Audio Art in the Deaf Century – Douglas Khan
October 22, 2006Douglas Khan says that there are two sources of sound: noises and instruments. Noises are produced by objects in our environment while sounds are produced by instruments. He’s more interested in noises and the compromise between noises and instrumental sounds. I would have never thought of every-day noises as music or art. This is because I hear it everyday–a door slamming or tires squeeling or twigs cracking under my feet. It’s not ‘music’ to my ears. Also I don’t consider it ‘music’ yet is because these noises come automatically. They already exist. But sounds don’t just naturally exist. Someone has to play the instrument to produce some kind of sound. And that takes effort, and I think that’s why I appreciate that more than naturally existing noises. However, I will make it a point to listen to nature a little bit more closely.
You know what I like most? I used to play percussion in high school and at Smith for wind ensemble & orchestra, and I really liked it when we would use additional “instruments” to enhance the piece that we were playing. For instance, we played a piece about slavery and I got to play an anvil with a hammer and use chains to add to the slavery piece. And at other times we would use a ‘rain stick’ to add a rain effect to the piece.
I can appreciate that. Using two types of art…noises and instrumental sounds to create something more unique and enhanced.
|Moitri|
You say that these everyday noises are not ‘music’ to your ears. I think this is Kahn’s point though. He thinks that we are too attached to music as the main audio pieces that we listen to and consider art. We tend to expect certain things of music – often we expect it to sound “pretty”/appealing to our ears. Due to our attachment to music we have yet to open up to other audio art forms. In saying that you do not find these noises very interesting because they are not ‘music’ to you ears shows exactly this. We should try to think more about sounds that are not what we typically think of as music.
However, I do agree with you in the way that those sounds simply heard on the street for example are not really art. I think they become art when they are taken by someone and perhaps set up of altered in some way. For example, even if a recording of street noise is made and nothing is changed, the observer of this piece would be experiencing the sounds in a different environment and therefore the sounds are also perceived differently. This wouldn’t necessarily be music… but it also wouldn’t be just the plain old sound one hears on the street everyday.
“Due to our attachment to music we have yet to open up to other audio art forms.” – I think that was a really wonderful way of summing up Khan’s argument in a more accessible way. Thank you for that, that helps me, since I found a large part of this reading quite beyond me.
“This wouldn’t necessarily be music… but it also wouldn’t be just the plain old sound one hears on the street everyday.” — what would it be then? Art?
a form of audio art that isn’t music…
The way the author distinguishes between music and noise is interesting; I was impressed by the concept that music is a romanticization of reality. I have to agree with that.
When I was reading the article, it made me think of my Costa Rica experience this past summer. I lived with a host family, and every morning lying in bed with my eyes closed, I would hear my little sister saying “lalalalalala” on the swingset. There are also sounds of my host mom cooking in the kitchen. I worked in the outdoors all summer, and I have grown to just be quiet and listen to my surrounding environment. One thing that taking a picture does not do is that it cannot really place you back into the environment– cannot place you back into the time and make you feel like you are there again. Even with a video recorder– the peripheral vision is limited– and things just look different on a camera. But if I were to close my eyes and lie in bed– and have a sound recording of the “morning noises,” I feel like it would bring me back more.
I just wish I have a better memory for noises and sounds.
>> Also I don’t consider it ‘music’ yet is because these noises come automatically. – Moitri
That’s life, the uncut footage…
>> I think they become art when they are taken by someone and perhaps set up of altered in some way. -Clara
Agree. We had read (somewhere…) before that whether something is art depends on the mentality of the artist. Therefore, sounds that come naturally cannot be a form of art, by this definition. It may be “artful,” but it’s not art.
This is a very interesting discussion, and I look forward to exploring it further in class. I will also be playing some examples which will further blur and complicate any distinctions or divisions you are trying to develop!
One note: How can we expand or deepen our discussion so we get beyond the art / not art dualism?