I felt that Marinetti’s manifesto is still relevant today in a sense that the ideas of courage and revolt in art, as well as art continuing to move forward, continue. I found the manifesto to be invigorating, passionate, and wild– much like William S. Burroughs’ writing, which is frantic and surreal. In the sentence: “Let’s give ourselves utterly to the unknown” I sensed a “modern” connection. Artists still throw themselves into the unknown with their works whether they include that idea in their own manifestos. . .
Stephanie Sorth
February 1st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I liked Rusollo’s interpretation of ancient life being silent. Through the birth of machines came the birth of noise, and that was something I had never contemplated before. I have gotten so used to machines being a part of my everyday life, that I never stopped to really listen to all the noises I hear throughout the day. When it comes to technology, I don’t believe it informs the way we think, I believe it doesn’t make us think. We have become so used to machines being a part of our lives that we never stop to think about how they have helped us, how they have shaped our society, and as Rusollo stated, how they have made our world a world of noise. After reading “The Art Of Noise,” I found myself looking at music in a very different way. Noise and machines are a form of art just as much as music is a form of art.
Elyse Mercedes
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Personally I had a hard time reading through the short essay about “The Art of Noise.” In my taste the visual is more pleasing and interesting. I was a little bored by reading the importance of sound is to the Futurist. I can not connect to their excitement of hearing noises. When seeing and listening to the machine ballet, i had a hard time listing and interpreting the noise into art, because personally all i think it is, is noise.
chrisvogel
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 am
I feel like these futurists guys really pigeonhole themselves. The last two essays have been so black and white about what it means to be a futurist. Anyway, Russolo mentions a mouthful of 19th century technological innovations that create his “noise-sound.” He feels that orchestral arrangements progressively mimic the more “harsh” industrial noises of trams, backfiring motors, electric power stations and underground railways. He describes this inspiration as being the transition between “noise-sound” and “musical-noise.” He believes these noises are specifically correlated with the futurist movement.
Evan Caminiti
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I really enjoyed reading “The Art of Noise”. To be freed from traditional boundaries of what is “music” must have felt great back at the dawning of a time where so many new sounds were introduced to the human sound palette. Now, “noise” is pretty much considered a genre of music with bands like Wolf Eyes and Merzbow using all kinds of harsh and unusual sounds to make “songs”. It’s interesting to think about how environment, changed by technological advances, totally changed people’s way of looking at music. I particularly agree with the line, “Every noise has a tone, and sometimes also a harmony that predominates over the body of its irregular vibrations.” There is a good deal of music today that operates off of these principles. I think first of La Monte Young, widely acknowledged father of musical minimalism, and how he cites electrical power plant humming drones as a huge influence on his music. My mind also jumped to a man on NPR a few months ago talking about how the drone noises produced by modern appliances like refrigerators may in the near future be tuned to more pleasant frequencies which would have a constant positive effect on the habitants of a space. So it seems we are still discovering the effects of “noise” on the human mind and its relation to “music”. Its great to read a document conceived at the beginning of this modern way of thinking about sound.
Jennytam
February 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
As I was reading “The Art of Noise”, several thoughts ran around my head. Most of them having to do with the article’s core concept of noise-sound. the first thought was of a news bit I’d previously seen on channel 9 (good ol’ PBS) that was about an orchestra made out of junk. I don’t mean old guitars and rusted saxophones, but used jumbo pvc piping, house slippers, shower systems, and a shopping cart to name a few. sounded pretty good too. the second thought running around was a commercial for a car (don’t remember what car it was) where the music for the commercial was all generated by the sounds a car makes (ie: revving, power window sound, clutch, slamming the door, etc.). Made me think ‘hey, i think i’ve seen this idea commercialized somewhere before…’
Thought number three was of something i’d seen on youtube: an R.O. skit. people had dressed up as characters from a game. these characters were assigned a noise for the skit. the result is a fun take on ready made sound manipulation. This was promptly followed by idea four; it is an exercise called Machine (used to loosen/warm up). the class is formed in a circle, with a teacher in the middle. when pointed at by the teacher, that class member must (on the spot) create a noise and a motion to go along with it, and must keep up the noise and action until pointed at again. the noise and action can be anything, but it cannot be similar to another class member’s noise and action. this goes on while the teacher goes around the circle (quite a while with more than 15 people) and randomly chooses the ones to stop. it’s a fun exercise to start things up. what Mr. Russolo is suggesting in his article also sounds fun.
jennysharaf
February 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
What is the difference between sound, noise and music? “The Art of Noise” is an appropriately titled essay that explores this idea within the discourse of experimental noise. These sound artists broke down music and noise to its most elementary form. Vibrations suddenly became key players and mundane sounds were given new life. Using the itrinsic and inherent qualities of sound, they restructured the idea of what could be heard. I found it interesting to look at sound as a scientific experience. As our world changes, so do our sounds. This article depicts on monumental moment in the history of art as well as music- the limits were being pushed and new genres were created.
Aya
February 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Unless I listen the Futurist musician’s work, I don’t know what the position toward this article “The Art of Noises,” by Luigi Rossolo. The article seemed too ideological to me. Theoretically, his opinion of that explore new category of music by finding and featuring noise is great idea. Ttraditional music is boring and tiring, but recent music isn’t boring for me even though those music do not use such materials, called noise. I don’t know how it’s different from music I usually listen.
Kerry001
February 4th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
I found Luigi Russolo’s “The Art of Noise” to be very interesting. His call for a kind of revolution in noise seemed both passionate and inspired. Our lives find a cacophony of noise from all directions, in particular from machinery and industry. Noise became sound, once humankind was able to shape it, give it tone and depth, and manipulate it to fit the human ear more closely. Russolo calls for a move away from sound and back to noise, ignoring what the human ear registers as overdone and boring. Machinery, capable of producing a multitude of tonal noises, factory equipment, etc.; the possibilities are endless. It is according to Russolo, the “limited circle of pure sounds” that must be abandoned, prompting instead for the “infinite variety of ‘noise-sound.’”
magropp
February 4th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
The interesting thing about this piece is that he speaks only of industrial or mechanical sound. “For many centuries life went by in silence, or at most in muted tones. […] If we overlook such exceptional movements as earthquakes, hurricanes, storms, avalanches and waterfalls, nature is silent.” Due to his futurist obsession with technology and all things mechanical, Russolo happily ignores a whole world of sound. He ignores the wave-like sound of wind against the walls of his house, or the chirping and cawing and singing of the birds perched outside his window. This is where Russolo and the futurists fall short and John Cage ultimately picks up, and I see it as a major shortcoming. To ignore the natural world is like ignoring half of one’s own body, much can be done with one hand, but when the second hand is used, that is where the real work begins.
Daphne
February 5th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Daphne Watson
Art 410
The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism was very passionate. This author didn’t like the structure of art and culture in his society, and wanted to get rid of all of it as quickly as possible. Alot of ideas thrown in this piece, all of it had a very rebellious tone. Kinda repetitive, he could’ve just written all of that in just one short paragraph. Dunno, that’s just what I thought about it.
lauren mackey
February 6th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I found this piece to be difficult to swallow, yet full of passion, similarly to the last posting of Marianetti’s manifesto. Just as how Marianetti wanted to do away with the previous works and history, Russolo says basically the same about music and machines and sounds. To start afresh. Also as I mentioned with Marianetti’s manifesto, I think that forgetting the past and history, or all things naturally occurring (for instance, when Russolo says to overlook natural occurances such as earthquakes, storms, avalanches, etc..), is to miss the point entirely and turn a blind eye and a cold shoulder to everything that has lead up to that point. There was quite a lot of garbled jargin used to make his point as well. Would rather his statement have been clearer and easier to break down.
Aya
February 6th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I felt that document, “Manifesto of Surrealism” by Andre Breton, does not tell any clear definition of Surrealism. I’ve been trying hard to get what he indicates in the document through its long stories, but I couldn’t get what he really wanted tell us. I want to see the example of Surrealism art works visually. Things he argued was fairly understandable. Especially, I agree with that images, which getting from unconscious time such as dream while you are sleeping, give extraordinary creativity rather than getting in reality. Breton emphasised poetry, however, for me, visualized image from the time is stronger and impressionable.
Kerry001
February 7th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Breton’s “Manifesto of Surrealism” struck me in a number of ways. I found the introduction to be of particular interest. Breton states that after a certain amount of time to become acclimated to the experience of life, “he henceforth belongs body and soul to an imperative practical necessity which demands his constant attention.” The idea that our experience numbs us to new creative forms; that we become very much anchored to our origin point; was striking to me. As far as methods of unleashing ourselves from the proverbial tether, we must escape methods of art that Breton seems to find so appalling, such as realism (which he closely affiliates with materialism). I took his criticism of realism to be centered mostly around the perceived lack of emotion, a vital and distinct human emotion that should appear in all forms of life, particularly art. Emotion in dreams, as well. I have received a great deal of inspiration from dreams, and have often felt they are the closest tie I have to a more visceral and untamed part of myself. In the ‘Manifesto,’ dreams would be about as close a sane person could come to the unbridled creativity of the madman or woman.
Evan Caminiti
February 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I had a really hard time reading “the Surrealist Manifesto”. That being said I agree with some of Breton’s points. I think that pure expression and a great deal of compelling art exists in the realm outside of the “reign of logic”. I think the spontaneous quality of a child’s perspective definitely holds the key to unusual and valuable insights. This may be a stretch, but I can’t help but thinking about yoga and how young children make instinctual gestures and movements (such as leaning on the back of your neck and shoulders with legs stretched out toward the sky, while your hips are being held with your hands) that are identical to yoga moves. It does seem modern human minds have lost touch with such subconscious insights.
Cassandra Sechler
Art 410
01-31-08
I felt that Marinetti’s manifesto is still relevant today in a sense that the ideas of courage and revolt in art, as well as art continuing to move forward, continue. I found the manifesto to be invigorating, passionate, and wild– much like William S. Burroughs’ writing, which is frantic and surreal. In the sentence: “Let’s give ourselves utterly to the unknown” I sensed a “modern” connection. Artists still throw themselves into the unknown with their works whether they include that idea in their own manifestos. . .
I liked Rusollo’s interpretation of ancient life being silent. Through the birth of machines came the birth of noise, and that was something I had never contemplated before. I have gotten so used to machines being a part of my everyday life, that I never stopped to really listen to all the noises I hear throughout the day. When it comes to technology, I don’t believe it informs the way we think, I believe it doesn’t make us think. We have become so used to machines being a part of our lives that we never stop to think about how they have helped us, how they have shaped our society, and as Rusollo stated, how they have made our world a world of noise. After reading “The Art Of Noise,” I found myself looking at music in a very different way. Noise and machines are a form of art just as much as music is a form of art.
Personally I had a hard time reading through the short essay about “The Art of Noise.” In my taste the visual is more pleasing and interesting. I was a little bored by reading the importance of sound is to the Futurist. I can not connect to their excitement of hearing noises. When seeing and listening to the machine ballet, i had a hard time listing and interpreting the noise into art, because personally all i think it is, is noise.
I feel like these futurists guys really pigeonhole themselves. The last two essays have been so black and white about what it means to be a futurist. Anyway, Russolo mentions a mouthful of 19th century technological innovations that create his “noise-sound.” He feels that orchestral arrangements progressively mimic the more “harsh” industrial noises of trams, backfiring motors, electric power stations and underground railways. He describes this inspiration as being the transition between “noise-sound” and “musical-noise.” He believes these noises are specifically correlated with the futurist movement.
I really enjoyed reading “The Art of Noise”. To be freed from traditional boundaries of what is “music” must have felt great back at the dawning of a time where so many new sounds were introduced to the human sound palette. Now, “noise” is pretty much considered a genre of music with bands like Wolf Eyes and Merzbow using all kinds of harsh and unusual sounds to make “songs”. It’s interesting to think about how environment, changed by technological advances, totally changed people’s way of looking at music. I particularly agree with the line, “Every noise has a tone, and sometimes also a harmony that predominates over the body of its irregular vibrations.” There is a good deal of music today that operates off of these principles. I think first of La Monte Young, widely acknowledged father of musical minimalism, and how he cites electrical power plant humming drones as a huge influence on his music. My mind also jumped to a man on NPR a few months ago talking about how the drone noises produced by modern appliances like refrigerators may in the near future be tuned to more pleasant frequencies which would have a constant positive effect on the habitants of a space. So it seems we are still discovering the effects of “noise” on the human mind and its relation to “music”. Its great to read a document conceived at the beginning of this modern way of thinking about sound.
As I was reading “The Art of Noise”, several thoughts ran around my head. Most of them having to do with the article’s core concept of noise-sound. the first thought was of a news bit I’d previously seen on channel 9 (good ol’ PBS) that was about an orchestra made out of junk. I don’t mean old guitars and rusted saxophones, but used jumbo pvc piping, house slippers, shower systems, and a shopping cart to name a few. sounded pretty good too. the second thought running around was a commercial for a car (don’t remember what car it was) where the music for the commercial was all generated by the sounds a car makes (ie: revving, power window sound, clutch, slamming the door, etc.). Made me think ‘hey, i think i’ve seen this idea commercialized somewhere before…’
Thought number three was of something i’d seen on youtube: an R.O. skit. people had dressed up as characters from a game. these characters were assigned a noise for the skit. the result is a fun take on ready made sound manipulation. This was promptly followed by idea four; it is an exercise called Machine (used to loosen/warm up). the class is formed in a circle, with a teacher in the middle. when pointed at by the teacher, that class member must (on the spot) create a noise and a motion to go along with it, and must keep up the noise and action until pointed at again. the noise and action can be anything, but it cannot be similar to another class member’s noise and action. this goes on while the teacher goes around the circle (quite a while with more than 15 people) and randomly chooses the ones to stop. it’s a fun exercise to start things up. what Mr. Russolo is suggesting in his article also sounds fun.
What is the difference between sound, noise and music? “The Art of Noise” is an appropriately titled essay that explores this idea within the discourse of experimental noise. These sound artists broke down music and noise to its most elementary form. Vibrations suddenly became key players and mundane sounds were given new life. Using the itrinsic and inherent qualities of sound, they restructured the idea of what could be heard. I found it interesting to look at sound as a scientific experience. As our world changes, so do our sounds. This article depicts on monumental moment in the history of art as well as music- the limits were being pushed and new genres were created.
Unless I listen the Futurist musician’s work, I don’t know what the position toward this article “The Art of Noises,” by Luigi Rossolo. The article seemed too ideological to me. Theoretically, his opinion of that explore new category of music by finding and featuring noise is great idea. Ttraditional music is boring and tiring, but recent music isn’t boring for me even though those music do not use such materials, called noise. I don’t know how it’s different from music I usually listen.
I found Luigi Russolo’s “The Art of Noise” to be very interesting. His call for a kind of revolution in noise seemed both passionate and inspired. Our lives find a cacophony of noise from all directions, in particular from machinery and industry. Noise became sound, once humankind was able to shape it, give it tone and depth, and manipulate it to fit the human ear more closely. Russolo calls for a move away from sound and back to noise, ignoring what the human ear registers as overdone and boring. Machinery, capable of producing a multitude of tonal noises, factory equipment, etc.; the possibilities are endless. It is according to Russolo, the “limited circle of pure sounds” that must be abandoned, prompting instead for the “infinite variety of ‘noise-sound.’”
The interesting thing about this piece is that he speaks only of industrial or mechanical sound. “For many centuries life went by in silence, or at most in muted tones. […] If we overlook such exceptional movements as earthquakes, hurricanes, storms, avalanches and waterfalls, nature is silent.” Due to his futurist obsession with technology and all things mechanical, Russolo happily ignores a whole world of sound. He ignores the wave-like sound of wind against the walls of his house, or the chirping and cawing and singing of the birds perched outside his window. This is where Russolo and the futurists fall short and John Cage ultimately picks up, and I see it as a major shortcoming. To ignore the natural world is like ignoring half of one’s own body, much can be done with one hand, but when the second hand is used, that is where the real work begins.
Daphne Watson
Art 410
The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism was very passionate. This author didn’t like the structure of art and culture in his society, and wanted to get rid of all of it as quickly as possible. Alot of ideas thrown in this piece, all of it had a very rebellious tone. Kinda repetitive, he could’ve just written all of that in just one short paragraph. Dunno, that’s just what I thought about it.
I found this piece to be difficult to swallow, yet full of passion, similarly to the last posting of Marianetti’s manifesto. Just as how Marianetti wanted to do away with the previous works and history, Russolo says basically the same about music and machines and sounds. To start afresh. Also as I mentioned with Marianetti’s manifesto, I think that forgetting the past and history, or all things naturally occurring (for instance, when Russolo says to overlook natural occurances such as earthquakes, storms, avalanches, etc..), is to miss the point entirely and turn a blind eye and a cold shoulder to everything that has lead up to that point. There was quite a lot of garbled jargin used to make his point as well. Would rather his statement have been clearer and easier to break down.
I felt that document, “Manifesto of Surrealism” by Andre Breton, does not tell any clear definition of Surrealism. I’ve been trying hard to get what he indicates in the document through its long stories, but I couldn’t get what he really wanted tell us. I want to see the example of Surrealism art works visually. Things he argued was fairly understandable. Especially, I agree with that images, which getting from unconscious time such as dream while you are sleeping, give extraordinary creativity rather than getting in reality. Breton emphasised poetry, however, for me, visualized image from the time is stronger and impressionable.
Breton’s “Manifesto of Surrealism” struck me in a number of ways. I found the introduction to be of particular interest. Breton states that after a certain amount of time to become acclimated to the experience of life, “he henceforth belongs body and soul to an imperative practical necessity which demands his constant attention.” The idea that our experience numbs us to new creative forms; that we become very much anchored to our origin point; was striking to me. As far as methods of unleashing ourselves from the proverbial tether, we must escape methods of art that Breton seems to find so appalling, such as realism (which he closely affiliates with materialism). I took his criticism of realism to be centered mostly around the perceived lack of emotion, a vital and distinct human emotion that should appear in all forms of life, particularly art. Emotion in dreams, as well. I have received a great deal of inspiration from dreams, and have often felt they are the closest tie I have to a more visceral and untamed part of myself. In the ‘Manifesto,’ dreams would be about as close a sane person could come to the unbridled creativity of the madman or woman.
I had a really hard time reading “the Surrealist Manifesto”. That being said I agree with some of Breton’s points. I think that pure expression and a great deal of compelling art exists in the realm outside of the “reign of logic”. I think the spontaneous quality of a child’s perspective definitely holds the key to unusual and valuable insights. This may be a stretch, but I can’t help but thinking about yoga and how young children make instinctual gestures and movements (such as leaning on the back of your neck and shoulders with legs stretched out toward the sky, while your hips are being held with your hands) that are identical to yoga moves. It does seem modern human minds have lost touch with such subconscious insights.