From: Ian Andrews
<iana@cream.ebom.com.au>
To: philosound@sysx.apana.org.au
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.
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.
To: Ian Andrews <iana@cream.ebom.com.au>,
philosound@sysx.apana.org.au
From: scot art <scot@sysx.apana.org.au>
It's true that the tendencies documented by Ian do exist in modern sound theory. It's not really a discipline on its own, it really could be a discipline of philosophy, musicology, film criticism and/or cultural theory. Perhaps it would be better classified as a "cross disciplinary field" and left at that. But, as Ian points out, this isn't enough for at least some academics in the area, they want it desparately to a be an entire discipline to itself. And sound art is nowadays almostly completely subjugated to the sound-emitting visual object; it's not there until it is seen.
My answer to these questions Ian raises can only be to supply my personal perspective, for example why we started Soundsite, and this list (philosound).
For myself, sound studies is properly termed "philosophy of sound" (hence the name of the list, philosound). Thus if pressed to supply a trite definition I would say it is a primarily a sub-specialisation of philosophy, with strong cross-disciplinary currents. A more comprehensive definition takes several paragraphs, a good example of my perspective on this would be to consult the "About Soundsite" web page.
On this page you might notice that musicology is one area which is almost entirely excluded from Soundsite's definition. Musicology is the one area I have some problems relating to (in terms of sound studies); it is too obsessed with reasoning with/about the musical structure of sounds, how these are connected, primarily through emotions, with human subjects without saying too much about subjectivity in general. It also tends to set up the classic Sound/Music/Noise distinction, priviledging of course the Music category. And it is true to say that post-Cage, the category of Music had expanded somewhat to include things previously lumped into Sound, or Noise. But it is not true to say that it abolishes these categories, rather it strengthens them considerably, I am sure that even Cage himself had at least something he would put into the generally negative category of "Noise" (despite 4'33", which just annouces "Sound and Noise can be Music", not that all noise IS music).
This division is the only one for which I can accurately say there is a "sharp division" drawn between sound theory and musicology. This is not say that all musicology falls sharply on the "other side" of the border, some of it obviously doesn't. But there is definitely a line, which once crossed, places certain types of study into the definite territory of musicology. The other borders which are placed between sound theory, and say, cultural studies, aren't so clear cut and there I agree with Ian's critique. However this opposition (to musicology) is one of the primary motivators in starting and continuing Soundsite - so much academic discussion of sound on the Internet never does rise above mere analysis of music (or sound-as-music if you will).
Essentially for me, "sound studies" is a sub-discipline of philosophy. The only question which I feel is "foundational" in this regard is the one of "Is it possible to imagine (or live) an ontology of sound, and what does an epistimology of sound "look" like?". This is the question which makes it a part of philosophy in my opinion. However, to be broader, the "philosophy of sound" is perhaps merely philosophy as it is applied to a singular object of study - sound. It is part phenonomological, psychological, social and yes, musical (and lots more besides).
However I feel I should address something which Ian remarked, "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."
My perspective on this is that by theorising an "ontology of sound" we're (well, at least, I'm) not trying to find sound's "lost power" or locate a sonic unconscious, merely addressing a certain tendency in post-enlightenment philosophy toward a merely visual ontology, a merely visual epistimology, that is, priviledging the seen over the other senses, and specifically, the heard. This philosophy (that I'm resisting) can be thought of as the philosophical equivalent of the classical Rennaisance linear perspective painting.
So for me, Philosophy of Sound is a way of resisting, deconstructing if you like, the Age of Reason which still holds us in its rational (read: visual) sway. This is the "purpose" of such a theorisation. Thus, I, like Ian, cannot brook the Balkanisation of sound theory into its own discipline with myriad sub-specialities; it isn't any such thing. Rather its a cross-disciplinary branch of philosophy (if pushed; otherwise all related disciplines), and its primary object of study is "sound" rather than say "logic" or "social systems" or "cinema". Note that I think it perfectly reasonable that you can study any of those three (and more besides) and their relationship to sound. I think in fact that this rather serves its academic pretensions rather well - it then inherits the great weight of intellectual respectibility that the study of philosophy affords - and makes for its further categorisation as being across several other disciplines easier than if it is attempted to form a specialisation all for itself. It also accounts for the fact that you find artists, cultural theorists, musicologists, philosophers and film critics and dedicated non-specialists all engaged with its study.
As for practice, I was going to add a whole new section but instead, let me be as brief as possible. As a "sound artist" I work with radio, spoken word, music, installation and performance. Sometimes all at once, at others, separately. This is no attempt to invalidate my music as music, for example, it still is music. The category of "sound artist" is just an easy way to label the sum of these practices. I don't know if any individual practice in these actually is "sound art".
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.
I think this last statement of Ian's sums it up; with the unfortunate side effect of nulling out the issue of "founding principles"; because such a statement is one regardless; foundational issues never die (they just intermittently regress into crisis - ask any mathematician or logician).
Scot Art.
Référence: http://autonomous.org/soundsite/main.html