Formalismo Vs Anti-Formalismo
Esta peça de Ian Penman sobre Terre Thaemlitz é um delírio (de eventual inspiração Burroughsiana) cuja inteligibilidade depende em boa parte do arcaboiço do leitor. Perto do fim, define angularmente as coisas que são absolutamente incontornáveis na existência de qualquer arte:
<<< is it enough merely to register & tick "experiment" for its "own" sake (and pleasure)? The electroacoustique composer - old and new, academic and street - goes no futher [in one final analysis] than saying: I did this because I chose to do it. Because it could be done. But no questioning, ever, of what constitutes the privileged "I" in any such instance. E.g., that at certain historical moments only certain people are allowed the freedom equipment time to experiment, to occupy - in terms both symbolic & literal - such SPACE. Or that such space may be getting just a little frayed & fatigued at this late stage; that what should concern the modern day electroacoustique composer might rather be the urgent renegotiation of entirely NEW spaces for NEW people and NEW subjects say>>>
<<< Outside. There is ALWAYS an Outside to production. In LOVEBOMB e.g. the far from chance folding together of the serrated edges of Italianate Futurism with the communally tacitly approved lynching of three niggers niggers to a man in the once home town of Thaemlitz; he notes a detail - it is always the details somehow - to wit: the scafFOLD of the gallows was made of piano crates from a local music store: ebony and ivory living together>>>
<<< or public housing: and you may WELL ask if America is founded on self love why it has no public health system, I know we in Europe find this>>>
<<< in fact, one definition of anti formalism might indeed be: a world in which an essay on electronic music leads naturally to questions of public housing and health care>>>
<<< compare with formalism's exclusive concern with signpots to other artworks, answerable only to a finite index of creative 'differences' - which is perhaps only another way of saying similarity. Piece 'x' is similar to other concrete works - that is its [only] difference. The stress ENGAGED anti-formalist text/music is a differntial net-work, a fabric of traces referring endlessly pertinently to something other than itself and its precious precedents; whereas formalism in unifying its concerns to a note closes off the field - closes it off from the turbulence the contraindication of any Outside or beyond or>>>
<<< such formalism has often had irresolvable links with academia and state funding bodies. BUT IT REFUSES TO GIVE AWAY ANY SIGN WHATSOEVER THAT IT IS IN ANY WAY PART OF THE SOCIUS. The kind of discourse prevalent is one almost designed to FILTER OUT in advance and to protect by insuring [like a White house press briefing] that the WRONG QUESTION is never asked: that NO criticism is fielded, e.g., one is not supposed to ask: why should we be the least bit surprised or interested that you recorded this glitch and not that one? It all sounds exactly the same as last years 70 mins of glitch sounds from you: isn't this whole project in danger of becoming severely limited and moreover safely institutionalised? Which may be the crowning paradox of a music whose whole so called CUTTING EDGE project is to cut through and perilously fragment and disassemble 'safe' facades...- BUT nothing is ever allowed to unexpectedly TEAR THROUGH the façade of its representation of itself as 'avant garde' as experimental as>>>
"-the way that a lot of these people talk about their music is really just in terms of this kind of abstract sound-as-sound, something that is removed, or extra-social, super-social... which for me is an ideological front in itself: there is no way to escape the social. . there's nothing natural about computer music - which I like. Because nothing's natural." {Thamelitz quote
Não é nada difícil imaginar de que «lado» estou.
<<< is it enough merely to register & tick "experiment" for its "own" sake (and pleasure)? The electroacoustique composer - old and new, academic and street - goes no futher [in one final analysis] than saying: I did this because I chose to do it. Because it could be done. But no questioning, ever, of what constitutes the privileged "I" in any such instance. E.g., that at certain historical moments only certain people are allowed the freedom equipment time to experiment, to occupy - in terms both symbolic & literal - such SPACE. Or that such space may be getting just a little frayed & fatigued at this late stage; that what should concern the modern day electroacoustique composer might rather be the urgent renegotiation of entirely NEW spaces for NEW people and NEW subjects say>>>
<<< Outside. There is ALWAYS an Outside to production. In LOVEBOMB e.g. the far from chance folding together of the serrated edges of Italianate Futurism with the communally tacitly approved lynching of three niggers niggers to a man in the once home town of Thaemlitz; he notes a detail - it is always the details somehow - to wit: the scafFOLD of the gallows was made of piano crates from a local music store: ebony and ivory living together>>>
<<< or public housing: and you may WELL ask if America is founded on self love why it has no public health system, I know we in Europe find this>>>
<<< in fact, one definition of anti formalism might indeed be: a world in which an essay on electronic music leads naturally to questions of public housing and health care>>>
<<< compare with formalism's exclusive concern with signpots to other artworks, answerable only to a finite index of creative 'differences' - which is perhaps only another way of saying similarity. Piece 'x' is similar to other concrete works - that is its [only] difference. The stress ENGAGED anti-formalist text/music is a differntial net-work, a fabric of traces referring endlessly pertinently to something other than itself and its precious precedents; whereas formalism in unifying its concerns to a note closes off the field - closes it off from the turbulence the contraindication of any Outside or beyond or>>>
<<< such formalism has often had irresolvable links with academia and state funding bodies. BUT IT REFUSES TO GIVE AWAY ANY SIGN WHATSOEVER THAT IT IS IN ANY WAY PART OF THE SOCIUS. The kind of discourse prevalent is one almost designed to FILTER OUT in advance and to protect by insuring [like a White house press briefing] that the WRONG QUESTION is never asked: that NO criticism is fielded, e.g., one is not supposed to ask: why should we be the least bit surprised or interested that you recorded this glitch and not that one? It all sounds exactly the same as last years 70 mins of glitch sounds from you: isn't this whole project in danger of becoming severely limited and moreover safely institutionalised? Which may be the crowning paradox of a music whose whole so called CUTTING EDGE project is to cut through and perilously fragment and disassemble 'safe' facades...- BUT nothing is ever allowed to unexpectedly TEAR THROUGH the façade of its representation of itself as 'avant garde' as experimental as>>>
"-the way that a lot of these people talk about their music is really just in terms of this kind of abstract sound-as-sound, something that is removed, or extra-social, super-social... which for me is an ideological front in itself: there is no way to escape the social. . there's nothing natural about computer music - which I like. Because nothing's natural." {Thamelitz quote
Não é nada difícil imaginar de que «lado» estou.
Comentários