[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: "Instrument" vs "Effect"
I'd agree that it is part of the art, just as a looping device is part of
our art. /K
----- Original Message -----
From: "a k butler" <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: "Instrument" vs "Effect"
>
>>I like to draw analogies with art, so let me give one a try. Let's say
>we
>>call a paintbrush and paint the collective instruments of the painter,
>>meaning that they are the physical objects that touch the canvas and
>>produce what we see as visual stimuli. It seems a bit awkward to say
>this,
>>but bear with me. Then let's say that when the painter finishes his
>piece,
>>he puts it on display and places a rose colored sheet of Plexiglas in
>>front of the painting, so that the original visual sense data are then
>>altered to appear different colors.
>
> So the plexiglas is part of the artist's expression.
> I can't see that it wouldn't just become an integral part of "the art".
> Just that it now gets called "mixed media".
>
> andybutler
>
>