I once read an interview with world chess champion Magnus Carlsen, who said that a chess game can be interpreted simply: one chess player tests his game plan against his opponent’s… …but is it really that simple? This same multiple world champion, a genius at blitz play, said in another interview that he doesn’t like to talk about chess because no one understands his concept of the game anyway… (a somewhat “autistic” dissonance in his statements)
Why am I writing this about creating Sound Art pieces? Maybe my composing isn’t “intellectual” enough, maybe my pieces are too simple, but… lately I’ve been under the impression that it’s simple – I select a sound generated almost randomly (balloon, elephony) and process or supplement it to achieve the appropriate tensions and expansions… and so on, recursively…
…are such simplified statements permissible? I don’t know. Just as M. Carlsen’s chess games can shock with, among other things, unusual combinations, perhaps my Sound Art creations can also surprise with, among other things, unusual “combinations”… I don’t know, I don’t know anything, a creator can’t judge their own work… so I’m left to climb the next levels of complexity and quality of the pieces’ content – there’s no point in “looking around”
P.S. I just realized that even making an incredibly beautiful jug can be as simple as removing and adding clay, and making jewelry can be as simple as modifying and adding elements.
P.S.2. Recently I wanted to interview John on the topic of “sports coach and art coach – differences and similarities.” John quickly cut the subject short, saying it wasn’t an interesting topic. My father, when he read this post and heard John’s reaction, replied that it was obvious – John, like Carlsen, works intuitively and prefers to act rather than talk about what is almost obvious to him.