Sound Walk was like an art walk, except the pieces all involved sound in some way. Spread over a few blocks, either out on the street or in a little gallery or set up in an abandoned office space or in the back of a rented U-Haul parked in an alley (see photo at left... sort of), there were dozens of artistic pieces involving various media. Some were musicians (or "musicians") playing droning noise works, some were antique sound equipment set to play, some were photos with little speakers behind them. One involved headphones suspended from a tree (which one could don and hear clicking sounds, the origin of which I couldn't discern). This is just a sampling of the sort of things that had been done.
Probably the coolest was a group where they'd wired up a broom with a microphone which ran into a computer and back to headphones. One guy walked back and forth along the sidewalk, sweeping the bristles against the pavement. The vibrations were processed by the computer to have interesting effects. However, in order to hear the sound one had to grab a pair of headphones attached to the guy with the broom—five pairs hung from hooks along his belt, and he didn't stop to let the headphones be grabbed; you had to be quick, and after you got them on you needed to keep pace with him as he moved along. (No, I didn't get any photos. I wasn't there as a journalist.)
About the art itself… my wife admitted as we walked back home that with some of them she felt like she wasn't smart enough to understand. I replied that I didn't think the point was to understand it; the point was to experience it. Which is precisely the sort of thing someone who didn't understand it either would say, I know.
But I do believe that the point of art is not to get across a specific point but to elicit reactions in the audience members—provided that they are open to the experience. That reaction may most often be What the hell is that?, but at least that's something beyond utter indifference.
Or not being experienced at all.
It's not really art until there's an audience; up to that point it's merely creation aspiring to be art.
If nothing else, it was something different than just sitting in front of the TV. Although one of the art pieces was four small TV sets in a darkened empty office building, arranged in a semi-circle on the floor in a corner, with images of flames on each one. So there was a bit of TV involved.
That part I understood. I think.
And some of it wasn't that complicated:
Gee, sounds like fun. (Ouch.)
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of TV and sound, have you ever heard of "sound paintings?" I picked up a DVD of old TV detective shows and two of them have scenes dealing with this esoteric art form.
One show, Peter Gunn, originally aired on January 19, 1959, an episode called “Let’s Kill Timothy." Fours years later another series, Burke's Law, also talked about sound paintings ("Who Killed Jason Shaw?" - January 3, 1964).
Sound paintings were recordings of noise that were supposed to create a picture in your mind. I know both shows were fictional but apparently there was some sort of trend for sonic artwork, a beatnik type of thing.
It fits into what you wrote: "About the art itself… my wife admitted as we walked back home that with some of them she felt like she wasn't smart enough to understand. I replied that I didn't think the point was to understand it; the point was to experience it."
So if you encounter any old beatniks, ask them about sound paintings.
Ray
I hear that, Ray.
ReplyDeleteMan, they liked having "kill" in the episode titles back then, didn't they?