Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Quartz Composer Examples
Check out these incredible examples made by an artist named Futurismo Zugakousaku in Quartz Composer: http://www.zugakousaku.com
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Signs of Life
Here's a picture from the opening night of Signs of Life. I had no idea what to expect going into it so I was pleasantly surprised by the show. As per the norm for most opening nights there were a few glitches within Isadora. For about 5 or 6 minutes the program froze and the actors went on without it. I'm not sure why exactly it froze but it all got sorted out and the show finished well.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Maya Deren "The Very Eye of Night"
While watching this video in class, I was awed by the simplicity of the video. With todays computers we can do much of what she did with a few simple keystrokes. And yet it was such a feat for her to hand cut the film and by hand do all the animation of the stars and dancers. There was a distinct hand made feel to it that made it actually more interesting then when we use computers to pull off the same effects. The computer is more mechanical and it does things more precisely; you could see the random shaking in her hands.
It was an engaging video that captured my attention.
Mary Hallock-Greenewalt: Media Pioneer
Portrait of Mary Hallock-Greenewalt (1871-1951) by Thomas Eakins
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Very Eye of Night
Astrophysics [For Maya]
Our bare feet in the damp grass, we spin after dusk,
As our mothers call us in by ones and twos, insistent.
Dizzy with freedom, palms and planets revolving together,
We play our games, pretend to be statues, or spin while laughing,
Giddy cosmonauts awaiting our landing.
Above us the stars traverse the stage in elegant alignments.
The Twins with their sculpted torsos cavort with the Pleiades,
Some goddesses so faint that they are almost forgotten,
Lost amid the rush of vertigo and gravitas,
Eleusian Mysteries conducted to flute, chime, and drum.
Three Graces pose themselves just so,
The curvatures of intention in a constellation of movement.
And for a while there is no up or down, beyond buoyancy,
No rules to obey, only floating perspectives,
The ancient forms breathing again,
For we are at the axis, peering into the very eye of night.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Expanded Cinema - Selections from Part 1
While reading the first part of Expanded Cinema, I was struck by a sentence in the section, Popular Culture and Noosphere, which mentioned that the world population was at three and half billion people at the time of the writing. Now, as I sit here responding to the writing, I realize that I am a part of a population of humans that has doubled in just over forty years.
Pondering this fact, brings a lot of questions to mind. I wonder what is the relationship between the ever-growing population and the intermedia network? On one side, the network can serve to condition people especially if it is largely corporate controlled and appeals to the lowest common denominator of taste. When McLuhan referenced Pavlov’s experiment with the dogs, he said that the true significance was that it showed that controlled and man-made environments produce passive sleepwalkers that are conditioned to act without questioning the rules in place. The intermedia network on one level can serve to do just this. Rather than create a richer reality that incorporates that diversity of cultures across the world, it can serve to instead spread a message of reality that is corporate controlled and narrow in focus. This message can be wrapped in glamour and glitz, capturing our attention, though not expanding our understanding of the world we live in.
On the other hand, if used to educate and connect communities, the intermedia network can extend the “psychic mobility” of individuals by exposing them to realities that exist beyond their immediate vicinity. Individuals can partake in this network to create and fund documentaries, journalism, art, etc. that comes from the bottom up rather than the top down and works to educate rather than distract. Obviously this is already being done.
In The Intermedia Network as Nature, the author states, “We’re now moving into the Cybernetic Age in which man learns that to control his environment he must cooperate with it; he not only participates but actually recreates his environment both physical and metaphysical, and in turn is conditioned by it”. So then, what is the role of content creators? If this intermedia network is becoming more and more pervasive, reaching out to people even on their cell phones in Africa, India, China, South America etc., how can the network be used to solves problems, educate, and create meaningful community across borders and oceans and deserts rather than spread a corporate message. Also, as interactivity becomes more pervasive in digital environments, how will this affect how we see ourselves on the metaphysical level and in turn what effect will this have on the material world? And last, though the intermedia network will spread to more and more people, what is being left unsaid by those who do not have access to such networks?
More food for thought....
Internet World Stats
USA Today Article - Cellphone Use
Pondering this fact, brings a lot of questions to mind. I wonder what is the relationship between the ever-growing population and the intermedia network? On one side, the network can serve to condition people especially if it is largely corporate controlled and appeals to the lowest common denominator of taste. When McLuhan referenced Pavlov’s experiment with the dogs, he said that the true significance was that it showed that controlled and man-made environments produce passive sleepwalkers that are conditioned to act without questioning the rules in place. The intermedia network on one level can serve to do just this. Rather than create a richer reality that incorporates that diversity of cultures across the world, it can serve to instead spread a message of reality that is corporate controlled and narrow in focus. This message can be wrapped in glamour and glitz, capturing our attention, though not expanding our understanding of the world we live in.
On the other hand, if used to educate and connect communities, the intermedia network can extend the “psychic mobility” of individuals by exposing them to realities that exist beyond their immediate vicinity. Individuals can partake in this network to create and fund documentaries, journalism, art, etc. that comes from the bottom up rather than the top down and works to educate rather than distract. Obviously this is already being done.
In The Intermedia Network as Nature, the author states, “We’re now moving into the Cybernetic Age in which man learns that to control his environment he must cooperate with it; he not only participates but actually recreates his environment both physical and metaphysical, and in turn is conditioned by it”. So then, what is the role of content creators? If this intermedia network is becoming more and more pervasive, reaching out to people even on their cell phones in Africa, India, China, South America etc., how can the network be used to solves problems, educate, and create meaningful community across borders and oceans and deserts rather than spread a corporate message. Also, as interactivity becomes more pervasive in digital environments, how will this affect how we see ourselves on the metaphysical level and in turn what effect will this have on the material world? And last, though the intermedia network will spread to more and more people, what is being left unsaid by those who do not have access to such networks?
More food for thought....
Internet World Stats
USA Today Article - Cellphone Use
Monday, February 1, 2010
Reading Response: Radical Evolution, Intermedia Network, Popcultue/noosphere
Part 1 Radical Evolution and Future Shock in the Paleocybernetic Age, The Intermedia Network as Nature, and Popular Culture and the Noosphere:
The articles become interesting in temporal context, even though
this was only written in 1970 it feels like a brief
retelling of some past that should feel familiar but doesn't.
His rhetoric is riff with the aqueous glow reverberating
from the American "hippie" youth revolution of the 60's and
70's with his belief that a global worldwide
revolution was being birthed on the earth. Which to the
authors credit was probably the result of his global "intermedia
network" which to him would be credited to Cinema, TV, Radio and
print media. And today would expand to include the
internet. Just as many young people
today believe and feel that something is afoot, some revolution of the social fabric through the internet and other "converging technology" . SO my question is than does every new generation
feel an overwhelming revolution just on the horizon in response to changing
technological innovations?
I really had an issue with some of his arguments, as in
his distinctions of craft from industry and art from
entertainment. To pretend that art was never entertainment
is to affect the attitudes of the intellectual elitism
plaguing the "art" world today.
Youngblood writes:
"One might
make a similar analogy between entertainment and art: entertainment
is inherently "local," that is, of limited significance, whereas
art is inherently universal and of unlimited significance. Too often
today we find that so-called artists working in the intermedia
network are little more than adroit imitators, collectors of data and
phenomena, which they glean from the noosphere and amalgamate
into packages that are far from whole. They're clever and glib;
they've made an art of selling themselves, but they know only effect,
not cause; they are merchants of mannerisms. " end quote.
And yes though the criticism of those "artists" working in the in intermedia network
being glib imitators only ripping stuff off from the "noosphere" may seem rather apropos
he fails to acknowledge the fact that humans not just artists have been constantly
ripping each other off since the dawn of time. What is Vernadsky's and Chardin's nooopshere? really only a cool word.
Man has always been embedded in the web of culture since its coalescing. What it's really about
is as Lars Ulrich so adequately put it is "control". Who is the story teller? old versus new.
The old in fostering the new for its own continued survival
must now defend its relevancy or bear the fate of a perceived nonexistence.
Jason Lanier: Gift Culture and "Digital Peasants"
As a balance to the views discussed in recent class sessions about Intellectual Property Rights, Copyright, image and sound appropriation, and Digital Culture, here is a recent article from the New York Times about a digital pioneer who sees problems with the ideology of the web.
Notes and Reaction to "Art, Entertainment, Entropy"
General Reaction:
The author's overall argument that traditional cinema is incapable of expanding the understanding of the human experience, or has inability to contribute to the evolution of humankind, because of its root in classical dramaturgy, is argued through a tunnel-visioned perspective. Cinema has been said by some to be the greatest art, in that it has the ability to incorporate the most treasured aspects of all artistic disciplines. What the author is arguing is that entertainment films, or commercially oriented films do not have the ability to future the artistic 'energy' that fuels our expansion as a global community. There are certainly films that stem from the commercial or studio sector that I would say this is true. However, to label the entirety of traditional narrative cinema as predictable, and therefore ineffective in its attempts to change our understanding, is simply wrong.
Passages with My Notes (Written in Bold):
Plot, story, and what commonly is known as "drama" are the devices that enable the commercial entertainer to manipulate his audience. The very act of this manipulation, gratifying conditioned needs, is what the films actually are about. (Not true. There is an inherent human desire to relate story. To pass on lessons or knowledge through example. An explicit story heightens the message or makes the knowledge relatable).
The viewer purchases it with his ticket and is understandably annoyed if the film asks him to manipulate himself, to engage in the creative process along with the artist. (Not an absolute truth. This is a generalization of who the author perceives to be the audience of commercial entertainment.)…The viewer of commercial entertainment cinema does not want to work; he wants to be an object, to be acted upon, to be manipulated. (These are broad generalizations, with a limited and simplistic perspective.)
The Author brings up Hitchcock and Psycho, and, as Hitchcock admits, that the film was a manipulation of the audiences' expected reaction, through the perfection of the story telling. However, the author does not bring up Hitchcock's other films, such as Vertigo, which plunges the depths of the human psyche more effectively than some of the most recognizable works of art. It aims to make the audience confront their own fear or phobia or weakness. Is it not possible anymore to create a work in the tradition of the classical dramatists, and not call it art? Should the plays of Shakespeare not be called art?
Out of the nearly 7 Billion of People on Earth, many do not have the capacity or the frame of reference to pull the "energy" from works of art that this author claims must be non-familiar in order to be effective. I would argue the a more traditional or familiar work that has the ability to speak to many, and challenge just a small part of their understanding of the human condition is more effective (or contributes more energy) than a work that is interpretable, and therefore thought changing, to a few.
Drama, by definition, means conflict, which in turn means suspense. Suspense is requisite on the expectation of known alternatives. One cannot expect the unknown. Therefore expectation, suspense, and drama are all redundant probable qualities and thus are noninformative. (This author places the importance and the value on the content of the work, especially the evolution of the story's plot. He is not putting value on the audience's experience relating to the story's characters and trying to understand their though process.)
The viewer is forced to create along with the film, to interpret for himself what he is experiencing. (Does the audience of a classically focused main stream drama not interpret the motivation of the characters?) If the information (either concept or design) reveals some previously unrecognized aspect of the viewer's relation to the circumambient universe— or provides language with which to conceptualize old realities more effectively— the viewer recreates that discovery along with the artist, thus feeding back into the environment the existence of more creative potential, which may in turn be used by the artist for messages of still greater eloquence and perception.
(First of all, how does the viewer recreate that discovery along with the artist? How is the experienced shared? And, how does that energy feedback into the artist? This is unfounded, poorly interpreted, weakly argued, new age sounding nonsense. Second, it is too simple, and false, to make a blanket statement about traditional narrative cinema's inability to force new thought and understanding. Simply look at the works of Fillini, which were in worldwide distribution at the date of this publication. The works of this filmmaker were deeply rooted in the traditions of the classical dramatists, yet his films illuminated vastly new perspective on aspects of the human condition, emotion, and experience.)
The author's overall argument that traditional cinema is incapable of expanding the understanding of the human experience, or has inability to contribute to the evolution of humankind, because of its root in classical dramaturgy, is argued through a tunnel-visioned perspective. Cinema has been said by some to be the greatest art, in that it has the ability to incorporate the most treasured aspects of all artistic disciplines. What the author is arguing is that entertainment films, or commercially oriented films do not have the ability to future the artistic 'energy' that fuels our expansion as a global community. There are certainly films that stem from the commercial or studio sector that I would say this is true. However, to label the entirety of traditional narrative cinema as predictable, and therefore ineffective in its attempts to change our understanding, is simply wrong.
Passages with My Notes (Written in Bold):
Plot, story, and what commonly is known as "drama" are the devices that enable the commercial entertainer to manipulate his audience. The very act of this manipulation, gratifying conditioned needs, is what the films actually are about. (Not true. There is an inherent human desire to relate story. To pass on lessons or knowledge through example. An explicit story heightens the message or makes the knowledge relatable).
The viewer purchases it with his ticket and is understandably annoyed if the film asks him to manipulate himself, to engage in the creative process along with the artist. (Not an absolute truth. This is a generalization of who the author perceives to be the audience of commercial entertainment.)…The viewer of commercial entertainment cinema does not want to work; he wants to be an object, to be acted upon, to be manipulated. (These are broad generalizations, with a limited and simplistic perspective.)
The Author brings up Hitchcock and Psycho, and, as Hitchcock admits, that the film was a manipulation of the audiences' expected reaction, through the perfection of the story telling. However, the author does not bring up Hitchcock's other films, such as Vertigo, which plunges the depths of the human psyche more effectively than some of the most recognizable works of art. It aims to make the audience confront their own fear or phobia or weakness. Is it not possible anymore to create a work in the tradition of the classical dramatists, and not call it art? Should the plays of Shakespeare not be called art?
Out of the nearly 7 Billion of People on Earth, many do not have the capacity or the frame of reference to pull the "energy" from works of art that this author claims must be non-familiar in order to be effective. I would argue the a more traditional or familiar work that has the ability to speak to many, and challenge just a small part of their understanding of the human condition is more effective (or contributes more energy) than a work that is interpretable, and therefore thought changing, to a few.
Drama, by definition, means conflict, which in turn means suspense. Suspense is requisite on the expectation of known alternatives. One cannot expect the unknown. Therefore expectation, suspense, and drama are all redundant probable qualities and thus are noninformative. (This author places the importance and the value on the content of the work, especially the evolution of the story's plot. He is not putting value on the audience's experience relating to the story's characters and trying to understand their though process.)
The viewer is forced to create along with the film, to interpret for himself what he is experiencing. (Does the audience of a classically focused main stream drama not interpret the motivation of the characters?) If the information (either concept or design) reveals some previously unrecognized aspect of the viewer's relation to the circumambient universe— or provides language with which to conceptualize old realities more effectively— the viewer recreates that discovery along with the artist, thus feeding back into the environment the existence of more creative potential, which may in turn be used by the artist for messages of still greater eloquence and perception.
(First of all, how does the viewer recreate that discovery along with the artist? How is the experienced shared? And, how does that energy feedback into the artist? This is unfounded, poorly interpreted, weakly argued, new age sounding nonsense. Second, it is too simple, and false, to make a blanket statement about traditional narrative cinema's inability to force new thought and understanding. Simply look at the works of Fillini, which were in worldwide distribution at the date of this publication. The works of this filmmaker were deeply rooted in the traditions of the classical dramatists, yet his films illuminated vastly new perspective on aspects of the human condition, emotion, and experience.)
Saturday, January 30, 2010
I do not believe in entropy.
"The viewer of commercial entertainment
cinema does not want to work; he wants to be an object, to be acted
upon, to be manipulated. "
This is a rather narrow perception of the viewer. Sure many people are satisfied with passive watching but aren't the films and other artwork that truly resonate with us the ones that have a little work involved? Elements of ambiguity have long been used even in commercial films to challenge the audience.
"Art explains; entertainment exploits."
Of course we know that art can exploit, and exploit to great effect. And we can have entertainment that explains. Great science fiction films can do that. They can act more on our own speculative fears for the future and subtle human psychology than any recent visual artwork I have seen.
"The notion of experimental art, therefore, is meaningless. All art is
experimental or it isn't art. Art is research, whereas entertainment is
a game or conflict."
My perception of this section is that it places Art on a kind of pedestal. This idea of "Art" with a capital A is always problematic to me. Art is seem as totally separated from commercial ventures. Art is pure. Commerce is dirty. When exactly has that ever happened? Even the most avant-garde art is created within a commercial system. Nothing is made in a vaccum. The Great Masters had patrons. Damien Hirst had Charles Saatchi. Even the art I create is subsidized by the University of Florida. True, UF is a research institution but we are aware on how the university must create money to survive.
cinema does not want to work; he wants to be an object, to be acted
upon, to be manipulated. "
This is a rather narrow perception of the viewer. Sure many people are satisfied with passive watching but aren't the films and other artwork that truly resonate with us the ones that have a little work involved? Elements of ambiguity have long been used even in commercial films to challenge the audience.
"Art explains; entertainment exploits."
Of course we know that art can exploit, and exploit to great effect. And we can have entertainment that explains. Great science fiction films can do that. They can act more on our own speculative fears for the future and subtle human psychology than any recent visual artwork I have seen.
"The notion of experimental art, therefore, is meaningless. All art is
experimental or it isn't art. Art is research, whereas entertainment is
a game or conflict."
My perception of this section is that it places Art on a kind of pedestal. This idea of "Art" with a capital A is always problematic to me. Art is seem as totally separated from commercial ventures. Art is pure. Commerce is dirty. When exactly has that ever happened? Even the most avant-garde art is created within a commercial system. Nothing is made in a vaccum. The Great Masters had patrons. Damien Hirst had Charles Saatchi. Even the art I create is subsidized by the University of Florida. True, UF is a research institution but we are aware on how the university must create money to survive.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Synaesthetic Synthesis: Simultaneous Perception of Harmonic Opposites
As I read this chapter I began to see how much the author understood the mentality of humanity and how much it had changed since we had begun the efforts of civilization building. The Author mentions that before "800 B.C. few cultures thought in terms of past and present". Yet here we are today with everything in front of us and we cant wait for what tomorrow will bring. The present no longer matters for us, we will always be looking forward to the apple tablet, or next weeks episode of Lost. Instead of representing the future as the "Present manifesting" and past as "Present Manifested", the past becomes ancient history, the present is the past, and the future is our present.
This mindset could have risen from the can-do attitude of the 60's where the future was an ambitious vision of robot maids, flying cars, social utopias. Even now people still wonder why we still don't have those things since now was the future the past promised them tomorrow.
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Intermedia Network as Nature
I also read this section of Part I. This isn't so much a summary of the reading but more of the thought that came to mind while reading it. It's interesting to think that this was written back in 1970 and the trend of media enveloping our lives has far surpassed saturation. When paralleling past and present ways of life, it is apparent and possibly saddening that, with the advent of media through technology, certain "good, wholesome values" have been thrown to the wayside. However, as part of the GenY crowd, I don't even notice it. Sure, the era of personal computers and the Internet came around when I was in elementary school, but I don't remember much before then so as far as I'm concerned, they've been here all along.
One thing I do find to be noteworthy, with regard to the author's mention of society being one of Pavlov's dogs, was living in a foreign country away from all the stimuli and propaganda. Living in Korea for 2.5 years, completely takes you out of your routine. You can't get American television, newspapers (other than Wallstreet Journal), magazines, only a few movies. So unless you are glued to the Internet, you fall out of the loop quite quickly. Koreans themselves are very media-centered, but as an ex-pat who didn't speak the language fluently...I felt very detached from the newest fads. Coming back into the States, required a lot of catching up. I feel people are inundated with information that they don't even realize it's ingrained in everything they do. It was sometimes difficult to have a current events conversation with some people becasue I had no idea who Taylor Swift was or those Kardashian sisters who are famous but I have no idea why. Extracting yourself from mainstream culture for a while puts a whole new perspective on your surroundings.
The Intermedia Network as Nature
As soon as I began reading this section, my mind immediately went to Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message.” Vasulka takes this point a bit further, tracing the evolution of man’s conditioning throughout the ages to the present “Cybernetic Age.” It is a tough pill to swallow. Here we are creating these technologies, yet we’re not controlling their power over us. Our environment has always conditioned us. This new technological era is no exception. We live in a society where those with decades of experience at their jobs are deemed worthless if they are not able to use technology to convey their messages. Our children are growing up in a completely connected world, and functioning within this world will be second nature to them. Hence, they will be conditioned to communicate and receive communications in this way, whether they realize it or not.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Artist As Design Scientist, from Expanded Cinema
In our text, it is Youngblood’s contention that popular entertainment is just a rehashing of ideas that are known, and always one of three basic takes on the human condition: idealization, frustration, and demoralization. In his view, the true artist is seeking to explore new experiences, such as “synaesthetic research of expanded cinema” (p. 67-8). He alludes to in a previous chapter and offers his opinion that truly significant films, like “Beauty and the Beast” by poet and filmmaker Jean Cocteau, are the ones that transcend their genres because of the style and design.
The author then draws a comparison between Art and Science, stating that they both are searching for the “unity in hidden likenesses” and that both seek to reveal potential in the relationship between man and the universe. He doesn’t spend much time making a case for this comparison, though it provides the title for the chapter. In my view, the scientist is most comfortable adhering to boundaries while categorizing and quantifying, while the artist is generally much more capable of crossing boundaries: between mental and physical, Self and Other, cerebral and emotional, and that of the temporal and the timeless.
The aptly named Youngblood goes on to describe the role of an artist as that of establishing imagery and symbols, and by doing so creating a structure of thought so that new modes of reality and consciousness can come into human awareness. The artist creates new language that relates more directly to experience by separating an image from its official symbolic meaning. This new language, according to the author, makes it possible to arrive at a new understanding of old facts, and addresses the ineffable “domain between the conscious and subconscious.”
In his view, the parameters of genre, plot, story, and drama restrict the choices available to filmmakers. He said this is illustrated by cybernetics, which shows that the “structure of a system is the index of the performance which may be expected from it.” This reminded me of an article we read last semester about the paradigm of the database versus the narrative in digital culture. The author states that an Auteur such as Antonioni has, through his art (design science) articulated for his generation that which went unspoken.
In what I think is the most interesting passage in the chapter, Youngblood quotes Rudolph Arnheim in Art and Visual Perception, who is quoted as saying that perception is to sensing as understanding is to reasoning, and that “eyesight is insight”. The author also says that by viewing a film, we are allowed to see through the eyes of the artist, that is, to see intuitively. He makes two statements here that I found myself agreeing with and which could easily discussed at greater length: “our psychological balance are the result of our relation to images” and that “the more ‘beautiful’ the image the more beautiful our consciousness.” However, in the next paragraph he ends the chapter by quoting John Cage for a somewhat different view of Beauty, which is that “Where beauty ends is where the artist begins.” This is a polemic directed at one of the traditional concerns of artists, a definitive statement with all the shadings, nuance, and logic of Christian fundamentalism.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
HOLY CRAP I DID IT!!
I'd just like to share with everyone that I successfully made a video of myself, exported it and put it on pd, rotated and translated it! I'm super excited!!! Thought I'd share. Now if only I could find lighting and fog!
"Sita Sings The Blues"- Cool Animation
Here is the website to view a full length animated movie by Nina Paley that I recommend. I like the way she moves between ancient myths and her contemporary world. She also uses voices recorded from people she interviewed, and created the animation around it as superimposed puppet figures, which is interesting. Since she didn't have the money to pay for the rights to some of the old Blues songs she uses in the soundtrack, she couldn't distribute it commercially. It has such a following that this site has been established for giving her an income stream for all her work. It's a cautionary tale for artists who may not think about copyright issues in the excitement of beginning a major project.Monday, January 11, 2010
PLease watch 1-6 one at a time: ROBERT ASHLEY
This is a groundbreaking modern Opera by Robert Ashley. PLeas ebegin to view it and make a comment on each section. There are six sections. This is a postcard and a snapshot of ideas about dealing with video in entertainment media [TV].The kind of ideas you read about in magazines. His early affiliation with ONCE group is very influential.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWBB3KgAk94
Robert Ashley (born March 28, 1930), is a contemporary American composer, best known for his operas and other theatrical works, many of which incorporate electronics and extended techniques. Along with Gordon Mumma, Ashley was also a major pioneer of audio synthesis.
Ashley was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He studied at the University of Michigan with Ross Lee Finney, at the Manhattan School of Music, and was later a musician in the US Army. After moving back to Michigan, Ashley worked at the University of Michigan's Speech Research Laboratories. Although he was not officially a student in the acoustic research program there, he was offered the chance to obtain a doctorate, but turned it down to pursue his music. [1]. From 1961 to 1969, he organised the ONCE Festival in Ann Arbor with Roger Reynolds, Gordon Mumma, and other local composers and artists. He was a co-founder of the ONCE Group, as well as a member of the Sonic Arts Union, which also included David Behrman, Alvin Lucier, and Gordon Mumma. In 1969 he became director of the San Francisco Tape Music Center. In the 1970s he directed the Mills College Center for Contemporary Music. His notable students include Maggi Payne.
The majority of Ashley's recordings have been released by Lovely Music [1], which was founded by Performing Artservices [2], the not-for-profit management organization which represents Ashley and other artists. Ashley's opera Perfect Lives was featured in Peter Greenaway's documentary 4 American Composers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWBB3KgAk94
Robert Ashley (born March 28, 1930), is a contemporary American composer, best known for his operas and other theatrical works, many of which incorporate electronics and extended techniques. Along with Gordon Mumma, Ashley was also a major pioneer of audio synthesis.
Ashley was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He studied at the University of Michigan with Ross Lee Finney, at the Manhattan School of Music, and was later a musician in the US Army. After moving back to Michigan, Ashley worked at the University of Michigan's Speech Research Laboratories. Although he was not officially a student in the acoustic research program there, he was offered the chance to obtain a doctorate, but turned it down to pursue his music. [1]. From 1961 to 1969, he organised the ONCE Festival in Ann Arbor with Roger Reynolds, Gordon Mumma, and other local composers and artists. He was a co-founder of the ONCE Group, as well as a member of the Sonic Arts Union, which also included David Behrman, Alvin Lucier, and Gordon Mumma. In 1969 he became director of the San Francisco Tape Music Center. In the 1970s he directed the Mills College Center for Contemporary Music. His notable students include Maggi Payne.
The majority of Ashley's recordings have been released by Lovely Music [1], which was founded by Performing Artservices [2], the not-for-profit management organization which represents Ashley and other artists. Ashley's opera Perfect Lives was featured in Peter Greenaway's documentary 4 American Composers.
Book for readings
Everyone please take a look at
http://www.vasulka.org/Kitchen/PDF_ExpandedCinema/book.pdf
and read through the introduction and skim the chapter titles. Hopefully something will strike your interests before i assign it officially.
pp
This book offers the proper conceptual approach for dealing with "expanded cinema" which is 1970s speak for what we are experiencing now
http://www.vasulka.org/Kitchen/PDF_ExpandedCinema/book.pdf
and read through the introduction and skim the chapter titles. Hopefully something will strike your interests before i assign it officially.
pp
This book offers the proper conceptual approach for dealing with "expanded cinema" which is 1970s speak for what we are experiencing now
Gem Tutorial
here is a beginner GEM tutorial. take a gander and run some of the help patches
https://www.cs.tcd.ie/~wardn1/qm3/gem/index.html
https://www.cs.tcd.ie/~wardn1/qm3/gem/index.html
Friday, January 8, 2010
SPRING 2010 DIG 5931 2630
This blog will serve us for logging links i mention in class, ideas you may want to share and current ideas, critiques and things we may be looking at in class. I will post links to .pdf files for readings, links to videos to watch as well as [hopefully] pasting code directly too. Lets have fun with this blog since i am not grading you on it, please explore ideas here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)