From: peiman khosravi (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Oct 20 2009 - 02:30:04 PDT
Firstly I should mention that you can refer to Khosravi as he.
I have already made it clear that this was my first post to Frameworks and i
did apology in advance if this is not the place to post this notice.
Those with the patience to plumb Khosravi’s published article will perhaps
> see,
> as I do, that she or he pursues an approach that should by now be numbingly
> familiar: a reflex Enlightenment-like aim to “rationalize” cultural
> reception by
> using (what I think of as Helmholzian) mensuration of physical and
> physiological
> variables. Personally, I feel that this approach is absolutist,
> universalizing,
> retrogressive, bankrupt, and repugnant; this is a socio-political
> standpoint that
> will evidently find me and Khosravi hopelessly divided.
>
If you had read my article carefully you would have come across this line:
In acousmatic music where source-bonding and note-based or rhythmic musical
structures are weakened, spectral space
becomes the focus of our listening experience, yielding direct listening
expectations that inform our perception of
musical form.
I am already clarifying here that I am not universalizing, and that I am
speaking about a very specific type of acousmatic music. ..."Helmholzian)
mensuration of physical and physiological variables" is a misunderstanding
of the concept of spectromorphology, which is based on perception. It is an
attempt to subjectively measure the *perception* and *conception *of musical
form in a very specific genre of western music composition. Not a
measurement "of physical and physiological variables".
It seems that you are intentionally misunderstanding the concept discussed
in the article (or perhaps you have not read it thoroughly) for the sake of
reinstating your "socio-political standpoint", whatever that it may be. If
my initial post was ignorant about the history of filmmaking and Brakhage's
writings, which I myself was the first to highlight and I thank you for
reminding me of this fact (after all I hardy have your experience, knowledge
and reputation in this realm), yours is certainly ignorant towards the
history of music and musical writings in relation to electroacoustic music,
at least here in Europe.
Best,
Peiman
2009/10/20 Tony Conrad <email suppressed>
> Hi Flick---------
>
> I'm surprised at you! You're the one who is being snippy now, and without
> even a
> whiff of substance. You must be one of those liberal thinkers who detect an
> opinion and feel it needs some balance, "just because". But be careful lest
> I
> actually agree with you! I don't know what you meant in saying that
> artistic
> responses to canonical works are (or as you put it, you "always thought
> they
> were") de rigeur, but I will go so far as to agree that artistic responses
> SHOULDN'T be jejune-- and this precisely is where the problem arises in the
> instance at hand.
>
> As it happens, yes, I AM opinionated. So fair enough; here's an
> amplification of
> my earlier comments.
>
> Khosravi introduces her or himself, from the first words, as “a PhD student
> at
> City University London.” Not: “Hey, I happen to be thinking about these
> topics,
> and…” The project is contextualized ab ovo as an effort to credentialize
> its
> author; as a “truth” finding mission; as virtually germane to a thesis
> defense,
> in some regard. Frankly, I am pissed that people are setting themselves out
> with
> university teaching credentials (that’s what a PhD is) on the basis of
> projects
> as flip as this one. This project shows little awareness of the art
> historical
> context of the film, little respect for the literature or practice of
> cinema, and
> little appreciation for the complexity of film/sound relationships (which
> were
> the subject of a whole conference I attended just last month at the
> Bolzmann
> Institute in Linz).
>
> Those with the patience to plumb Khosravi’s published article will perhaps
> see,
> as I do, that she or he pursues an approach that should by now be numbingly
> familiar: a reflex Enlightenment-like aim to “rationalize” cultural
> reception by
> using (what I think of as Helmholzian) mensuration of physical and
> physiological
> variables. Personally, I feel that this approach is absolutist,
> universalizing,
> retrogressive, bankrupt, and repugnant; this is a socio-political
> standpoint that
> will evidently find me and Khosravi hopelessly divided.
>
> Beyond that, Dog Star Man is not simply a “spectral space” with which to
> gauge
> some metaphorical construct in sound. Brakhage was especially strident at
> this
> stage of his work in asserting film’s autonomy from music, and in
> particular that
> his films should be watched without music. Strangely, Khosravi actually
> stretches
> Dog Star Man so far in the opposite direction as to assert that "the work
> already
> contains and represents a very pure form of musical thinking" and even that
> "Brakhage is one of the most ‘musical’ filmmakers and working with his
> films
> would be like re-interpreting a piece of Bach." This rash comment about
> something
> called "musical thinking", which Khosravi apparently claims as privileged
> territory, along with his or her attendant privileging of Bach (and then,
> the
> implication that Bach too is wide open turf) simply makes me wonder about
> Khosravi's depth of analytical experience.
>
> As a visual construct, Dog Star Man is of course open to analysis. In
> particular,
> the film’s strong affinities with Abstract Expressionist thought and
> practice may
> make it attractive for Khosravi to consider quantizing its various aspects
> with
> respect to diagonalization or other formalist algorithmic methods. However,
> it is
> at least equally (and almost certainly more) apt to see Dog Star Man as
> Sitney
> does: that is, as a mythopoeic expression, steeped in late romanticism and
> crypto-symbolist image relationships.
>
> My assertion is not that Khosravi is “wrong” or “shouldn’t” be playing
> around
> with Dog Star Man. My assertion is rather that Dog Star Man is so
> overdetermined
> as a cultural marker that it can’t possibly stand in as a neutral vehicle
> for the
> study of image/sound relationships. Is ANY film better suited to this
> study,
> though? I would say that perhaps EVERY film is suited for the study of
> film/sound
> relationships, and even (going further) that every SOUND is suited for the
> study
> of film/sound relationships. In fact, to a substantial degree the
> problematic
> relationships that obtain between images and sounds is what filmmakers in
> general
> concern themselves with, and in that measure Khosravi’s “project” is both
> reductivist and insultingly dismissive of our field, another way of saying
> which
> is that the project is ignorant or (more kindly put) jejune.
>
> -----------t0ny
>
>
>
> On Mon 10/19/09 1:40 PM , Flick Harrison email suppressed sent:
> > Tony,
> > If indeed you have such a scathing critique at hand, perhaps you
> > should figure out where to begin, and begin.
> > What you've posted, however informed and considered the source of
> > your outrage, is simply insulting and critical without much
> > substance.
> > Perhaps everyone who is as smart and educated as yourself already
> > knows how to read your mind, but that won't do much good for poor
> > Peiman, since, as you seem aware, he's not as smart or educated as
> > you.
> > ;-)
> > Artistic responses to canonical works are jejune? I always thought
> > they were de rigeur.
> > -Flick
> > On 19-Oct-09, at 07:58 , Tony Conrad wrote:
> > Hi Peiman-------
> >
> > This is such a misbegotten project that I hardly know where to begin.
> > If as you
> > say you are actually a PhD student (of something), and this is "part
> > of my
> > research/creative interest in transmodality (multi sensual
> > perception) of musical
> > experience, particularly with regard to the creation of musical
> > space" and "part
> > of my composition portfolio, and discussed in my thesis", your
> > project certainly
> > impugns the credentials or advisement capabilities of your thesis
> > adviser.
> >
> > Riding this jejune project on Brakhage's back does no credit to
> > either of you.
> >
> > --------------t0ny
> > On Sat 10/17/09 9:21 AM , Peiman Khosravi sent:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > This is my first post here so apologies if this is not the place for
> > it.
> > I am a PhD student at City University London, focusing my research
> > and
> > practice in studio based Electroacoustic music composition. At the
> > moment I am exploring audio/visual relationships as part of my
> > research/creative interest in transmodality (multi sensual
> > perception)
> > of musical experience, particularly with regard to the creation of
> > musical space. As a result I am interested in creating an acoustic
> > counterpart to part II of Brakhage's "Dog Star Man". Once
> > completed this will be part of my composition portfolio, and
> > discussed in my
> > thesis. It may also be played in presentations/concerts.
> >
> > This will not be a conventional soundtrack, nor does it intend to be
> >
> > in anyway representative of -or remain true to- Brakhage's original
> > work, which I understand and agree that should be watched in
> > silence.
> > The project will be my attempt to create a new work born out of a
> > network of audio/visual relationships. Naturally this will
> > reinterpret
> > the original film, acoustically magnifying certain visual aspects
> > that
> > are formally dominant in my experience of the work.
> > As it happens I have come to realize that Brakhage is one of the most
> >
> > "musical" filmmakers and working with his films would be like re-
> > interpreting a piece of Bach: the work already contains and
> > represents
> > a very pure form of musical thinking. For this reason it will no
> > doubt
> > be a challenge and may prove impossible for me to complete, or
> > arouse
> > other's criticism. However, I cannot avoid a challenge when I see
> > one!
> >
> > In short I am writing here with two questions:
> >
> > 1- Could someone please clarify for me the issue of copyrights with
> > Brakhage's works and point me to the right direction for getting
> > permissions for this project.
> >
> > 2- Any ideas and suggestions are more than welcomed... as I am not a
> >
> > filmmaker your ideas will for sure be very helpful to me.
> >
> > Many thanks in advance.
> >
> > Best,
> > Peiman
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at om>.
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
> >
> > * FLICK\'S WEBSITE & BLOG: http://www.flickharrison.com [4] *
> > FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=860700553 [5] *
> > MYSPACE: http://myspace.com/flickharrison [6]
> >
> > [7]
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
> >
> >
> >
> > Links:
> > ------
> > [4] http://www.flickharrison.com
> > [5] http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=860700553
> > [6] http://myspace.com/flickharrison
> > [7] http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ZeroForConduct/~6/1
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.