i once went to a show i'd seen advertised in London for a free John Cage performance. i'd listened to his prepared piano stuff, loved it, was very excited. the 'performance' turned out to be 4 tape players stood in a room, and eventually 4 guys wearing classical music outfits and white gloves came and pressed play. still angry, 15 years later...
i see the artist today in the role mainly of an editor... though of course it depends on what sort of granular level you are editing on. designing instruments means you have some sort of pre-conceived notion of a certain behavior you want to achieve. but at the end of the day, when we are talking about performing or sharing the work with someone else, we can choose the content of what we want the audience to experience, and also give hints or highlight or suggest a certain lens through which to understand or receive that content. what i mean is, in general, lots of people talk about agency and validation through being the specific origin of the content but at the end of the day what really matters is what connects to the audience. i love your conversation about these topics, very thought provoking!
That's definitely a big part of it, both in terms of what is "shared" with people (audience or otherwise) as well as what one decides to engage with. I imagine there's a lot of overlap with objects/implements in your practice where you can always do more with the same things, or make your own things, or variations of things, etc... The "focus" of that part of the art has an editorial aspect to it since it will inform everything else downstream from that.
i love everything about this. thanks for the sounds and insightful discussion !
Thank you :)
Now I have also had the time to listen / watch it. Very interesting to talk and lovely performances. Thanks again!
Thanks for the kind words :)
super beautiful, thanks
Wonderful, so great to hear the thinking behind it as well
Thanks! Yeah that's part of the core idea. This one was great as we end up covering so much ground in the talking bit.
Psst. It says Dan Derks - electronics in the description :)
Good catch! Edited.
i once went to a show i'd seen advertised in London for a free John Cage performance. i'd listened to his prepared piano stuff, loved it, was very excited. the 'performance' turned out to be 4 tape players stood in a room, and eventually 4 guys wearing classical music outfits and white gloves came and pressed play. still angry, 15 years later...
lol, yeah. Some of the stuff is super interesting and amazing, but can also be massively disappointing and clinical, especially if presented that way.
i see the artist today in the role mainly of an editor... though of course it depends on what sort of granular level you are editing on. designing instruments means you have some sort of pre-conceived notion of a certain behavior you want to achieve. but at the end of the day, when we are talking about performing or sharing the work with someone else, we can choose the content of what we want the audience to experience, and also give hints or highlight or suggest a certain lens through which to understand or receive that content. what i mean is, in general, lots of people talk about agency and validation through being the specific origin of the content but at the end of the day what really matters is what connects to the audience. i love your conversation about these topics, very thought provoking!
That's definitely a big part of it, both in terms of what is "shared" with people (audience or otherwise) as well as what one decides to engage with. I imagine there's a lot of overlap with objects/implements in your practice where you can always do more with the same things, or make your own things, or variations of things, etc... The "focus" of that part of the art has an editorial aspect to it since it will inform everything else downstream from that.
waau thank you for this! :)
I think this is how entish sounds...