[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microsound] Re : Sound topography (sound art)
Hi Annick and others
0f course the question of experience is very important, and this could ask
our own relations with art: are they already experiences? or do artworks
induce the fact to experience them? (and I don't think that interactivity
or intersubjective links with the relay of a machine or a system, is really
necessary or sufficient to develop experiences in art) ; these questions
are essential because they indicate the roots of art into a social horizon.
About sound, and specially sound in art, it seems that sound works into an
art context permit to ask again the status of art, because of the blind
(volontary?) vision of a historical involvement of time-based arts in
History of Art. This (maybe not available) reason brings to art
institutions the legitimity to show sound art exhibitions (to build at time
an history) without the most of time the necessary conditions to "show"
these sound works (for example, the famous permeability of the sounds into
spaces and the strong ability of the sound to extend virtual spaces, times
and fictions). It seems to me that these art places are favouring the
access to the sound "as an image" (as if the time was stopped) even if it
could be invisible, but not to be immersed into sound during a time.
The question of "listening" (not only with ears) is fundamental. And the
ways of listenings are today multiple (more and more), this multiplicity is
taking part into the history of the XXth (recordings, radio, LPs, CDs,
digital sensoring and reproduction, and so on) and will be the stake of the
XXIst century (networks, p2p, podcasting, etc.). We are at break of day...
Experiences of sounds, whatever they are, offer to build "temporalities"
(and spatialities too) but not time. The terms and the concepts of "time"
and of "space" are absolute (kantian). To speak about temporalities and
spatialities involves the fact to experience them (individually and
collectively) with different possibles (possibilities), and then to build
"techniques" around and inner them... The recognition (art as an activity
of recognition?) of the differences of temporalities, and experiences of
them (as recordings: the souvenir and the memory of each one of us, and of
"we") permits to make "visible" or "audible" what is invisible or
inaudible. This is really the "real" relation between art and its social
existence (presence): it's the same as "jurisprudence" into our daily life,
each artwork and art activity don't set exactly a precedent (the fact to be
original is not precious), but open possibilities (among others) that each
one can experiment and can appropriate. Tomorrow we will be able to
exchange our listenings, they will become "social", annotated, augmented,
and so on... (ie not only as today a consumer activity). As in Fahrenheit
451...
that will be all for today ;-)
sorry if it seems too condensed, I've tried to be clear ;-)
and sorry for my poor english
soundly yours
Jerome Joy
http://homestudio.thing.net/
:
>Hello Jerome Joy,
>
>As Jerome Joy said, the term ""sound art" is already problematic"? I was
>reading an article written by the french art critic and architect Tjibault
>de Ruyter from the french magazine ArtPress, magazine I unfortunatly lent to
>to a friend of mine? But what I remember is, according to de Ruyter, "Sound
>Art" is still not very understood by the institutions? Probably due to 1.
>Its complexity (this time, that's my point of view)? medium between art and
>music (sound + art), or medium between sound + art + architecture according
>to the installations that all of sound artists create? Wednesday, I received
>a mail from the american sound artist Stephen Vitiello (you rpobably know)?
>It was about a question I asked to him about the so-called project? He
>answered that according to him :
> " I don't think we can ever do enough to bring people's
>awareness to how sound affects how we live our lives. In terms of the
>growing urban force everywhere it is something we are always living with at
>greater intensity and for some, working hard to block out. I am Seattle at
>the moment for an exhibition and just woke up to the very loud sounds of
>construction outside my hotel. There's a lot of industrial and commercial
>sound that I love but at 7am I could do without it!"
>
>Very interesting? Because, and that's my point of view, his assertion leads
>to question about the nature of sound (that's I answered to him? By the way,
>that will be closed to Jerome Joy's assertion which was : "approach the
>singularities of using sound into an art practice or/and into a musical
>practice")? City is a mixture of sound which can turn unbearable according
>to our experience (I am very closed to this idea of "experience" and not
>"cultural" or whatever)? It makes me remember of two or three things I read
>from, respectively, Olafur Eliasson, Merleau-Ponty and the Dutch architect
>Lars Spuybroek? All of them agree about one point "the desire to make
>audible what is inaudible) (for Merleau-Ponty, the idea was to make visible
>what is invisible (see The visible and the invisible). For Olafur Eliasson,
>all his works turns around this bipolarity such as "Visible" and "Invisible"
>as The "Green River" series have shown)? That is one of the starting point
>of the project that I'm planning? Stephen Vitiello has the same reaction as
>we all have when we are in noisy place? A young Japanese sound artist
>Keiichirô Shibuya (www.atak.jp) talks with a japanese researcher Kenichirô
>Mogi about the nature of the sound, I mean, whatever sound is, noisy or not,
>it's still sound? Well what he wanted to say, - and it's probably because
>he's used to living in a noisy city as Tokyo -, sound of the city has a
>something like musicality? It's probably true?
>
>See You Annick
>
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org