Stunning media synthesis
Yesterday Rose Sinclair from Design showed me Bare Conductive, a stunning synthesis of graphic design, electronics, music and dance. Dancers apply conductive ink to their skin and use this custom electronic circuitry to interact with electronics through gesture, movement and touch. Watch Calvin Harris, The Humanthesizer, 'playing' a large group of bikini-clad women and, if you can, try to stay focused on the potential of the ink rather than the gender issues.
Update: if you read the comments below, you will see that the gender issues were in the forefront. Consequently I substituted the Harris video for another which you can now watch below.
This is totally awesome! Takes music, dance and visual arts to another level I guess... going to put a few instrument-makers out of business... or maybe not - we all love our trad instruments too but this is, let's say, a lot more portable! sustainable? Nevertheless, I found it inspiring!
thanks to whoever posted this.
M
amazing, although this video seems a bit like letting a monkey drive an aston martin. give this to bjork and THEN the magic will happen!
great stuff, great fun
Sure, it's 'stunning and amazing.
But I guess I will not stay focused on Harris abilities, despite the wishes.
Cause I'm bloody well sick and tired of the old, plain stupidity, disguised as trying to sell ideas and putting forward creative inventions.
Cause if one is that creative as Harris, then he could probably figured out another way of demonstrating his point.
At least he could have undressed himself.
It's not gender issues, it's one specific gender system's problem with the other. And I'm not talking about my own beef with the automode of masculinity.
I'm talking about how stupid it makes people look, even if they are smart and creative.
In the end, I think he shoots himself in the foot.
But I guess I will not stay focused on Harris abilities, despite the wishes.
Cause I'm bloody well sick and tired of the old, plain stupidity, disguised as trying to sell ideas and putting forward creative inventions.
Cause if one is that creative as Harris, then he could probably figured out another way of demonstrating his point.
At least he could have undressed himself.
It's not gender issues, it's one specific gender system's problem with the other. And I'm not talking about my own beef with the automode of masculinity.
I'm talking about how stupid it makes people look, even if they are smart and creative.
In the end, I think he shoots himself in the foot.
I have to agree with Vendela - Mira, gender issues are not something to be 'got over' or sidelined in the face of something potentially more interesting - this is just dull and exploitative, pandering to a set of 70s (1570s???) assumptions about the relationship between artist and object, creator and instrument. What was demonstrated was not, unfortunately, the extraordinary possibilities of combining electronic sound and physical motion, but instead a rather geeky enthusiasm for wiring for its own sake, with a background of decorative/decorated female bodies who added nothing to the musical production.
This could have been something much more exciting, used by an auteur who had really though about the possibilities of human movement - shame, a missed opportunity.
This could have been something much more exciting, used by an auteur who had really though about the possibilities of human movement - shame, a missed opportunity.
Sarah, Vendela, thanks for your comments. If I thought that gender issues were something to be 'got over' (not a phrase I used), I would not have explicitly referred to them above. It was my attempt to flag them as problematic while at the same time attempting to frame the discussion. As they say, you live and learn!
Is this video more inspiring about the possibilities? Music students in particular may also be interested in the Theremin.
Is this video more inspiring about the possibilities? Music students in particular may also be interested in the Theremin.
How can we ignore gender issues anymore than we can racial issues? Would be happily saying this if a piece of new technology were being illustrated by throwback racial images from the 1970s. We are academics whose daily work is made up of being attentive to these kinds of things (amongst others) . We are already bombarded with over-sexualised images of girls and women in every possible arena of cultural life. Surely being asked to ignore frankly gratuitous images of dancing girls to comment on the putative 'real issues' is misguided? The original Calvin Harris video is 'old school ' offensive (by that I mean Benny Hill-esque!) in its portrayal of women as utterly passive, decorative and of course half-naked receivers of the creating male. This is the kind of thing that we try and undo in our work and to have it uncritically presented like this is extraordinarily disappointing to say the very least. It's not ironic, or post-feminst or innovative it's simply tediously retrogressive.
It is difficult not to ignore the gendered nature of this. Why does the originator deem it necessary to trivialise what might be a new and exciting use of the ink by presenting it in this overtly sexist manner.
I feel the need deffend Mira, this is an exciting technology. Calvin Harris's presentation is sexist and not worthy of artistic merit. But that doesn't mean that the technology is inhernently bad in any way.
I think a better application than a human synthesiser might be to control music visuals. If crowd members agreed to be painted, combined with some floor pads and touching each other, their dance could control the visual presentation. Just a thought.
I think a better application than a human synthesiser might be to control music visuals. If crowd members agreed to be painted, combined with some floor pads and touching each other, their dance could control the visual presentation. Just a thought.
The technology may be interesting but frankly I am too enraged to pay any attention to it. How can this stuff be shown without criticism - and I am afraid that the gentle way in which the issue was raised does NOT imply criticism of it. To me this is just another bloke getting a bunch of scantily clad women to dance for him - he is getting off on the idea that he has control over theme which, in any other circumstances, he probably wouldn't. I think this should be removed forthwith.
Angela Phillips
Angela Phillips
Conductive body paint is an interesting novelty, with the potential to be used in better ways than this. Calvin Harris is hardly the most exciting standard bearer for such a technology. There's a wealth of resources out there that should be put up for debate on the VLE that far outstrip the capacity of a toy box disc jockey who has a disturbing fascination with being surrounded by naked women. I'm surprised he didnt paint some on himself and set up an audio trigger of the hallelujah chorus every time his penis elevated itself through the whole in his boxer shorts. What a nincompoop.
I agree with you. The video is disturbing and sexist. Perhaps there should be two discussions here, one for people who want to discuss Calvin Harris' blatant sexism and another for those who want to talk about the technology. I don't see why the two should be intertwined.
"I don't see why the two should be intertwined."
I think the reason is that Calvin Harris made it impossible for us to talk about the technology without first examining the sexism, and for some of us the sexism contaminated the entire thing.
Ralph, you came up with a specific idea about an application - thanks for that.
Carole, Angela, and others who raised this - I concur, and thank you. I certainly didn't feel ironic or post-feminist about it, or that there were "real issues" as opposed to trivial ones - on the contrary.
I can't use the front page of our VLE for talking about the issue of women in the Calvin Harris video, nor can it be passed over - I acknowledge that explicit critique of that issue is in order, if it is to be shown at all. The conclusion I draw is that I shouldn't have posted video in the first place - so I took it off.
I think the reason is that Calvin Harris made it impossible for us to talk about the technology without first examining the sexism, and for some of us the sexism contaminated the entire thing.
Ralph, you came up with a specific idea about an application - thanks for that.
Carole, Angela, and others who raised this - I concur, and thank you. I certainly didn't feel ironic or post-feminist about it, or that there were "real issues" as opposed to trivial ones - on the contrary.
I can't use the front page of our VLE for talking about the issue of women in the Calvin Harris video, nor can it be passed over - I acknowledge that explicit critique of that issue is in order, if it is to be shown at all. The conclusion I draw is that I shouldn't have posted video in the first place - so I took it off.
Firstly i'd like to say the hypocracy of the sexist arguments astound me 
. Would anyone have raised the issue if the 'instruments' were male? The reason they are scantily clad is more to do with the conductive ink then a mysoginist statement. Harris most probably thought (perhaps rightly so) that in terms of aesthetics the female form was better for his project.
Secondly, my actual point, i personally thought the idea was innovative and visually/audibly promising.
peace x
. Would anyone have raised the issue if the 'instruments' were male? The reason they are scantily clad is more to do with the conductive ink then a mysoginist statement. Harris most probably thought (perhaps rightly so) that in terms of aesthetics the female form was better for his project. Secondly, my actual point, i personally thought the idea was innovative and visually/audibly promising.
peace x
I'd like to retract this. I saw the substituted video. The Harris one is 'sexist' but its commercial pop music, its basically a requirment for success.
Thanks Joshua, sorry for the confusion.
"The Harris one is 'sexist' but its commercial pop music, its basically a requirement for success."
And if that is the case, it's important to challenge the sexism, to make it seem strange rather than normal.
"The Harris one is 'sexist' but its commercial pop music, its basically a requirement for success."
And if that is the case, it's important to challenge the sexism, to make it seem strange rather than normal.
I preferred the Calvin Harris one. It was far more entertaining and I wished people had not read into it so much. All those girls were willingly there. If the question about what they were wearing was such an issue this girls outfit looks pretty skimpy as well, maybe its due to the fact the experiment requires less clothing. Censorship is wrong and I really wouldn't of caved in. It is another example of political correctness gone mad. I saw pretty much the same thing on ITV news featuring Calvin Harris and the experiment plus the reporter that was allowed to be broadcast to a far greater audience.
This last comment is so stunningly simplistic it is almost impossible to know where to start. I could start with the grammar but that is forgiveable. What do you mean by "censorship is wrong"? Every act of selection is a decision made within a context. In this case the context was one in which woman are served up as the passive helpmates of the active male. This scenario is played out over and over again in the media at every level and many women, myself included, consider it to be demeaning in much the same way as a scenario in which black people are given the role of slaves subservient to white people. The fact that this might have been shown on the news merely illustrates the point. The media, at all levels, actively collude in the serving up of female bodies for the delectation of the male audience. The fact that the women do this willingly is quite beside the point. The issue here is whether people in an educational environment should uncritically serve up sexist stereotypes. We should surely be trying to de-construct these symbols- not merely reproduce them? The fact that this comment is so woefully unsophisticated just demonstrates what a very long way we, as educators, have to go in extending debate about sexism and its meanings.
This last comment is so utterly boring. I completely agree with Mr McCormick. As a woman I have absolutely no problem with the Calvin Harris video. I cannot see how anyone can compare the role the women had in the video to that of black slaves. That is insulting to a far more serious and sensitive issue. As previsouly stated the women in the video had a choice in being there, and what ever happened to freedom of expression and speech? This is ridiculous and is a grand example of how Goldsmiths likes to make a mountain out of a molehill.
For the last message, its sad that you take issues such as sexism as (not) seriously as you do - I suppose you consider us living in a "post-feminist" world now. Actually it is precisely videos like this which continue the monstrous objectification of women in the media. Whether the women were there of free choice is irrelevant: black actors in racist 1950s films in the USA were there by free choice but that didn't stop the character of the movies being racist. And also all this free speech/censorship stuff is complete nonsense. People who have posted here have engaged in a critique of the sexist nature of the video: by doing so we are excersing free speech.
One day women will be judged as human beings first and by their looks second; we're still not there folks and if thats "making a mountain of a molehill" then I'm damn proud to be a Goldsmiths student!
Pff how could I not reply to all of these.. & this is to all above..
Some people actually ENJOY being looked at as ojbects of desire, girls & dare I say it GUYS.
Last time I remember walking down london bridge tube I remember an add with 8 guy's wearing Y-Fronts chilling looking ripped as fuck. how is this any different to girls wearing nout & arrousing the other half. The thing you have to remember is we live in the age of ego's. people who look damn good like showing it off. yes, some viewers take it too far in thought to the level of sexism in which it is derogitory to women. but many don't. it's like having a beer. it's not great for you, but it's nice to have a tipple. Abuse it, and things go down hill.
If people want to be perved on naked, LET THEM. guys or girls. it's when people are forced to do so in which it all goes wrong.
& needless to say I vastly preffer the other video, catchyer tune & more impressive demonstration of the capabilities.
So to all you who preach presenting the female body in an arrousing state is sexist I demand you start protesting against male model's doing the same thing. cause it works both ways.
Some people actually ENJOY being looked at as ojbects of desire, girls & dare I say it GUYS.
Last time I remember walking down london bridge tube I remember an add with 8 guy's wearing Y-Fronts chilling looking ripped as fuck. how is this any different to girls wearing nout & arrousing the other half. The thing you have to remember is we live in the age of ego's. people who look damn good like showing it off. yes, some viewers take it too far in thought to the level of sexism in which it is derogitory to women. but many don't. it's like having a beer. it's not great for you, but it's nice to have a tipple. Abuse it, and things go down hill.
If people want to be perved on naked, LET THEM. guys or girls. it's when people are forced to do so in which it all goes wrong.
& needless to say I vastly preffer the other video, catchyer tune & more impressive demonstration of the capabilities.
So to all you who preach presenting the female body in an arrousing state is sexist I demand you start protesting against male model's doing the same thing. cause it works both ways.
I agree with Pete,
However, people posing for D+G (and thus a fat pile of cash) are doing so for similar, but not exactly the same reasons as those who just pose. They're paid because they're hench and hansome. At the end, its down to the individual as to whether they feel like it or not. Questioning someone's motives on a purely preachy basis just wastes time. I know i'd love to be ripped enough to stand in my boxers and look out over Gatwick arrivals hall.
If its not your body, then you don't really have a say, whether you're a man or a woman.
That said, in terms of Calvin Harris and this big red monster called 'the media', this continual use of the female form in this way is really old. Continual portrayal of women as 'meat' is sexist, but as long as there are women willing or even wanting to do this, it's going to continue, and there's plenty of money to pay them (a friend of mine was in a dizzee rascal video in a lowcut top and heels and netted £300 for 2 hours work, without even removing a layer). I don't mean this in a 'so get over it' sense, I just mean to say that it's going to keep happening. I feel for the parents, and for those with daughters now. I'd be worried for my kids.
Censorship exists for a good reason, and to knock it as a whole thing doesn't make any ground. At the same time, its not a big exaggeration to say that people will complain about anything these days, its about separating the important from the trivial.
However, people posing for D+G (and thus a fat pile of cash) are doing so for similar, but not exactly the same reasons as those who just pose. They're paid because they're hench and hansome. At the end, its down to the individual as to whether they feel like it or not. Questioning someone's motives on a purely preachy basis just wastes time. I know i'd love to be ripped enough to stand in my boxers and look out over Gatwick arrivals hall.
If its not your body, then you don't really have a say, whether you're a man or a woman.
That said, in terms of Calvin Harris and this big red monster called 'the media', this continual use of the female form in this way is really old. Continual portrayal of women as 'meat' is sexist, but as long as there are women willing or even wanting to do this, it's going to continue, and there's plenty of money to pay them (a friend of mine was in a dizzee rascal video in a lowcut top and heels and netted £300 for 2 hours work, without even removing a layer). I don't mean this in a 'so get over it' sense, I just mean to say that it's going to keep happening. I feel for the parents, and for those with daughters now. I'd be worried for my kids.
Censorship exists for a good reason, and to knock it as a whole thing doesn't make any ground. At the same time, its not a big exaggeration to say that people will complain about anything these days, its about separating the important from the trivial.
photo.jpg
I saw the Calvin Harris when it first went up, and I have to say I felt very disappointed. I agree totally with Carole and Angela's comments, and it is really sad that people think it is over the top political correctness. If it is freedom to look at women's bodies that you want, why is it always one type of women's bodies we see? I feel so sad that my daughters are growing up in society where the only acceptable woman's body is under 25 and size 8 with breast implants. If its freedom you want, what about freedom to be size 16, flat-chested or over 50. Is this 'freedom' to look at bodies a freedom for everybody, or are we limited to what the media chooses for us?
A fine of example of Goldsmiths extraordinary ability to take an interesting subject and turning it on its head for soapboxing. The Harris video was sexist, this was aknowledged from the start it was made clear that this was not the topic of discussion, want to discuss the plight of women in the modern world and its relation to commercial music and the media? Sounds great but not in a discussion concerning the technology being used. I think Mira brought an interesting topic forward and that its a shame that it can't seem to be discussed without the sex/class/race issues which dominate much of Goldsmiths life (quite justly) as it is.
The paint idea is interesting but I cant imagine a great ammount of use for it, whilst visually impressive, does it have levels of sensitivity as you would in a modern keyboard or drum machine? Whilst for performance purposes this could be very entertaining (provided those participating are wrapped up suitably tight), it does not appear to possess the subtlety required for music beyond the tripe produced by Harris.
The paint idea is interesting but I cant imagine a great ammount of use for it, whilst visually impressive, does it have levels of sensitivity as you would in a modern keyboard or drum machine? Whilst for performance purposes this could be very entertaining (provided those participating are wrapped up suitably tight), it does not appear to possess the subtlety required for music beyond the tripe produced by Harris.
Peter - Everyone would love to just discuss the technology, but clearly if it is presented in a sexist context it would be inappropriate to just pass over it as some kind of unfortunate side-issue. If the video showed the technology at the same time as portraying a load of black guys as idiots, or Jewish people as money-grabbers, or any other tired old stereotype, I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining about an angry reaction to that and pleading for a straight discussion of the technology. Nor would Mira have asked us not to focus on the racial issues. The depiction of women as mindless sexual decorations is no better, and deserves just as much 'soapboxing'.
Turning it over in my head since I posted last week, I tried to think of comparisons. The ingredients of the comparison were a promising new tool being demonstrated consensually, but in a way which evoked and reinforced harmful stereotypes many people hope to leave behind, or failing that, problematise. This was quite difficult, but it doesn't really matter - Alex has it right: if technology is presented for discussion, but in a sexist context, it is inappropriate to encourage readers to just pass over it as some kind of unfortunate side-issue. I appreciate the time and consideration people have put into explaining this.