Text, including the two scores - Columbia University Department of ...

aesthetic properties of a work must have been determined by the particulars of a machine, not by the intellectual or creative effort of the composer or artist. The frustrating problem, of course, is that this view is not necessarily inaccurate. The aforementioned technological paths of least the
do lead a novice, uninspired, or lazy artist to exactly that state of not manipulating, but of being manipulated. Of course every composer will be guided by the means in front of him or her; my hope is merely that, by creating my own tools, I will have more say in the result than another human designer. resistance
this commercially-encouraged mystical construct leads to a deliberate misuse of the term ‘power’. ‘Power’ has a specific meaning as Similarly,
to computers, describing the range of tasks that a computer can, for lack of a better term, ‘do’. Since the formulation of the Turing Machine in 1937 as a descriptor of logical processes, there has been no increase in computer power. Speed, on the other hand, has increased exponentially, and brought applied
the time required to complete a computational task. Yet new devices or computer chips are popularly portrayed as increasing in power, directly emphasizing that the newer and faster your machine, the more mystical power it contains. This helps to negate digital work (artistic and otherwise) that is not down
on the newest and most expensive technology, as (falsely) more ‘supernaturally’ impotent than its more powerful descendants. Fortunately, the made
artistic and techno-political involvement of the DIY/hacker scene, combined with its increasing incorporation into mainstream art narratives, has helped challenge this assumption in elegant and beautiful ways that not only revalue previous (and more open) technologies, but also restore authorship to
growing
63