Hailing Frequencies Open

Not exactly visual culture, but I think this link has quite a bit to do with questions of taste, of intertextuality, of interpellation, of "hailing frequencies" if I may.


They missed two thousand other songs, but still this video is a great text to study. Why is this progression, or a blues progression for that matter, so popular? Is it to do with iconography, as discussed in chapter one of visual literature? Have these combinations of sounds, like a collection of lines on a page, been given a specific meaning through their repetition. Or is there another element at work? Just as the human eye follows certain patterns when viewing a painting, does the human brain recognize patterns in music? Are these progressions popular just because they sound like other songs? Is there any sort intrinsically universal nature of these patterns which naturally produce a certain response in the listener? Monika you mentioned studying music in other cultures, are there any similarities in the composition of music? I know that not all cultures use chords, so I am lead to believe there is nothing intrinsic in the way music affects people. This makes me think the ideas of iconography are relevant, and that these chord patterns follow “conventions of representation” as the textbook puts it (Tucker, 15).

Put down your guitars Luke and Monika, I figured it out. (or can you do it by ear?)
The progression is 1, 5, 6, 4.
Perhaps most commonly played with C, G, A, F.

What does the remix always bang harder?

This week's readings included the words; intertextuality, sampling, art MOVEments.

This last word provides some insight into the nature of art and representation.

There is a sense that for art to have value it must have difference. It must be different, yet in practice it must also be similar enough to remain within the frame of reference of its given category. From this we get a false sense of progress, of movement, but towards what end? Where is art going?

It would appear now as though any destination for art proposed, would now be considered unacceptable. All ends previous have...ended. Realism created instead of reflected ('of course'-we think now). Modernism became a tradition and a system of authority while seeking to escape tradition and authority(and some argue postmodernism has followed suit). All movements championing a Truth have been admired for their progress beyond their predecessor, but condemned for their various discriminations and failings. And now, though we have abandoned our measurements of progress, we have not abandoned progress itself.

Art is now only considered art if it is dissenting, if it is critiquing hegemony, hierarchy or whatever. Art "for the sake of art" is still critiquing the hegemonic tradition that art must be dissenting, and dissenting this tradition. The art that does not do this is called advertising, although many ads do seek minimal subversion, if only between brands. (see adbusters-a "successful" voice of dissent)

So in practice, we are not post-anything, it is only in theory that we have moved beyond the old meta-narratives. Art that is "new", avant-garde, or whatever is still privileged. Perhaps a more appropriate reaction from a movement that claims egalitarianism and social transformation as its cause would be to abandon ranks and values, because stating "this piece of art is the most critical of our current social order" is a terribly misleading statement which only reinforces the social structures it claims to critique.

test post.