CMJ Editor's Notes

A number of recent events have confused me as to the state and direction of our field in relation to the rest of the contemporary media arts movement. I have identified two worrisome trends that I describe as (1) the marginalization of "art" music within contemporary art, and (2) the marginalization of non-real-time music within electroacoustic music. I'd like to address the first of these topics in this column.

Two announcements in recent Computer Music Journals related the statements made by the juries of last year's NEWCOMP and Ars Electronica competitions expressing the disappointment of both groups with the year's entries. This obviously serious discrepancy can be interpreted either as a "low-quality year" or as a mismatch between the expectations of the juries and the direction that composers are currently taking. The possible interpretations of the second of these cases appear to be too lofty or specific expectations on the part of an aesthetically-predisposed jury, or a divergence in the stylistic generations between the jury members and the productive body of composers. It is, however, interesting to note that there has been no such difficulty in awarding first prizes among the other competitions for contemporary music (e.g., Gaudeamus) as there has been among the electroacousticians (e.g., the Bourges or Ars Electronica competitions of recent years). This is the first of several dilemmas that I have noticed, but for which I have no simple explanations.

For seemingly unrelated (allegedly financial), reasons, the computer music prize of Ars Electronica has been discontinued altogether as of this year. The entry materials sent out by the Austrian Broadcasting Authority ORF did not even offer any information as to why this branch of the competition was dropped- their materials simply mentioned the three remaining fields of graphics, animation and interactive arts for which (quite generous) prizes are to be awarded.

My third dilemma related to the marginalization of "art" music within contemporary art is the quality of music found at several recent "interdisciplinary" media arts festivals. A number of music- oriented participants at these festivals remarked on the "poor relation" treatment of contemporary music; last year's SISEA symposium on electronic art, for example, presented a single (parallel) paper session in the topic of "music" (out of 18 paper and panel sessions), and a single (marathon) concert at a three- day event (which is reviewed in this issue of Computer Music Journal). The organizers of the SISEA also produced a visual-only record of the symposium in the form of a collection of slides of the best art work that was presented there.

It has been a well-known fact for several years that juries at competitions for integrated media art are typically interested primarily in the visual channels and do not address musical quality. One need only listen to sound tracks of the computer animations presented at the ACM's annual SIGGRAPH meetings or interdisciplinary festivals such as SISEA to observe this. It is not rare that a computer animation that utilizes advanced image processing techniques and is well placed within contemporary visual aesthetics is accompanied by music that can at best be described as insipid and cliche (e.g., rather pedestrian pop/rock music). One need only question whether a contribution would be accepted that coupled more progressive and "serious" music with outdated and commercial graphical effects and production techniques.

The dilemma as it presents itself to me is, "What is the cause for these apparent inequities, and what can computer musicians do about it?" I would very much welcome reader's responses to this.

	Vol. 15 Issue 3 Editor's Notes	CMJ Library >
	The First Dilemma: The State of the Art
	Stephen Travis Pope Computer Music Journal A number of recent events have confused me as to the state and direction of our field in relation to the rest of the contemporary media arts movement. I have identified two worrisome trends that I describe as (1) the marginalization of "art" music within contemporary art, and (2) the marginalization of non-real-time music within electroacoustic music. I'd like to address the first of these topics in this column. Two announcements in recent Computer Music Journals related the statements made by the juries of last year's NEWCOMP and Ars Electronica competitions expressing the disappointment of both groups with the year's entries. This obviously serious discrepancy can be interpreted either as a "low-quality year" or as a mismatch between the expectations of the juries and the direction that composers are currently taking. The possible interpretations of the second of these cases appear to be too lofty or specific expectations on the part of an aesthetically-predisposed jury, or a divergence in the stylistic generations between the jury members and the productive body of composers. It is, however, interesting to note that there has been no such difficulty in awarding first prizes among the other competitions for contemporary music (e.g., Gaudeamus) as there has been among the electroacousticians (e.g., the Bourges or Ars Electronica competitions of recent years). This is the first of several dilemmas that I have noticed, but for which I have no simple explanations. For seemingly unrelated (allegedly financial), reasons, the computer music prize of Ars Electronica has been discontinued altogether as of this year. The entry materials sent out by the Austrian Broadcasting Authority ORF did not even offer any information as to why this branch of the competition was dropped- their materials simply mentioned the three remaining fields of graphics, animation and interactive arts for which (quite generous) prizes are to be awarded. My third dilemma related to the marginalization of "art" music within contemporary art is the quality of music found at several recent "interdisciplinary" media arts festivals. A number of music- oriented participants at these festivals remarked on the "poor relation" treatment of contemporary music; last year's SISEA symposium on electronic art, for example, presented a single (parallel) paper session in the topic of "music" (out of 18 paper and panel sessions), and a single (marathon) concert at a three- day event (which is reviewed in this issue of Computer Music Journal). The organizers of the SISEA also produced a visual-only record of the symposium in the form of a collection of slides of the best art work that was presented there. It has been a well-known fact for several years that juries at competitions for integrated media art are typically interested primarily in the visual channels and do not address musical quality. One need only listen to sound tracks of the computer animations presented at the ACM's annual SIGGRAPH meetings or interdisciplinary festivals such as SISEA to observe this. It is not rare that a computer animation that utilizes advanced image processing techniques and is well placed within contemporary visual aesthetics is accompanied by music that can at best be described as insipid and cliche (e.g., rather pedestrian pop/rock music). One need only question whether a contribution would be accepted that coupled more progressive and "serious" music with outdated and commercial graphical effects and production techniques. The dilemma as it presents itself to me is, "What is the cause for these apparent inequities, and what can computer musicians do about it?" I would very much welcome reader's responses to this.