DJ Spooky Speaks on Rhythm Science
Last night, I went to CCA to hear a talk by Paul D. Miller, a/k/a DJ Spooky, That Subliminal Kid. It was part of a lecture series intended for MFA students, so the art-historical and art-theoretical references were running at a pretty high level, to my delight. Miller spoke about “Rhythm Science,” riffing on the ways technologcal tools have allowed the “unpacking” of music and movement over the past hundred or so years. (I hadn’t realized that “deconstruction” had become a passe term, but it must be; several times, Spooky was obviously talking about deconstruction in the Derridean sense, but talked around the term.)
One notable aspect of the talk was the near-total absence of discussion of copyright law. Miller’s artistic practice, while implicating copyright law at every turn, is particularly unlikely to draw lawsuits because his copying is so transformative that the elements of the original are not recognizable. He’s certainly savvy about the law, and his answer to a question about Creative Commons was thorough and smart, but it seems the law just doesn’t enter into the artistic decisions he makes.
That’s the way it should be.
1 Comment
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

RSS Feed
I think that “deconstruction” had reached that point where it was used broadly enough that it reached that point of saturation where it became basically meaningless. Plus I think it’s come to be seen as a sort of intellectual masturbation rather than a genuine analytic technique. Whether or not this perception is correct, frankly, I’m not certain, but it’s the feeling I get. Personally, I’ve tended to avoid the term ever somce O read How to Deconstruct Almost Anything http://www.dourish.com/goodies/decon.html (not that I was an avid user of it before).
Keith
Comment by Keith Irwin — 20 October 2005 @ 13:58