Re: [-empyre-] Thursday, 19th: Hearing and Listening
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- Dear Tim I am sure participatory vibrancy has a criticality, or at least has the potential for criticality in both the instances you mention, it depends however on your interpretation of the auditory and of criticality as to whether we agree on what that might be. Criticality or rather the articulation and valuation of criticality is for me a matter of interpretation and thus of human agency and political choice making. In other words a matter of contingency and context. I am sure the marches in the third reich had a participatory vibrancy too, and yet it clearly meant something so very different. Sound, listening and revelling are difficult things, I think, and not per se positive. :-) best salomé On Jun 22, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Timm750 timm...@gmail.com wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- Hi, everyone, thanks for great week. Hope you'll continue to chime in through the rest of the month, as well. Regarding, Salome's question, I'm wondering whether she would exclude participatory vibrancy as a critical condition of the auditory. This, for instance, is what I experienced a few weeks ago during the June 4 demonstrations in Hong Kong where the generation of disruptive noise constituted a critical act of Hong Kong resistance to mainland centralization. Or last night, as Renate and I enjoyed the Fete de la Musique in Paris, we reveled in the non-directional vibrancy of the multifarious sounds of the public sphere. Cheers, Tim Sent from my iPad On Jun 19, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Salomé Voegelin m...@salomevoegelin.net wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- Sorry, just to add. I do not think that a post-idealist, post-humanist materialism means to deny human agency, perception and reflection in a passive vibration, but to understand the equivalent embededness, (being centered in the world while not being at its centre) as well as the ethical responsibility that comes with being capable of human agency. Because while the bird can listen to me as much as I can listen to it, in the end my position is different and if I pretend it is not I think I am in danger or naturophilia, if such a word exists, and that will not empower the bird. On Jun 19, 2014, at 11:21 PM, Salomé Voegelin m...@salomevoegelin.net wrote: Chris: I am sorry if I was not as clear as I would like to be. I do not think sound is necessarily political, and a vista is not per se political either, but listening and looking are. Sound is sound and a chair is a chair, but how I look at it or listen to it is political. There is a difference and it is vital.The notion of sonic materialism is important as a critical lever, but materialism is, for me at least, paradoxically a philosophy of the material at the same time as it is a philosophy of perception and reflection, and that paradox or coincidence, dissolves the dichotomy that you rightly say should not be evoked: it is not a matter of human/non-human, culture/ nature but the compounding of all of it and thus gives us an insight into the make-up, bias, balance of that comound. So I think, or hope at least, we are on the whole in agreement, if not in the details or in how we get there. I do not mean to build a straw man or woman and neither do I mean to point a finger at any body in particular, but the focus, as seen in these discussions, on the one hand towards technological clarify, and on the other hand the celebration of unspeakable states of the heard (mishearings and hallucinations) that need to be bracketed off if we want to make sense within critical language confuses me. It at once suggests that sound is a pre-critical inarticulable state that needs to be framed if we mean to hear anything valuable and talk about it, while at the very same time celebrating that inarticulable state. Neither position seems useful to me as it avoids considering the socio-political particularity of listening. hope that makes a bit more sense. On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:55 PM, Christoph Cox c...@hampshire.edu wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- Salome: Whom do you have in mind with the claim that some of us . . . [pretend] that scrutinizing the ideological or political aspects of listening or sound [ . . .] is somehow either not possible or desirable or manifests a betrayal of a purer state? Does anyone actually hold that position? Seems like a straw man argument to me. In this conversation, at least, what's at stake is not WHETHER there is a politics of sound but what politics MEANS and how we CONSTRUE it. Sound is a power, a force that is imposed and resisted in multiple forms, ways, and regimes. And so of course there's a politics of sound. The false notion is that politics ought to be separated from sonic materiality more
Re: [-empyre-] Thursday, 19th: Hearing and Listening
-century-old discussions of the material support of visual artworks. Why should we care if the painting is on canvas or linen? Likewise, should we know or want to know if it's Supercollider or Max or a CD? Similarly, why is listening isolated, idealized, and idolized? Ultimately, the interactions that sustain interest and importance are not those between sound waves and eardrums, but between ideologies and economies, between societies and subjects, between history and concentrations of power. The fatigue with the language of conceptual art expressed by Semitransgenic strikes me as a response to the very difficult and neverending work of resisting the dominant vocabularies of our times and places. Such vocabularies are so pervasive as to operate transparently and to be adopted unproblematically as natural. The best international art-speak of the past fifty years has taken it upon itself to sprinkle sand in the gears of the cultural-industrial machinery. Of course, the machinery constantly recoups this sand as raw material for further manufacture. This recuperation produces both our collective fatigue and the demand for further innovation (I use the term cautiously) in the strategies and modes of alternative meaning-making. I fear - genuinely, I do - that our collective recourse to technology, to listening, to mute materiality, is a signal of retreat from the ubiquity of cultural-ecnomic hegemony. Sound schmound. Let's think about the relationships artworks create between audiences, institutions, conventions, ideas, and philosophies. Then we're on to something. Kindest regards to you all Seth www.kim-cohen.com On Jun 19, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Jim Drobnick wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- For today, Thursday, 19th, our focus will be on Hearing and Listening. While these topics may have been addressed in the past through perceptual or phenomenological methods, the questions by Jennifer Fisher, Eldritch Priest and Salomé Voegelin hint at the affective, bodily and political forces implicitly at work during this activity. Too often it is assumed that hearing or listening merely involves a passive transfer of sensory data, as if the ear were merely a conduit for information. But it's clear that the ear is subject to socialization and bias, training and discipline, personal idiosyncracies, and influence by the surrounding environment. The 3 questions today, then, seek to reflect upon the effects of such influences when attending to audio art: 1) Jennifer Fisher: What is the significance of spatial resonance and affect when listening to sound art? How do hearing and proprioception combine in formations of resonance? How might the resonances of ambient space -- whether a museum, concert hall or other venue -- operate contextually in curating sound art? My sense is that resonance operates somewhat differently from vibration: if vibration stems from the tactile sensing of a discrete object (or its emission from a particular point in space), might resonance afford more delocalized, contextual, intensification of hearing and proprioception? 2) Eldritch Priest: Through tropes such as the often cited “the ears are never closed,” artists and theorists alike routinely posit audition as form of “exposure,” a veritable faculty that lays us open and vulnerable to the world. But as Steven Connor notes, the ear is not submissive; it actively connives to make what it takes to be sense out of what it hears.” This means that the ear not only refuses to entertain an outside -- “noise” -- but its operations seem to entail a kind of deterrence of sound” such that to hear is always to mishear. But if all hearing is mishearing, audition can only be a fundamental hallucination that works for the powers of the false. From this premise we might ask whether hearing is (in both its ordinary and Peircean sense of the term) an abduction of the “outside.” What would it mean or do, then, for sound studies—specifically sound studies in its humanistic phase -- that its organ of concern (l’oreille) is steeped primarily in “guesswork”? Does studying sound mean studying what is effectively a connivance? And if so, if audition is always making sense up, then with what, or as Neitzsche would say, with “whom” is it complicit? 3) Salomé Voegelin: What is the relationship between listening and sound art? Jennifer, Eldritch and Salomé, please feel free to further elaborate or extend your initial thoughts! Best, Jim ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Re: [-empyre-] Thursday, 19th: Hearing and Listening
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- On Jun 20, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Seth Kim-Cohen s...@kim-cohen.com wrote: Why can't we accept our anthropomorphized and anthropomorphizing position without succumbing or surrendering to an anthropocentric privileging of the human (all too human)? I agree with the pickle most definitively, and to try to come out of it by pretending there is a equivalence and egalite because Nietzsche and Deleuze says so, kind of does not work for me. I have yet to see a monkey who is responsible for global warming for example, so there definitively is something terribly human about the current state of the world: human and non-human all together, up shit creek and no paddle in sight, but maybe we can hear one that we never dreamt of seeing. I am not so worried that we anthropomorphize in perception. I think as you say, Seth, what else can we do, we are human, it is rather how, with what awareness and ethical responsibility, we do the morphising that is important to me. Since the what else is more worrying as the options seem to focus on erasing the human (and with it his responsibility) by apparently becoming nature, non-human or whatever it is we want to be equivalent with without truly considering the power position we have leveraged ourselves into in philosophy, in art and in fact. There is a feminist argument here too in that I do not want man to become woman, I want woman to have her own voice not re-utter Nietzsche et all, to fit in at the margins. I think it is a bit late for pretending there is no bias to our carving visually or sonically! ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Thursday, 19th: Hearing and Listening
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- Dear Jim thanks for inviting me to pose a question to this list. my question is rather short: What is the relationship between listening and sound art? and in many ways so self evident that it truly baffles me, and any suggestions, opinions, debates as to this relationship will be received with great interest. By way of expanding it I have no explanation but only a further question: Where does listening to sound art come from, what legacies does it carry, produce or try to rid itself of? thanks for all your ideas on this topic salomé On Jun 19, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Jim Drobnick j...@displaycult.com wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- For today, Thursday, 19th, our focus will be on Hearing and Listening. While these topics may have been addressed in the past through perceptual or phenomenological methods, the questions by Jennifer Fisher, Eldritch Priest and Salomé Voegelin hint at the affective, bodily and political forces implicitly at work during this activity. Too often it is assumed that hearing or listening merely involves a passive transfer of sensory data, as if the ear were merely a conduit for information. But it's clear that the ear is subject to socialization and bias, training and discipline, personal idiosyncracies, and influence by the surrounding environment. The 3 questions today, then, seek to reflect upon the effects of such influences when attending to audio art: 1) Jennifer Fisher: What is the significance of spatial resonance and affect when listening to sound art? How do hearing and proprioception combine in formations of resonance? How might the resonances of ambient space -- whether a museum, concert hall or other venue -- operate contextually in curating sound art? My sense is that resonance operates somewhat differently from vibration: if vibration stems from the tactile sensing of a discrete object (or its emission from a particular point in space), might resonance afford more delocalized, contextual, intensification of hearing and proprioception? 2) Eldritch Priest: Through tropes such as the often cited “the ears are never closed,” artists and theorists alike routinely posit audition as form of “exposure,” a veritable faculty that lays us open and vulnerable to the world. But as Steven Connor notes, the ear is not submissive; it actively connives to make what it takes to be sense out of what it hears.” This means that the ear not only refuses to entertain an outside -- “noise” -- but its operations seem to entail a kind of deterrence of sound” such that to hear is always to mishear. But if all hearing is mishearing, audition can only be a fundamental hallucination that works for the powers of the false. From this premise we might ask whether hearing is (in both its ordinary and Peircean sense of the term) an abduction of the “outside.” What would it mean or do, then, for sound studies—specifically sound studies in its humanistic phase -- that its organ of concern (l’oreille) is steeped primarily in “guesswork”? Does studying sound mean studying what is effectively a connivance? And if so, if audition is always making sense up, then with what, or as Neitzsche would say, with “whom” is it complicit? 3) Salomé Voegelin: What is the relationship between listening and sound art? Jennifer, Eldritch and Salomé, please feel free to further elaborate or extend your initial thoughts! Best, Jim ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Thursday, 19th: Hearing and Listening
, Thursday, 19th, our focus will be on Hearing and Listening. While these topics may have been addressed in the past through perceptual or phenomenological methods, the questions by Jennifer Fisher, Eldritch Priest and Salomé Voegelin hint at the affective, bodily and political forces implicitly at work during this activity. Too often it is assumed that hearing or listening merely involves a passive transfer of sensory data, as if the ear were merely a conduit for information. But it's clear that the ear is subject to socialization and bias, training and discipline, personal idiosyncracies, and influence by the surrounding environment. The 3 questions today, then, seek to reflect upon the effects of such influences when attending to audio art: 1) Jennifer Fisher: What is the significance of spatial resonance and affect when listening to sound art? How do hearing and proprioception combine in formations of resonance? How might the resonances of ambient space -- whether a museum, concert hall or other venue -- operate contextually in curating sound art? My sense is that resonance operates somewhat differently from vibration: if vibration stems from the tactile sensing of a discrete object (or its emission from a particular point in space), might resonance afford more delocalized, contextual, intensification of hearing and proprioception? 2) Eldritch Priest: Through tropes such as the often cited “the ears are never closed,” artists and theorists alike routinely posit audition as form of “exposure,” a veritable faculty that lays us open and vulnerable to the world. But as Steven Connor notes, the ear is not submissive; it actively connives to make what it takes to be sense out of what it hears.” This means that the ear not only refuses to entertain an outside -- “noise” -- but its operations seem to entail a kind of deterrence of sound” such that to hear is always to mishear. But if all hearing is mishearing, audition can only be a fundamental hallucination that works for the powers of the false. From this premise we might ask whether hearing is (in both its ordinary and Peircean sense of the term) an abduction of the “outside.” What would it mean or do, then, for sound studies—specifically sound studies in its humanistic phase -- that its organ of concern (l’oreille) is steeped primarily in “guesswork”? Does studying sound mean studying what is effectively a connivance? And if so, if audition is always making sense up, then with what, or as Neitzsche would say, with “whom” is it complicit? 3) Salomé Voegelin: What is the relationship between listening and sound art? Jennifer, Eldritch and Salomé, please feel free to further elaborate or extend your initial thoughts! Best, Jim ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Thursday, 19th: Hearing and Listening
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- Chris: I am sorry if I was not as clear as I would like to be. I do not think sound is necessarily political, and a vista is not per se political either, but listening and looking are. Sound is sound and a chair is a chair, but how I look at it or listen to it is political. There is a difference and it is vital.The notion of sonic materialism is important as a critical lever, but materialism is, for me at least, paradoxically a philosophy of the material at the same time as it is a philosophy of perception and reflection, and that paradox or coincidence, dissolves the dichotomy that you rightly say should not be evoked: it is not a matter of human/non-human, culture/ nature but the compounding of all of it and thus gives us an insight into the make-up, bias, balance of that comound. So I think, or hope at least, we are on the whole in agreement, if not in the details or in how we get there. I do not mean to build a straw man or woman and neither do I mean to point a finger at any body in particular, but the focus, as seen in these discussions, on the one hand towards technological clarify, and on the other hand the celebration of unspeakable states of the heard (mishearings and hallucinations) that need to be bracketed off if we want to make sense within critical language confuses me. It at once suggests that sound is a pre-critical inarticulable state that needs to be framed if we mean to hear anything valuable and talk about it, while at the very same time celebrating that inarticulable state. Neither position seems useful to me as it avoids considering the socio-political particularity of listening. hope that makes a bit more sense. On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:55 PM, Christoph Cox c...@hampshire.edu wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- Salome: Whom do you have in mind with the claim that some of us . . . [pretend] that scrutinizing the ideological or political aspects of listening or sound [ . . .] is somehow either not possible or desirable or manifests a betrayal of a purer state? Does anyone actually hold that position? Seems like a straw man argument to me. In this conversation, at least, what's at stake is not WHETHER there is a politics of sound but what politics MEANS and how we CONSTRUE it. Sound is a power, a force that is imposed and resisted in multiple forms, ways, and regimes. And so of course there's a politics of sound. The false notion is that politics ought to be separated from sonic materiality more generally. Left politics is deeply rooted in materialism. It seems to me that anyone committed to left politics (as I am) should reject the cultural idealism that (explicitly or implicitly) insists on dichotomies between nature/culture, physics/politics, etc. On 6/19/14, 5:18 PM, Salomé Voegelin wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- At a talk tonight at the Chelsea College of Art in London I was reminded that John Berger wrote his seminal Ways of Seeing in 1973. That is a good 40 years ago, and it is 40 year of acknowledging and working with the fact that seeing is ideological, political, cultural and social; that it is inflected by class, gender and economics. And yet, when 40 years later it comes to Ways of Listening, we pretend, or some of us do at least, that scrutinizing the ideological and political aspects of listening or sound, which are bizarrely and uncritically mixed up at times, it is somehow either not possible or desirable or manifests a betrayal of a purer state. I see Seth's desire to sprinkle sand in the gears of the cultural-industrial machinery also as my desire to critically consider listening maybe not to hear better, but to get to understand the gears that drive listening and make us hear a truth that is just another word for bias. Then listening becomes a socio-political tool not just to listen but to make a different sound. On Jun 19, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Christoph Cox c...@hampshire.edu wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- I think a false dichotomy is being drawn here between sound waves and mute materiality [sic], on the one hand, and ideologies, economies, societies, subjects, history, power, on the other. This dichotomy maps on to other false dichotomies: physical/cultural, extra-discursive/discursive, passive hearing/active listening, etc. The world is full of differences of degree but no such dichotomies or differences of kind. It forms a single plane. And, whatever the human, the social, the ideological, the discursive, etc. are, they are continuous with the physical, the material, etc. As Steve Goodman, Marcus Boon, and I myself have argued, there is a politics of vibration that does not require the philosophically bankrupt division of the world into the non-human/human, physical/cultural, etc. I'm
Re: [-empyre-] Thursday, 19th: Hearing and Listening
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- Sorry, just to add. I do not think that a post-idealist, post-humanist materialism means to deny human agency, perception and reflection in a passive vibration, but to understand the equivalent embededness, (being centered in the world while not being at its centre) as well as the ethical responsibility that comes with being capable of human agency. Because while the bird can listen to me as much as I can listen to it, in the end my position is different and if I pretend it is not I think I am in danger or naturophilia, if such a word exists, and that will not empower the bird. On Jun 19, 2014, at 11:21 PM, Salomé Voegelin m...@salomevoegelin.net wrote: Chris: I am sorry if I was not as clear as I would like to be. I do not think sound is necessarily political, and a vista is not per se political either, but listening and looking are. Sound is sound and a chair is a chair, but how I look at it or listen to it is political. There is a difference and it is vital.The notion of sonic materialism is important as a critical lever, but materialism is, for me at least, paradoxically a philosophy of the material at the same time as it is a philosophy of perception and reflection, and that paradox or coincidence, dissolves the dichotomy that you rightly say should not be evoked: it is not a matter of human/non-human, culture/ nature but the compounding of all of it and thus gives us an insight into the make-up, bias, balance of that comound. So I think, or hope at least, we are on the whole in agreement, if not in the details or in how we get there. I do not mean to build a straw man or woman and neither do I mean to point a finger at any body in particular, but the focus, as seen in these discussions, on the one hand towards technological clarify, and on the other hand the celebration of unspeakable states of the heard (mishearings and hallucinations) that need to be bracketed off if we want to make sense within critical language confuses me. It at once suggests that sound is a pre-critical inarticulable state that needs to be framed if we mean to hear anything valuable and talk about it, while at the very same time celebrating that inarticulable state. Neither position seems useful to me as it avoids considering the socio-political particularity of listening. hope that makes a bit more sense. On Jun 19, 2014, at 10:55 PM, Christoph Cox c...@hampshire.edu wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- Salome: Whom do you have in mind with the claim that some of us . . . [pretend] that scrutinizing the ideological or political aspects of listening or sound [ . . .] is somehow either not possible or desirable or manifests a betrayal of a purer state? Does anyone actually hold that position? Seems like a straw man argument to me. In this conversation, at least, what's at stake is not WHETHER there is a politics of sound but what politics MEANS and how we CONSTRUE it. Sound is a power, a force that is imposed and resisted in multiple forms, ways, and regimes. And so of course there's a politics of sound. The false notion is that politics ought to be separated from sonic materiality more generally. Left politics is deeply rooted in materialism. It seems to me that anyone committed to left politics (as I am) should reject the cultural idealism that (explicitly or implicitly) insists on dichotomies between nature/culture, physics/politics, etc. On 6/19/14, 5:18 PM, Salomé Voegelin wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- At a talk tonight at the Chelsea College of Art in London I was reminded that John Berger wrote his seminal Ways of Seeing in 1973. That is a good 40 years ago, and it is 40 year of acknowledging and working with the fact that seeing is ideological, political, cultural and social; that it is inflected by class, gender and economics. And yet, when 40 years later it comes to Ways of Listening, we pretend, or some of us do at least, that scrutinizing the ideological and political aspects of listening or sound, which are bizarrely and uncritically mixed up at times, it is somehow either not possible or desirable or manifests a betrayal of a purer state. I see Seth's desire to sprinkle sand in the gears of the cultural-industrial machinery also as my desire to critically consider listening maybe not to hear better, but to get to understand the gears that drive listening and make us hear a truth that is just another word for bias. Then listening becomes a socio-political tool not just to listen but to make a different sound. On Jun 19, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Christoph Cox c...@hampshire.edu wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- I think a false dichotomy is being drawn here between sound waves and mute materiality [sic], on the one hand
Re: [-empyre-] Wednesday, 18th: Sound Art, Technology and Innovation
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- This is relevant to Anna's question: In my experience, grants and academic positions so often seem to go not to the most interesting or important artists (by my lights, of course) but to much less interesting artists who can tell a story about their innovative use of hardware and software. I very much agree with this statement from an English perspective also. One of the reasons possibly for this foregrounding and appreciating of the how and what above the why, is a current crisis in knowledge, as I see it. Austerity and the cuts to education and art funding in the UK, together with a monstrous conservative government, have brought us back to the idea of one truth and one knowledge that is not discovered or produced, but that we have to be instructed in. And so work and research projects in sound art that provide a tangible technological instruction and focus will have more chance at funding and in turn artists being thus funded are preferred for academic positions and students will increasingly demand the certainty of instructions rather than the pain and doubt of a more conceptual and material engagement in sound. (sorry for being quite so negative) On Jun 18, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Christoph Cox c...@hampshire.edu wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- Questions about technology (about sonic production, recording, circulation, etc.) surely have some importance in the consideration of sonic (and any other) art. But I confess that, as a critic and philosopher, I almost entirely tune out when the conversation (especially among artists) turns to gear and tools rather than sensual/conceptual content. Factual talk about gear too often substitutes for the more difficult and, to my mind, infinitely more important, talk about aesthetic and historical value. Take, for example, Leonardo Music Journal. Though I serve on the journal's editorial board, I'm rarely interested in the essays, which so often concern the how? instead of the why?. This is relevant to Anna's question: In my experience, grants and academic positions so often seem to go not to the most interesting or important artists (by my lights, of course) but to much less interesting artists who can tell a story about their innovative use of hardware and software. On 6/18/14, 10:43 AM, Paul Dolden wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- First,I like to thank Jim for inviting me, and have greatly enjoyed the discussion so far. Well I will start today, since I have not participated yet.( I am responsible for question #2, about opera using recorded signals. N.B. my question was more a joke i sent out to alot of friends with some sarcastic comment about concert hall practice and its contemporary relevance.) If you look at the many comments for the New York Times article, people are scandalized that an opera company would think of using samples to replace the orchestra to keep costs down. One thinks immediately of Foucault's discussion of authenticity in the arts. But I do not want to go in that direction please. As much as I would like to discuss that the depth of Wagners' timbres are not possible with the Vienna Symphonic library in which all instruments were recorded with the same small diaphragm microphones, which creates bad phasing when huge densities of instruments are used. I will repress the gear geek in me and proceed. The story, of the opera, came out while reading last week's highly theoretical discussions, which were amazing, but left me still thinking that we as cultural workers have created almost no shift in how people think about the art of sound reproduction and music consumption. For your average person recordings are their experience of music. They consume recordings in their car, home and office. If they are walking down the street and are not wearing ear buds, they are confronted with street musicians, most of whom are jamming to a pre-recorded tape! By contrast when we try to interest the public in just listening whether in the art gallery or concert hall with nothing to see, people think they are being ripped off. And yet our use of technology is far more interesting and subtle than the new Celion Dion album. (n.b. and please: nothing to see-I am thinking of more than electroacoutic music and its diffusion ideas!-even though i live in Quebec!) Where do we go from here, in making the audio format, (which may or may not involve some type of live performance) to be more understood and appreciated for your average person? Or to put the question in even simpler terms,and make it personal(indulge me for a moment, the people who know me at this forum know my dry wit): Why can i always interest and amaze your average person with my guitar wanking, than the extreme detailed work i have to
Re: [-empyre-] curating sound art
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- Both had an overwhelming number of artists, and most of the clips were short, a minute or less. I think part of the problem, and you mention it, with these two shows in particular but maybe with on-line curating of sound work in the general, is the amount of works presented. Just because the on-line space is technically limitless, does not mean the listener can cope or wants to cope with a limitless amount of artists. In many ways Soundworks was an example of lazy curation: delegated to nominators and then presented en masse, without developing a personal narrative and focus, and thus without the intrigue of the discreet and particular that a listener could engage with, persuading instead with what ever has the most immediacy. On Jun 17, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Jim Drobnick j...@displaycult.com wrote: ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
