I have followed this thread, reading with much interest for a long time. My
connection to art/science is quite different from most who comment, leading
me to read with interest, but mostly refrain from comment.
This discussion-the intrigue of light and the role it plays in our universe
and the effect that it has on art and how we see many things in the natural
world is fascinating. The role of light in many ways is arbitrary and at
the same time changes each tableau as we look at the view from our window.
It is almost never the same twice.
My reason for commenting now is about the music to the incredible NASA
video. This video is so awesome and beautiful-mesmerizing. The music the
videographer chose is to enhance the video of a real natural phenomena in
our universe. Think of what the video would be without the music. This is
the artistic expression of the creator (videographer) and each who may use
these images may chose something different to express their intent. I see
it with contemporary music because of the abstract natures of the images,
but that does not mean that there is not music that could well represent
and enhance it that is from the past. Think of the music of Richard Strauss
(1864-1949) who wrote *Also Sprach Zarathustra* used in *2001 A Space
Odyssey*. Granted he did not live that long ago and it may be more
challenging to find music with a stricter form, such as that from the 17th
or 18th century, to go with the flowing form of the video. But it is not
impossible. There are pieces by Schumann or Berlioz that may work. The
nature of the end product would be different, not necessarily not as good.
The end product or expression of the artist would show that someone else
has something different to say. So perhaps creating new music to go with
the video is an option, but may not necessarily enhance the creative
expression or experience of the viewer. I see the music as very important
in the video, but the star is the images and the music should enhance not
take away from them. The intent and expression here is the marriage of the
audio and the visual.
I think the important factor is how much of an impact what we hear has on
what we see. That idea affects the nature of art itself. What do you want
to say and how will you say it? Just as the role of light changes in how we
view things: the sunrise, the sunset or even our own image. Light is
fundamental and has a huge role in our vision of anything.
Thank you all for your insights.
Ruth Catchen, M. Music, MA
Incite! Paths to Excellence
"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:18 PM, roger malina <email@example.com> wrote:
> Paul, Guillermo
> Thanks for your replies to my rather rash assertion
> that if scientists want to communicate with the public-
> as the NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory does in the vidio
> - they should not just add sound to their images as an add on
> but try and create an integrated work that combines their images
> with effective contemporary sound design or music
> - my error was arguing that new music is necessarily better than
> old music- obviously not the case
> - but the discussion reflects a deeper asymmetry in the art science
> - with the danger of over generalising, most artists are much more familiar
> with contemporary science, than most scientists are of contemporary art
> a contrary agument was given by sean cubitt who said about his new books
> sean: I was persuaded not to call the book "Glory". They thought it
> might give the wrong impression to theologically inclined
> Christians.My feeling is that light is too important to let it become
> a metaphor belonging to sects, and that although my history is in a
> certain sense political, the sense of wonder belongs to everyone, and
> that while some scientists have been great in communicating the wonder
> of the universe, oddly social and human sciences have simply ignored
> it for fifty years.
> anyway - i stand my ground that i find work that presents intriguing
> is much more compelling if the sound is intriguing also
> Good point. I agree with this. Even i liked the video (even i like old
> music !!), i agree that there is no reason to use different music to push
> for a more interactive video. This, as you say, could be a deformation from
> scientific community. In fact, we are trying to deal with different
> scenario, with art/sci interactions, and the video is not a good example of
> a deeply colaboration. Yes, it is true. I think this is a kind of political
> decision. Even the video is good, could be extremly better if there were
> some political decision to colaborate between artists.
> You have raised an interesting topic. From my understanding of your
> argument, you seem
> to be suggesting that if someone produces a product that is multimodal
> -- in this
> case, (1) the SDO imagery and (2) accompanying music, then the secondary
> modality (2) must be equally as novel or contemporary as (1). Not every
> has to contain novelty in every modality. So, while I would agree with you
> contemporary research in sound would have made for an equally interesting
> presentation, I don't think that adding music which has withstood the
> test of time
> is a bad thing. The main point is the SDO imagery for this particular
> product. The
> music, in this particular case, is secondary.
> On Apr 3, 2015, at 8:23 AM, roger malina <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Guillermo
> > yes the images of the sun are fascinating- but its always disturbing to
> > scientists use musical styles from a 100 years ago to accompany the most
> > contemporary of contemporary images !
> > why didnt they commission a contemporary composer to write dramatic
> > music using todays musical idioms !
> > there is a huge literature on the connections of science and music
> > and the musical avocations of scientists- but somehow there is
> > a 'decalage" !!
> > roger
> Roger F Malina
> is in texas
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
> SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the
> page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on
> the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
> TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest
> Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
> If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
SBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
If you prefer to read the posts on a blog go to http://yasminlist.blogspot.com/