Àâòîð î ñâîåì ñî÷èíåíèè:
`...I do not use anamorphosis in its optical and algorithmic acceptation (as in the visual arts), but as involving a multiplicity of variables. The main difference between visual anamorphosis and the way I (mis)use the term is that in my case there is no single `point of view` from which you can detect the `correct` image (or in this case, sound).
What I problematize of the interpretation of written music is the postulation of the possibility of correspondence between notation and performance: one of the factors that implies this correspondence is precisely the algorithmic quantization of music/sound that the reduction of music to an optical dimension (notation) has generated. If there is a resemblance between this and Vicentino`s `original` (is there an original at all?), it is similar to that between Francis Bacon`s figures and the shapes they phantasmatically refer to. But I agree with you, it is far from obvious, and for sure not geometrical or algorithmical.`
`...I do not use anamorphosis in its optical and algorithmic acceptation (as in the
visual arts), but as involving a multiplicity of variables. The main difference between
visual anamorphosis and the way I (mis)use the term is that in my case there is no single
`point of view` from which you can detect the `correct` image (or in this case, sound).
What I problematize of the interpretation of written music is the postulation of the
possibility of correspondence between notation and performance: one of the factors that
implies this correspondence is precisely the algorithmic quantization of music/sound that
the reduction of music to an optical dimension (notation) has generated. If there is a
resemblance between this and Vicentino`s `original` (is there an original at all?), it is
similar to that between Francis Bacon`s figures and the shapes they phantasmatically refer
to. But I agree with you, it is far from obvious, and for sure not geometrical or
algorithmical.`