's kind of hard to sound different when everyone starts using similar software as soon as it comes out, but once again, it's what is done with it that counts.

well you know what they say... everything's been done. At least until something new comes along