I'm not sure how to feel about this:
"Bacterial Orchestra (2006) is a self-organizing evolutionary musical organism. The installation consists of several audio cells. Every cell listens to its surroundings and picks up sounds, trying to play together in a musical way. The musical material comes from the background noise, people talking or sounds played by other cells.
Every cell has a unique DNA. Only the ones that are musical fit enough survives. If
the surroundings doesn’t meet up to its conditions - too noisy, too quiet or no distinct
pulse - the cell dies and is reborn with a new, hopefully better, set of DNA.
The result is a musical organism adapting to and changing its environment, growing and evolving with other cells and spectators.
Every cell is simple, but together they create a complex whole. Every cell makes a sound, but together they create music."
On the one hand, the idea of a bunch of iPhones, or any other small, popular device communicating with others in such an easily recognizable way is really cool. And it brings up all kinds of interesting questions about what makes music music in the first place. The article says that the cells only use "musical" sounds to play in a "musical way," but they don't explain exactly what that means. It could be a distinct sound, a rhythmic sound, a beat-like thump, a short burst of melody, a chord, an anything. And the video on the page shows several kinds of sounds being used, so obviously it's not an easy definition to pin down - I just wish they'd put a better definition on it in the article.
And the idea of one sound branching out, feeding on itself ad infinitum is really astoundingly interesting. One note becomes two, becomes however many more, branching out and out and out into an orchestra of noise that is supposedly musical... how fascinating. BUT - only fascinating because machines are doing it.
Because, if you think about it, that's how music has already been done for thousands of years, organically, by people. Sounds inspiring other sounds, coming from many different sources to create an organic whole - jamming.
So once again, with Terminator: Salvation on its second day of mainstream release, I must ask: what is it about machines doing something we already can do, and quite well, and in a far superior fashion, that is so incredible to us? Is it simply our ability to recreate artificially the things we are almost all capable of creating organically? The fact that we have to apply our minds and our technology to achieve it, rather than just ourselves?
I don't like that idea. Why artificially recreate a good thing just because we can? Why not take a step back, smell the roses, realize they smell better than factory-made perfume, and appreciate human life and its ability to create art in itself? Why make machines do it for us? Or is that a higher order of art in itself?
Somebody help me out here - I can't quite figure this one out.
And, PLEASE, DO comment people! I need to know people are actually reading this and I'm not just doing it for myself! But, also, please don't expect an immediate response. I'm going to the beach and I'm turning off my phone and I'm keeping away from computers! Be back next Wednesday!
Le Gross National Happiness
16 years ago
Posts
Well, it seems to me that at least a part of it is that people are even more interested in creating something that can do what they themselves can do than they are in actually doing it. Its like adding another level of complexity. Yes, people can make music. But people can also make machines that can make music, which is like the combination of two different things that people can do, thereby, in theory, twice as complicated and twice as impressive.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I buy it, but it does seem to answer your question.