adamasnan@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 17 2011 - 19:33:12 EST
Perhaps this is question of accessibility;
'Music' implies a traditional set of confines to the general
population, and is thus understood to be something instantly
identifyable.
Where as 'Art' may be used to describe something that 'expands or
questions the boundaries' and generally has a greater margin for being
misunderstood, without losing it's status as a piece of art.
I use the term 'sound art' only when the term 'music' is not met with
approval (of course, I try to argue the point that music embodies all
forms of sound that an aesthetic or emotional object may be derived) As
soon as you say 'art' it is 'OK'.
In my world, there is no real distinction between the two, only a
distinction in receivership.
===
Adam Asnan
+447882684982
adam.asnan@gmail.com / adamasnan@aol.com
http://adamasnan.blogspot.com/
http://www.entracte.co.uk/project/adam-asnan-e101
http://entracte.co.uk/project/various-e84/
http://www.entracte.co.uk/mixes/
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Cooper <TCooper@rsamd.ac.uk>
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
Sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:48
Subject: RE: "sound artist"?
I wonder whether the description of composer or sound artist isn't
necessarily
the most important distinction here. Rather than who? and how? perhaps
a more
important question is what has been made?
Maybe thinking about the way a piece is best received by a listener
will give a
clearer outline of "what" something is. For example a piece of art made
of
sounds intended to be received or best received within the concert hall
along
with all of the associated baggage is surely composition. Perhaps a
piece of art
made of sounds best received in a gallery which encourages greater
amounts of
input and reflection from the receiver is sound art. Of course with any
issue
like this there is an entire spectrum.
Another distinction to perhaps be made is that the receivers
relationship with a
piece is all but guaranteed not to be the same as the makers. The
listener
simply hears what the piece has to offer whilst the artist will be
aware of all
the work that has gone into the piece and how the piece developed.
Tim
________________________________________
From: owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca
[owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca] On
Behalf Of François Dumeaux / druc drac [olvealien@yahoo.fr]
Sent: 17 February 2011 18:55
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: "sound artist"?
Also, my position may be ambiguous, as i am also a composer.
But what to say about visual artists who make sonic installations?
François
Le 17/02/2011 19:46, James Phelps a écrit :
There we go.
--- On Thu, 2/17/11, Michael Gogins
<michael.gogins@gmail.com><mailto:michael.gogins@gmail.com>
wrote:
From: Michael Gogins
<michael.gogins@gmail.com><mailto:michael.gogins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "sound artist"?
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca<mailto:cec-conference@concordia.ca>
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 12:42 PM
I think the question in many of our minds is, why is the sound that
one hears in your installation not considered some kind of music?
Regards,
Mike
2011/2/17 François Dumeaux / druc drac
<olvealien@yahoo.fr</mc/compose?to=olvealien@yahoo.fr>>:
> I consider myself as a sound artist when I make installations, like a
visual
> artist.
> I consider myself as a composer when I compose music.
> Maybe it's too simplist?
>
> François
>
>
> Le 17/02/2011 17:16, Larry Austin a écrit :
>>
>> Dear colleagues:
>>
>> Am I a "sound artist", because I incorporate recordings of nature's
and
>> man's
>> sounds into some of my pieces? I have always considered such pieces
as
>> "compositions" created by me, a "composer". And do we consider
"sound
>> artists"
>> as "composers" or even as "musicians"?
>>
>> Just wondering.
>>
>> Larry
>
-- Michael Gogins Irreducible Productions http://www.michael-gogins.com Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com -- François Dumeaux / druc drac - La craba, 47500 Cuzorn - http://elytres.net - 05.53.75.13.04. - 06.61.85.12.21. [cid:part1.00010105.06050206@yahoo.fr] This e-mail and any attachments is intended for the above named only, and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the e-mail is prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. While RSAMD checks emails for known viruses, please note that neither RSAMD nor the sender accepts any liability for viruses or other defects and it is your responsibility to scan any attachments included with this e-mail. The Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama is a company limited by guarantee Reg. No.4703 (Scotland) and a charity registered in Scotland, No: SCO15855
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 17 2011 - 21:46:08 EST