Three wonderful things from the New Yorker
The New Yorker is always excellent, but the recent issue and its associated online components are especially terrific.
Thing 1: Slide show about Buckminster Fuller
Thing 1: Slide show about Buckminster Fuller
Elizabeth Kolbert writes about the life of Buckminster Fuller and about an exhibition about Fuller at the Whitney Museum of American Art. “By staging the retrospective, the Whitney raises—or, really, one should say, re-raises—the question of Fuller’s relevance,” Kolbert writes. “Was he an important cultural figure because he produced inventions of practical value or because he didn’t?” Here is a portfolio of images from the magazine and the Whitney exhibition.(Shown here: 4D Tower: Time Interval 1 Meter. Gouache and graphite over positive Photostat on paper.)
Thing 2: Audio file about Auto-Tune
Sasha Frere-Jones writes about Auto-Tune, a pitch-correction software program used in pop music. Here Frere-Jones talks about how Auto-Tune has become a pop-music phenomenon, and demonstrates how it can transform the human voice, with the help of the music producer Tom Beaujour.
Thing 3: Mary Gaitskill reads Vladimir Nabokov’s “Symbols and Signs.”
The New Yorker's Fiction podcast is a treasure. Once a month, a contemporary fiction writer chooses a story from the New Yorker's fiction archives, reads the story, and then talks to the host about why they chose the story and what it means to them.
Mary Gaitskill reads “Symbols and Signs,” Vladimir Nabokov’s first story published in The New Yorker, and discusses it with fiction editor Deborah Treisman.
the latest
latest episodes
"The New Yorker is always excellent..." So true. I read every issue, every page. This is an article I will be happy to please (and expand) my mind with.
I knew what autotune did, but not really how it worked it's insidious magic. I'll be honest--it really does feel lazy to me. As the producer says, artists come in expecting that you'll be able to do this for them. Rehearse a bit more, take a few more vocal lessons, learn to support your voice so you can sing on key the majority of the time. And when it all comes down to it, it's those little imperfections that give a song and a vocalist character.
Read Neko Case's classic rant here, halfway down:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/31252-interview-neko-case
Ooh! Thanks for the heads-up!
it really does feel lazy to me. As the producer says, artists come in expecting that you'll be able to do this for them. Rehearse a bit more,
When photographic cameras came out, it was a bastardization of the sacred art of painting.
When film came out, it was a bastardization of the sacred art of live acting.
When synthesizers and audio electronics came out, they were bastardizations of the sacred art of acoustic musicianship.
When digital cameras came out, it was a bastardization of the (now) sacred art of film photography.
No art form is sacred. Art is art, and it happens in lots of different ways, with lots of different tools. And ultimately, technology has helped art become more diverse and expressive, while doing remarkably little to destroy or debase the ancient art forms - which are still with us today.
Yet still, every time some new technology comes out which makes things easier for artists, we hear people (usually artists from the "old school") complain about how the technology is ruining everything, how it's tacky and lazy and destroys the soul of the art. Just remember: 40 years ago, the old old-guard probably said the same thing about your artistic medium.
ZIKZAK, it seems like you are missing the point THE3RDFLOOR is trying to make. I don't think he is saying that artists shouldn't use tools to make better art, but rather than technology shouldn't allow individuals to become artists who don't have the talent.
Wouldn't painting be basterdized if there was an arm brace that guided every stroke so that anyone could paint like VanGogh or Degas?
At that point it seems like we are not talking about "art" but rather just some mechanical creation that can allow anyone to claim to be an artist.
On an entirely unrelated note, I knew that Cher's voice sounded weird on that song but I thought it was just a synthesizer or something, its nice to be vindicated.
“Was he an important cultural figure because he produced inventions of practical value or because he didn’t?”
Well Bucky certainly produced a lot of things, most with practical value. The problem he was plagued with as it seems to me is that most people thought his ideas were too unorthodox, too far ahead of their time. Also his earth friendly attitude wasn't such a huge concern to a lot of his contemporaries. At least not as much as it would be today. Too bad he missed by a few decades.
technology shouldn't allow individuals to become artists who don't have the talent.
That's exactly the argument, thanks for articulating it so clearly. Consider this: there's a difference between technicians and artists. The process of producing most art involves technical skills, but the artistic expression is not necessarily tied to that skill.
So when we talk about "talent", what exactly are we talking about?
For example: If I'm not talented at touch-typing, does that mean I shouldn't be a writer? Should I have to go back to typing school before I can write my poetry, or can I just use dictation or voice recognition software? What about if I can't spell? Do I have to study the dictionary before I can write poetry, or can I just use spell-check?
Artists who are passionate about a particular art-form spend a lot of time and energy studying and mastering the technical skills involved in producing art. So naturally, they feel defensive and a little frustrated when a technology comes along which lets newcomers easily achieve the appearance of technical mastery that they've worked so hard for. But I think it's important to remember that the technology can only assist with technical skill, it can't fake creativity or artistic expression.
When artists feel threatened by new technology, they should remember that. A good artist can adopt new technology and techniques in ways that expand and enhance their inherent creativity and artistic expression. On the other hand, if all they had to offer was impressive technical skill, maybe it's time for them to move on, and let someone else develop the new medium in creative ways.
Nearly all top-charts singers use Autotune today: even Celine Dion herself couldn't sing live at a birthday party without it.
Here's the product homepage: http://www.antarestech.com/products/auto-tune5.shtml
I do like what folks are doing with Auto Tune now- though my husband and I agree that every Grammy-nominated artist and song this past season would have been heavy contenders for "Best (Ab)Use of Auto Tune"...
It should be up there for kicks, along with "Clumsiest Sampling" (Kanye's Stronger, ugh) and "Most Elementary Rhyming" (care/share? together/forever? friend/end? Rihanna nailed all three in the same song).
However, cleverly used Auto Tun can also achieve that height of modern audio wave perfection known as Robot Voice. Can't complain!