hi all

thought it could be interesting.
penso possa essere interessante.

ciao
r


>Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 20:07:05 +0100
>To: nettime-l@xxxxxxx
>From: Ian Andrews <iana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: <nettime> What's wrong with sound art?
>Sender: owner-nettime-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: bulk
>
>What's wrong with sound art?
>
>[I am writing this in response to an article on SoundCulture '96 by
>Nicholas Gebhardt, "Can you hear me? What is sound art?" in Real Time 13.
>This is not in any way meant to be a critique of Gebhardt's article
>(though I might attempt such a critique in the future). It is just that
>this article has raised some of the issues, and encapsulated some of the
>dominant themes of sound theory that have been bugging me for a while. It
>might help to check out Gebhardt's article before or while reading this.
>http://sysx.apana.org.au/soundsite/texts/hear.html ]
>
>
>     I have always felt uncomfortable with the theoretical position
>ocuppied by "sound theory." Is sound theory a cross disciplinary area
>encompassing branches of musicology, acoustic science, linguistics,
>cultural studies, philosophy, film theory, anthropology and history, or
> does it occupy, or seek to occupy a position in the gaps between these
>disciplines? Like the non-objective and dynamic nature of sound itself,
>sound theory seems to permeate a multitude of disciplines without
>reference to a single parent discipline or to a genealogical structure
>within a taxonomy. In other words, it would be equally valid to argue that
>sound theory is a subset of musicology, as it would be to argue that it is
>a subset of film theory or philosophy. Thus the sound theorist, who is
>rarely just a sound theorist, works in the way of a bricolouer, extracting
>knowledge from a diverse range of disciplines. As a result of this, sound
>theory suffers from an insecurity regarding its own position in relation
>to other disciplines, and so it naturally embraces a tendency towards a
>reduction of its scope - or a tendency towards a perceived purity or
>essential idea - in order to define itself in stricter terms. I find this
>direction (which seems to have occured over the last couple of years) not
>only limiting but dangerous. This position, however, is perfectly
>understandable when hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on
>conferences and festivals in the name of sound art (such as SoundCulture),
>and when sound studies strands are becoming familiar fare in Humanities
>courses. It is quite predictable that such questions arise such as "what
>are the concepts of a pedagogy of sound?"  Sound theory gets to big for
>its boots and begins to exhibit the pretension of being a discipline unto
>itself. It is at this stage that we begin to see sharp divisions being
>drawn between theories of music and theories of sound, between cultural
>criticism and sound theory, etc. The most cynical explaination for this
>would be that sound theorists/curators/publishers/artists, harbouring a
>deep insecurity for their discipline, have opted for an isolationist
>policy that seals off the borders, demarcates the territory, fortifies the
>limits and ultimately becomes very inward looking. Sound theory becomes an
>ivory tower housing a small elite of theoretical purists who constantly
>reinvent the wheel as a consequence of their isolation from other
>disciplines This tendency to seal off the territory of sound theory often
>results in a dramatic interiorization, a search for the "missing essence"
>of sound - a search for the lost power that resides in the sonic
>unconscious - ontotheology - religion.
>
>     The problem becomes even more pronounced when we move from theory to
>practice. Sound art occupies an even more insecure position. In a
>post-Cagean world, if sound art is performed in front of an audience it
>can too easily be perceived as music or theater. If sound art happens on
>radio it becomes radiphonics or, again, music. So sound art ends up in the
>heavily culturally coded environment of the art gallery. But even that is
>not enough. Sound art then finds that it needs to be tied to an object (so
>that it can be visually documented, given a monetary value, given a value
>of authenticity and singularity, etc.). In other words, enslaved to a
>regime of the visual, yet again. While it is not true that all sound art
>pieces are dominated by the visual - the pieces which attain the position
>of highest importance in the hierarchy usually have a strong visual
>presence. Disembodied works, on the other hand existing only as sound on
>tape or CD in the same contex are often marginalised.
>
>     It is not my intention to lay the blame squarely on the sound
>theorists/artists. The problem can equally be attributed to the growing
>institutionalisation/commercialisation of sound theory/sound art, the
>gallery/high art system, and even the selfish and paranoid intellectual
>climate of the 90's. I may feel uncomfortable about the non-position of
>sound theory but I also celebrate the anarchic freedom which this position
>brings. It is my opinion that the greatest value of sound theory lies in
>its challenge to a philosophical world view based on the domination of the
>visual, not in the search for founding principles, aural essences, or
>techno-mysticism. However, the re-examination of philosophical values from
>the perspective of sound does not call for the instituion of a new set of
>unmoveable founding concepts based on sound. We need to tread much more
>lightly in this area. Sound theory should be dance from one body of
>knowledge to another, constantly plundering, rearranging and juxtaposing
>different disciplines.
>
>Ian Andrews.
>
>
>---
>#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
>#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
>#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>#  more info: majordomo@xxxxxxx and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
>#  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner@xxxxxxx
>

.....................................
Roberto Paci Dalo'   dalo@xxxxxxxxxxx
phone in linz: 0664 4861672



 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
(a) (c) (o) (u) (s) (t) (i) (c) ( ) (s) (p) (a) (c) (e)
 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
information&comunication channel | for net.broadcasters
http://xchange.re-lab.net  (Xchange)  net.audio network
xchange search/webarchive: http://xchange.re-lab.net/a/