Too much influence?

[RDR]

Well I think creativity can be self destructive, and most artists with or without drugs tend to live through extreme emotion.
I think the bolts are already loose in most cases.
But that`s the price you pay for the muse.

I agree in part with that, high emotion does breed artist creativity.

However i dont think that its something that is NEEDED for artists to function - there have been plenty of stable, happy and mentally secure artists who have created enormous works of art both in music and the visual arts.

What perhaps is most important is the idea. Which kinda leads to another interesting point - Machine driven music can be just that. Randomisation techniques without setting base parameters. Are these randomisation techniques part of the human idea or do they side step that. sure we bring them into play when randomising a mad synth line but is that the same as launching the program or even turning on the computer. i.e. is it part of the process of operating a machine or is it part of the creative process to let the machine do the thinking for us, just giving it some boundaries and letting it do its business according to a lawless environment.

anyone understand what im on about?

BTW point 2 has got nothing to do with point 1. or has it....

[RDR]

innonvation will become more and more refined i think.

isnt that an oxymoron?

[clubsynthetic]

isnt that an oxymoron?

I'm not sure if its contradictory to itself.. (that's an oxymoron isn't it?)


I agree with dirty bass about the artists and hacks thing. There are degrees of how high one's emotion is when making music, but usually the best artistic shit comes from, say, someone wanting to cut there ear off..

Yip, the best music comes from the people who love it most and have no agenda but to create it for it's own exsitance and for nothing else.

I think that comes part and parcel.

As for randomisation....good for ideas and learning, bad for final expression of the artist i think, as its not what they wanted to convey it's what a computer did and it takes no effort to think about. Less organic - which is the beauty thats lost!

But to be honest if one is bringing it all together in a masterpiece of music then i don't give a ****.

[RDR]

I'm not sure if its contradictory to itself.. (that's an oxymoron isn't it?)


I agree with dirty bass about the artists and hacks thing. There are degrees of how high one's emotion is when making music, but usually the best artistic shit comes from, say, someone wanting to cut there ear off..

i know its being picky but there a few visual artists i know who dont rate van gogh. and at the time he wasnt rated at all.

which brings up another interesting point about art/music and vitality.

Death and the artist?

An artists work suddenly gets better after death... why?

there were contemporaries of V.G who were better trained, better eye fro colour and far more prolific - what made him so great.. surely not just the golden raito, or an eye fro colour.

he certainly didnt have a ear for the critics...

[dirty_bass]

i know its being picky but there a few visual artists i know who dont rate van gogh. and at the time he wasnt rated at all.

which brings up another interesting point about art/music and vitality.

Death and the artist?

An artists work suddenly gets better after death... why?

there were contemporaries of V.G who were better trained, better eye fro colour and far more prolific - what made him so great.. surely not just the golden raito, or an eye fro colour.

he certainly didnt have a ear for the critics...

Have you ever seen a Van Gogh?
Takes on a whole new meaning when you see the paint on the canvass.
The texture in the brushwork, you can see the madness and schizofrenia within the brushwork, and trace it as it influences him more as the years go on.
I wasn`t a fan at all until I saw it all up close.
Apparently the vortices within the brushwork of his later works follow the patterns very closely, of turbulance within an air body, according to scientists, which is in itself interesting. His mind was literally, a storm.

anyway, it is being picky just choosing him.
Most great artists have been unhinged in some way. I won`t compile a list.

And no Chris, I wouldn`t say I`m mentally stable, or happy all the time, I do suffer from bipolar somewhat, although I`ve learned to ride it, rather than use chems to numb it, and it provides me with great and powerful creative energy. (not that I consider myself to be a great artist, although I do aspire).

[RDR]

Have you ever seen a Van Gogh?
Takes on a whole new meaning when you see the paint on the canvass.
The texture in the brushwork, you can see the madness and schizofrenia within the brushwork, and trace it as it influences him more as the years go on.
I wasn`t a fan at all until I saw it all up close.
Apparently the vortices within the brushwork of his later works follow the patterns very closely, of turbulance within an air body, according to scientists, which is in itself interesting. His mind was literally, a storm.

anyway, it is being picky just choosing him.
Most great artists have been unhinged in some way. I won`t compile a list.

And no Chris, I wouldn`t say I`m mentally stable, or happy all the time, I do suffer from bipolar somewhat, although I`ve learned to ride it, rather than use chems to numb it, and it provides me with great and powerful creative energy. (not that I consider myself to be a great artist, although I do aspire).

Ok so im barking up the wrong tree here, but i stand by my point - you dont have to be mad to be a great artist and TBh it bugs me that the two seem to go hand in hand.

as for mental problems - im joking man, thats what i do - didnt mean to offend you, god knows ive got my own problems.

[dirty_bass]

I agree in part with that, high emotion does breed artist creativity.

However i dont think that its something that is NEEDED for artists to function - there have been plenty of stable, happy and mentally secure artists who have created enormous works of art both in music and the visual arts.

What perhaps is most important is the idea. Which kinda leads to another interesting point - Machine driven music can be just that. Randomisation techniques without setting base parameters. Are these randomisation techniques part of the human idea or do they side step that. sure we bring them into play when randomising a mad synth line but is that the same as launching the program or even turning on the computer. i.e. is it part of the process of operating a machine or is it part of the creative process to let the machine do the thinking for us, just giving it some boundaries and letting it do its business according to a lawless environment.

anyone understand what im on about?

BTW point 2 has got nothing to do with point 1. or has it....

I can`t think of many stable, happy, mentally secure artists who were anything more than working hacks.

Randomisation techniques, yeuch, not for me, I just won`t let the machine generate any of my music, I want to make it, not leave it to the damn PC.

[RDR]

I can`t think of many stable, happy, mentally secure artists who were anything more than working hacks.

Randomisation techniques, yeuch, not for me, I just won`t let the machine generate any of my music, I want to make it, not leave it to the damn PC.

Happy and mentally secure?

How about you?

I love randomisation, i enjoy being a shepherd to my machine to its own conclusions. And of course it leads to another question - how does random influence your own self initiated actions?