While reading these two articles, I am compelled once again to ask, can sound art ever completely separate itself from visual elements? While many sound artists (including world-famous Francisco Lopez) feel that vision impedes sound art and go as far as dimming the lights and providing blindfolds in order to eliminate sight and highlight only the sound aspect, the element of vision nevertheless still exists whether it exists within its absence or whether it exists in conjunction with the sound. I believe however that sound art becomes much stronger when it admits to and utilizes the aspect of sound, as did much of the art talked about in both Between Thought and Sound and Visual Sounds: On Graphic Scores. For example, without notation—the visual act of recording sound, sound would not only be virtually impossible to reproduce but also lose the performance, translation, and imagination aspect. Also, by allowing visual aspects to participate and combine with sound aspects, a new form of art (specifically notation art) can be created...something that is “no longer merely a means to an end but as an end in itself.” Ultimately, as Braxton declared, “A performance ... should reveal its actual visual material …which is to say one should be able to actually see as well as hear the piece." --Tiffany
Reading these, I was taken back to a concert i had watched over the summer. It was the Philadelphia singers, backed by a full orchestra, performing pieces by Philip Glass and Steven Reich. The music was rich and orderly, and the sound resonated throughout the concert hall and my entire body. A few of the scores played out difficult time signatures that i could barely follow, yet they gave me goose-bumps nonetheless. These structures of sound production were no-doubt written out in standard notation for the ease of the musicians to reproduce what the composer had intended. And now I think about these graphic scores, such as the ones Anthony Braxton was producing. And I think of some of the recorded performances of these pieces i had investigated. These pieces have no affect on me at all. The random squabble of various instruments, molested individually by some musicians, to me is not interesting. Neither are the visuals of the score. It is an exploration in music that I see being just as necessary as Jackson Pollack deciding to fling house paint onto a large piece of cloth, but alas, my days of romance with these former generation's progressive impulses are over. For me, there is a very specific structure music has to follow to be successful in affecting my mind and body. Abstract expressionist music does not do this.
I think it's a step in a good direction to think of compositions as visual as well as aural, as it leaves sound open for more interpretation than previously expected. Compositions, when written out, have always been taken to be an exact replica of what should be played, or heard, in a piece. With an interest in the visual though, a new level comes into play that twists the sound from being a 'flat' concept to something that can exist on a more 3-dimensional plane, open to more interpretations and senses. Sound, something that is always time-based as a preconceived piece to be shown to an audience, usually needs to be documented in order to be reproduced again and again. With the intervention of open-endedness of notation, though, comes the possibility that sound can forever be reinvented and re ascribed to the player.
While reading these two articles, I am compelled once again to ask, can sound art ever completely separate itself from visual elements? While many sound artists (including world-famous Francisco Lopez) feel that vision impedes sound art and go as far as dimming the lights and providing blindfolds in order to eliminate sight and highlight only the sound aspect, the element of vision nevertheless still exists whether it exists within its absence or whether it exists in conjunction with the sound. I believe however that sound art becomes much stronger when it admits to and utilizes the aspect of sound, as did much of the art talked about in both Between Thought and Sound and Visual Sounds: On Graphic Scores. For example, without notation—the visual act of recording sound, sound would not only be virtually impossible to reproduce but also lose the performance, translation, and imagination aspect. Also, by allowing visual aspects to participate and combine with sound aspects, a new form of art (specifically notation art) can be created...something that is “no longer merely a means to an end but as an end in itself.” Ultimately, as Braxton declared, “A performance ... should reveal its actual visual material …which is to say one should be able to actually see as well as hear the piece."
ReplyDelete--Tiffany
Reading these, I was taken back to a concert i had watched over the summer. It was the Philadelphia singers, backed by a full orchestra, performing pieces by Philip Glass and Steven Reich. The music was rich and orderly, and the sound resonated throughout the concert hall and my entire body. A few of the scores played out difficult time signatures that i could barely follow, yet they gave me goose-bumps nonetheless. These structures of sound production were no-doubt written out in standard notation for the ease of the musicians to reproduce what the composer had intended. And now I think about these graphic scores, such as the ones Anthony Braxton was producing. And I think of some of the recorded performances of these pieces i had investigated. These pieces have no affect on me at all. The random squabble of various instruments, molested individually by some musicians, to me is not interesting. Neither are the visuals of the score. It is an exploration in music that I see being just as necessary as Jackson Pollack deciding to fling house paint onto a large piece of cloth, but alas, my days of romance with these former generation's progressive impulses are over. For me, there is a very specific structure music has to follow to be successful in affecting my mind and body. Abstract expressionist music does not do this.
ReplyDelete--PHLADKY
I think it's a step in a good direction to think of compositions as visual as well as aural, as it leaves sound open for more interpretation than previously expected. Compositions, when written out, have always been taken to be an exact replica of what should be played, or heard, in a piece. With an interest in the visual though, a new level comes into play that twists the sound from being a 'flat' concept to something that can exist on a more 3-dimensional plane, open to more interpretations and senses. Sound, something that is always time-based as a preconceived piece to be shown to an audience, usually needs to be documented in order to be reproduced again and again. With the intervention of open-endedness of notation, though, comes the possibility that sound can forever be reinvented and re ascribed to the player.
ReplyDeleteBrianna Didyoung