254

Comments ⁽⁰⁾

• 

  thelostexpedition

  ^{May 2, 2013}

  David, tell me if I am properly paraphrasing you here: It makes sense that acousmatic composers are comfortable with the trend of eschewing physical media and releasing music in the form of sound files, but the acousmatic composer may not know what to make of “sound art”, which claims that value can be imparted upon the listening experience by way of some special conjoining of the sonic with the visual. The label, “sound art”, suggests the existence of a “grey area between music and fine arts,” but acousmatic composers are concerned that the existence of such an area may challenge the principles that are the basis of their commitment to acousmatic composition.

  Maybe that’s a too-rigid reading of you, or maybe it’s a just-plain-wrong reading. I think you may have mainly intended to humbly express your feelings of discomfort about the prevalence of sound art and its advantages over acousmatic music in the “live performance” arena. But if you see sound art as prescribing rules that would make an acousmatic composer question herself/himself, please say more about that. Do sound artists claim that their explorations bring greater value into the world than do other sound-based works? Do they say that the value of a sound art work is largely to be measured by the extent to which it objectively “pushes art’s boundaries” (as opposed to, say, by how valuable the subjective experiences of listeners is)? I’m being a bit facetious by asking these strong questions, but I’m prodding you to clarify what the concern is. I haven’t been a fan of sound art, generally speaking, but I’m always interested in tensions between little art cultures.

  Reply
• 

  john grzinich

  ^{May 2, 2013}

  I think the grey area between “sound art”, “acousmatic, electroacoustic, experimental music” and “fine arts” has opened the most healthy window in recent decades to expand creative (and scientific) practices with sound. Sure there is a lot of “bad art” nowadays but hasn’t there always been? Its like you said, “about questioning” and that’s what I see people doing, from a variety fields and disciplines.

  Reply
• 

  eamon sprod

  ^{May 7, 2013}

  I would have thought that the term “sound art” was created to try and quantify the myriad of activities occurring in the “grey area” rather than creating it? For many the lines between music/composer on one hand and visual art/artist on the other have been crossed and blurred long ago and in many ways. Unfortunately I feel that often these issues do become simply one of semantics, or worse still a reductive attempt for people to define and lay claim to safe ground. The map is not the territory.

  Reply
• 

  thelostexpedition

  ^{May 7, 2013}

  Eamon, I’m pretty sure that David Vélez is not allowing popular categories to limit his thinking about what is possible (David’s response to you will probably be posted before mine), but popular categories are a reflection of what the public is willing to give attention to. I think artists are wise not to ignore that, and I think David is claiming not to ignore it himself. Opportunities for exposure, collaboration, and artistic growth may result from exploring “mysterious categories”, even when we find these categories a bit dubious. I’ve seen artists make all sorts of tentative trade-offs in order to push their work out into the open – for example, hastily slapping together an installation or abstract film to accompany their music in a performance. The results sometimes sadden me, but I’m generally satisfied if what seems most central about a work is crafted in a highly-principled manner.

  I suppose that one of the ideals sometimes pursued in attempts at multi-faceted work is that of forming the different elements such that no single one stands out as “most central”, but that must be extremely difficult and there’s no reason to assume that a successful attempt will be of (overall) greater value than works having a lopsided distribution. Some “sound art” works make the value of the sonic and visual components inherently interdependent, but aren’t almost all such works fundamentally conceptual ones that decisively trade away aesthetic freedom in order to isolate their point? Most composers insist on more aesthetic freedom than this for their sounds. That’s fine with me, but it’s also a big reason why other elements of their performance end up looking either like shoddy afterthoughts or independent works with little connection to the sound. I wouldn’t mind seeing a discussion about how one should pursue unity in a sound-and-visuals performance with a priority of overall aesthetic value in mind? What’s a wise approach? It’s a guiding principle of abstract painting (maybe of all painting) that one should NOT work slowly from one side of the canvas to the other and develop details “here” before even starting “over there.” If a similar “codevelopment” principle would be the best guide for planning sound-and-visuals performances, then I’m having a hard time imagining how it could be strictly observed. Even if it weren’t silly to hold a contact mic in one hand and a paint brush in the other, what talented composer allows the fragile process of composition to be constrained by the limitations inherent to installation choices (cost of materials, dimensions of the space, gravity)?

  Reply
• 

  eamon sprod

  ^{May 8, 2013}

  Hmm. I think you could equally flip your last statement around, what talented “sound artist” (or fill in your selected term of choice) would limit themselves by the narrow constrains of the concert hall or the CD?? But as I have no attachment to the term sound artist, would never describe myself as a composer and would never claim talent (just false modesty) I am probably not the person to ask.

  To be honest I am not exactly clear on what David is suggesting, but he (and you more so??) seems to be positioning composing as a pure and higher art form, and that “sound art” is simply a dilution of this (my humble apologies if I have this incorrect). Apart from feeling that is a most amusing idea, I fear it has rather missed point somewhat. I see composition as a tool among many with which to work with and explore sound and it’s affect. You seem to be suggesting that sound art is composition with visual material tacked on. While many musicians may be trying to escape the confines of the concert hall in this way, what about the people that never started there? Yes artist but also architects, scientists, film makers, dancers, aimless wanderers and the listeners? While I agree that much of what claims the term sound art is simply experimental music re-branded and yes sometimes with visual material simply tacked on in a dodgy way, it is also many other things besides. It is not simply a blurry line drawn between visual art and music but a nebulous group of activities centred around sound exploration, taking in many and varied artistic practises and approaches.

  My main issue with these categories is that like many terms we invent to try to describe artistic practise is that there does seem to be a trait to try and inhabit them. When I studied art (yes I am one of those) a lecturer once told us we should not try to make “art”, but simply make “stuff”. I still think this was a very relevant and useful piece of advice.

  Reply
  • 

    thelostexpedition

    ^{May 8, 2013}

    Reply to Eamon Sprod:

    No, I’d never claim that composing was “higher” than sound art. I wasn’t being prescriptive in the part you’re thinking of. I don’t think “sound art is composition with visual material tacked on.” In fact, the conceptual works I mention are the only ones that I’d be confident labeling “sound art,” and they’re the ones least likely to suffer from the “tacked on” problem.

    I was addressing sight-and-sound works in general (not just sound art), and I hoped to show why problems with connecting sight and sound are hard to avoid. I do think that artists using experimental music in a sight-and-sound performances usually wish to prioritize sound composition… over all else. And that’s why I also think that shoddy visuals or arbitrary conjoinments of sight/sound are what we should expect. That’s not a criticism. I see no way for the sight and sound elements to codevelop as a unity without the latter element losing some potency. That’s one reason why I’m tolerant of other peoples’ “weak conjoinments.” Also, I just haven’t noticed it being a huge problem (I like to think my prescriptions about art/music are empirically-based). When friends of mine who are primarily focused on composing sounds have hastily slapped together abstract films for their experimental music shows, I’ve generally thought that the results were preferable to watching them play without any visuals. Similarly, if an architect hastily slaps together a soundscape for an installation, I’d be content as long as the sonic results add a little value or don’t detract from the installation’s value.

    Anyway, I’m very glad that you wrote everything that you did. I have the strong impression that some contributors to this website could learn from what you say about making “stuff” instead of trying to make “art.” There seems to be an “identity crisis” among many who employ field recordings in their work, and their attempts to resolve it by rallying around labels or principles have only shown how artificial and self-imposed that crisis is. I won’t say more about that.

    Reply
    • 

      David Velez

      ^{May 9, 2013}

      Thank you Mimi Alidor for generously sharing your thoughts. I am probably crazy but I really think that crisis are essentially the most powerful creative catalyzers known to men. Historically genres like folk, blues and hip hop emerged in moments of economical and political crisis. In the other hand Van Gogh’s and Francis Bacon’s paintings (to cite a few) were a response to their own personal crisis. Without crisis we would only have the dangerous status quo of things.

      Reply
• 

  David Velez

  ^{May 8, 2013}

  I thought my post was self-explanatory enough so I don’t really feel I have to write any further in the regard…but…

  I really feel every media is not only a medium of ‘expression’ but an object of study: sound composition has its own specificities, same with film, sculpture, architecture, photography, painting… . As an example Tarkowski wrote about film, Malevich wrote about painting, Richard Serra wrote about sculpture, Pierre Schaeffer wrote about music…

  Anyway the grey mixture of ‘acousmatic composition /experimental music /sound art’ seems like something that wants to remain unwritten, undiscussed. Totally encrypted.
  This is interesting until the moment we understand part of our work is making it public, if not what is the point of sending demos, playing in concerts and showing our work in exhibitions? Just to prove ourselves we are ‘good enough’ to get props, positive reviews and some financial reward? Hope not.

  We can’t ignore that there is a society out there with a concept named culture where sadly we operate at. No matter how misfit, unlabeled and free we want to remain we will always operate there whether on a mainstream or and ‘underground’ level, even on an anti-cultural level as if there was still something that can be called anti-cultural.

  The cryptic attitude that we seem to be so proud of is actually very arrogant, obstinate and stubborn. We are like a club of male kids that don’t want anybody external to enter as in the cartoon Little Lulu.

  What I am saying is that there must be a level of mediation between our work and the public as it happens everywhere. This mediation is usually refereed as critic and theory -or just plain journalism- and as much as it scares our egos and imposing introversive rhetoric, this mediation is going to happen and it is up to us whether this mediation will be fair or not.

  If we give this mediation enough tools to do their work, we will be OK. If not they will come here to kill the public aspect of our practice with their fetishist, objectual, syntactic, visual and limited approach to things.

  By tools I mean something they can write about. Something else than a loudspeaker playing sounds of birds and water. We need to be capable to either write about what we do or allow / invite others to do so.

  Through the years I had the chance to talk with many people from different lines of work (poets, fiction writers, journalists, architects, painters, sculptors, philosophers, engineers) and they all seem to refer to ‘sound art’ and ‘acousmatic composition’ as something that strongly intrigues as if there was an aura around it that operates as a wall between the work and them.

  This ‘wall’ probably obeys to many factors that go from badly exhibited works, to disregard to the audience factor from the artist / composer. But beyond that I often hear that people don’t really ‘understand’ what goes on in ‘sound art’ and ‘acoustic composition’ so they feel they can’t fully enjoy and appreciate it.

  The people interested in cultural manifestations need to ‘understand’ to enjoy, they need this ‘cognitive’ mediation to approach and enjoy things. This is why I am warning about this wave of empowered external critics, theorists and journalists from museums, universities, galleries and magazines that will come to do the job we haven’t been able to do.

  Reply
• 

  eamon sprod

  ^{May 9, 2013}

  This may be totally off topic but as I am not much of a writer – nor thinker for that matter – I though it might be relevant to post this statement by Max Neuhaus first published as an introduction to the exhibition “Volume: Bed of Sound”, P.S.1 Contemporary Art Center, New York, July 2000.

  I think the point that Neuhaus makes has some relationship to what we have been discussing?

  Sound Art? – Max Neuhaus

  From the early 1980s on there have been an increasing number of exhibitions at visual arts institutions that have focused on sound. By 1995 they had become almost an art fad. These exhibitions often include a subset (sometimes even all) of the following: music, kinetic sculpture, instruments activated by the wind or played by the public, conceptual art, sound effects, recorded readings of prose or poetry, visual artworks which also make sound, paintings of musical instruments, musical automatons, film, video, technological demonstrations, acoustic reenactments, interactive computer programs which produce sound, etc. In short, ‘Sound Art’ seems to be a category which can include anything which has or makes sound and even, in some cases, things which don’t.

  Sometimes these ‘Sound Art’ exhibitions do not make the mistake of including absolutely everything under the sun, but then most often what is selected is simply music or a diverse collection of musics with a new name. This is cowardly.

  When faced with musical conservatism at the beginning of the last century, the composer Edgard Varese responded by proposing to broaden the definition of music to include all organized sound. John Cage went further and included silence. Now even in the aftermath of the timid ‘forever Mozart decades’ in music, our response surely cannot be to put our heads in the sand and call what is essentially new music something else – ‘Sound Art’.

  I think we need to question whether or not ‘Sound Art’ constitutes a new art form. The first question, perhaps, is why we think we need a new name for these things which we already have very good names for. Is it because their collection reveals a previously unremarked commonality?

  Let’s examine the term. It is made up of two words. The first is sound. If we look at the examples above, although most make or have sound of some sort, it is often not the most important part of what they are – almost every activity in the world has an aural component. The second word is art. The implication here is that they are not arts in the sense of crafts, but fine art. Clearly regardless of the individual worth of these various things, a number of them simply have little to do with art.

  It’s as if perfectly capable curators in the visual arts suddenly lose their equilibrium at the mention of the word sound. These same people who would all ridicule a new art form called, say, ‘Steel Art’ which was composed of steel sculpture combined with steel guitar music along with anything else with steel in it, somehow have no trouble at all swallowing ‘Sound Art’.

  In art, the medium is not often the message.

  If there is a valid reason for classifying and naming things in culture, certainly it is for the refinement of distinctions. Aesthetic experience lies in the area of fine distinctions, not the destruction of distinctions for promotion of activities with their least common denominator, in this case sound. Much of what has been called ‘Sound Art’ has not much to do with either sound or art.

  With our now unbounded means to shape sound, there are, of course, an infinite number of possibilities to cultivate the vast potential of this medium in ways which do go beyond the limits of music and, in fact, to develop new art forms. When this becomes a reality, though, we will have to invent new words for them. ‘Sound Art’ has been consumed.

  http://www.max-neuhaus.info/soundworks/soundart/SoundArt.htm

  Reply
• 

  David Velez

  ^{May 9, 2013}

  Very interesting text Eamon, thanks for brining it up. I really like that it addresses the ‘curator’ figure as an aspect of the ‘sound art’ dynamic to be dealt with.

  Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Discussions and exchanges are not only healthy but necessarily to avoid still waters and prompt new ideas and forms.

  Reply