Wiardgroup

> From: "konkuro" <konkuro@aol.com>
> Reply-To: wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 02:41:27 -0000
> To: wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [wiardgroup] Fwd: [AH] Re: Synth Graphics, speaking of which
> 
[...8<..] 
> 
> Oh, I disagree.  Just because something causes a reaction doesn't
> mean it has merit.  Poison ivy causes a reaction.

By the same argument, it also does not mean it doesn't.  :-)

> Now, I'm not saying this is the case with Wiard.  It's actually part
> of the art argument, and I can't go there, alas,lest we stray too far
> off topic.

The art thread was not meant to start a discussion of art; rather, to
serve as an analogy for why forms deemed by some as intermediate or
flat out useless are as important in developing a path to interesting
results.  

>> Now, I have been curious about something...if you were to design a
> synth, panel and electronics, how would you do it? How would you blend
> your love for art with your love for electronics? Grant obviously has
> an interpretation, and I would love to hear about your view.<
> 
> I'll do more than that; I'll show you.  If you go to the Photos
> section, and click on the Mitchell folder, you will find a picture of
> a vocoder I built in 1980. Although there are things I'd change
> today, it will give you some idea of where I'm coming from.  This
> folder and picture will be removed in a day or two to make room for
> Wiard-related stuff.  So have at it, lads!

I took a look, thanks for sharing.

Given that I have only the benefit of the small pic, it appears -from
this design- that you are an advocate for panel graphics that support
the visual understanding of the functionality of an instrument, that
are legible, that separate functions visually, and that support the
procedural flow of a human operator.  Not bad design principles for
functional systems.

But I am not sure that I would consider this particular instrument
as an example of meshing art with electronics.   Wiard's graphics are
of a different nature.  We may discuss the fact that they perhaps do
not support the functionality of the synth and so it could be a design
weakness, yet they support the personality of the instrument, and that
is a strength in differentiating itself from the rest and creating an
emotional connection.

Speaking for myself, I consider an instrument's personality as one of
the key attributes I evaluate, on par with its functionality, when I
decide to adopt a system.  Given that learning a new instrument requires
a time investment on my part, I try to make sure that my enjoyment of
the instrument is as high as possible.  I may dismiss some systems as
being "too square" for me.  Yet I am sure other folks would enjoy them
just as much.   Regardless of anyone's sanction of merit, it is a
personal relationship (if such term can be applied) between a player
and his/her instrument, as there is that emotional connection.  Otherwise
the instrument will eventually become a glorified paper weight. Some
prefer "unique", others prefer "pure".

Which leads me to believe that Wiard's art does not create that
emotional connection that you seek; hence, even if functionally
exceptional, it is probably not the instrument for you.



Regards,

Bill
______________________________________________________________________
 Bill Sequeira, Ph.D.
 Principal, Axon Hillock