Sound Art

Riley Patrick

This was an interesting article; it laid out some interesting ideas about what art can be. I was fascinated by how the author could weave science and art in and out of each other.

For me, the problem with discussing so much science was that it brought me out of the art and into the world of technology. Having jargon like nucleus did not help convince me that sound art was in fact art.

I think the author also brushed over many issues with musical noise, such as its unpleasantness. You cannot bring up a concern and then say “The objection if futile, and don’t intend to refute it.” One must talk about the issues in new artwork, not simply shrug and ignore them.

One aspect of the paper that I was not impressed with was the lack of discussion about other artists. There was no mention of artists working in this field. It was only about this author’s perspective on an art form. Art is not about just one person’s perspective and because of this choice the article is much less strong.

            I do not think this paper did a good job convincing me that noise is art nor telling me about the art form. The language choice was inaccessible and too varied. One minute the author is talking about the violence of battery’s and the next he’s discussing how the author personally wants to regulate sound. The paper was not direct but skirted actually talking about the art form in favor of pretentious ramblings about how we require sound art. I was not a personal fan of this article. I was not impressed with it and did find it helpful in discussing sound art.