Re: "Instrument" vs "Effect"

["Krispen Hartung" <khartung@cableone.net>]

I'd agree that it is part of the art, just as a looping device is part of 
our art. /K
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "a k butler" <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 1:58 AM
Subject: Re: "Instrument" vs "Effect"


>
>>I like to draw analogies with art, so let me give one a try. Let's say 
>we 
>>call a paintbrush and paint the collective instruments of the painter, 
>>meaning that they are the physical objects that touch the canvas and 
>>produce what we see as visual stimuli. It seems a bit awkward to say 
>this, 
>>but bear with me. Then let's say that when the painter finishes his 
>piece, 
>>he puts it on display and places a rose colored sheet of Plexiglas in 
>>front of the painting, so that the original visual sense data are then 
>>altered to appear different colors.
>
> So the plexiglas is  part of the artist's expression.
> I can't see that it wouldn't just become an integral part of "the art".
> Just that it now gets called "mixed media".
>
> andybutler
>
>