Well, today I attended the second half of the Matthias Müller conference. There were, of course, papers presented during this conference, and one of them spurred me to write a somewhat spirited bit of response. Well, not really response, but more a reaction to what I felt was a heavy part of the argument: medium specificity.
Is there actually medium specificity? Of course, painting and sculpture do a poor job of delivering music, but aside from such ridiculousness, media are far less specific than many would like.
There is nothing much more special in one medium over another. Celluloid vs. digital video, vinyl record vs. compact disc, &c. arguments over which is inherently superior in its ability to capture and communicate things have very little merit. Each has its place and use. Some register certain aspects of their subject better than their counterparts, and fail to register others as well as does the counterpart. This does not make one superior to the others except insofar as someone may desire to utilize a particular strength at a particular time.
Arguments of which should exist and which fall by the wayside, or that insist on an overall superiority of one or another, are simply intellectual masturbation. Tools are there to be used. The more tools one has in the toolchest, the greater the number of creative possibilities in one's output.
At least as far as I'm concerned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You're referring to the analog v. digital debate? I heard about this. We talked about it during avant-garde as well (Roy thinks it's completely misplaced emphasis).
Yeah, it's pretty much the analog v. digital thing at this time. All the 'Digital is <blah&rt;' and the equivalent on the other side annoy me quite a bit, probably more than I should let them. I'm glad to hear Roy is somewhat with me on this.
Post a Comment