What’s the Point?

First it was the 8-bit Trip by Rymdreglage which they followed up with this. Today I saw Ankle Injuries and yet another one from Rymdreglage.

Is it fake, or is it not? That’s not really the point. I think it’s a shame that the question has to be asked at all. If you spend 250 hours on something, why would you make it look like it’s computer generated instead of using the potentials at hand? If you crawl around the floor for days with coins, isn’t it better to use the opportunity to make something that the computer is not good at?

It’s more engineering than art, I guess. When artists do it there’s usually something more than a neurotic proof of concept. Space Invader’s rubik cubes are nice even if the motives aren’t that exciting, and there’s the post-it animation that has some sort of post-digital quality to it.

In a way, making something new (perfecting stop motion animation) seems more boring than making something that looks more trashy.

 

 

5 Responses to “What’s the Point?”

  1. peter Says:

    You could make the counter argument, why make convincing acid house music on an atari st when you could just do it with vsts? Or why paint a bowl of fruit when you can take a picture in five seconds with your cameraphone?

    Just remember that there are people who get as much of a creative boner from stop motion sequencing as you do with a tracker, and we can all live in harmony.

  2. chipflip Says:

    That’s a predictable answer :). I know the fascination of getting unimagined results of a machine/technique. It’s a technical challenge. But if you do it too well, then it’s just …. boring. Then why not use vsts? The point of using old shit is to make things that the new shit cannot do.

    With a lot of old technologies you can do whatever, and there will still be a certain texture/feeling to it. But all I see these videoclips doing is deleting potentially characteristic features of a technique. And I don’t like that, hehe.

  3. d0us Says:

    Surely this is all based on the subjective reading by the audience.

    When it comes to producing music on a tracker, many people not familiar with this type of sequencing would not be aware of how you madethe music, or if you amde them aware, they just won’t care anyway.

    Same with these prods, if you take it as not fake as an artist maybe you would be impressed.

    You say that the use of older technologies allows you to create somethign unique to that technology- but most modern audiences won’t give a shit how it was created.

    Therefore we come back to the duo of creative process as art vs rendered art. Any art that requires an appreciation of the methods require the audience to appreciate the former.

  4. chipflip Says:

    I think it’s a different experience for many audiences if the performer is using a Gameboy instead of a laptop. For good and bad, of course. But what I meant more specifically, is that there are qualities both in sound and composition that are more rare when you use new tools. Even if a listener doesn’t know how it was created, s/he can still appreciate these things. Taste is not a “rational” thing.

    Sometimes chipmusic is good *because* of the technology, and sometimes *despite* the technology. And sometimes technology is just irrelevant.

  5. Cup Art: The New Pixel Style? « CHIPFLIP Says:

    […] a more positive note than last time, I wanted to show a “post-digital pixelism” that I like: cup art. A friend of mine […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: