Sound theory

Hearing is the first sense in the womb and the last sense to go before death. But yet with a lot of animation or moving image sound is left to the last and not much attention is paid to it.

Each sound has 3 elements:

Vibration

Context (medium)

Changes in pressure

Each sound has 3 phases, which make up the sound envelope:

The attack

Sustain

Decay

Sound has the following qualities:

It’s immersive

It can’t be shut out

It contains depth

It has no directionality

It can’t be frozen

Sound and perspective

Figure – most important sound

Ground- the listeners’ social world

Field – the physical world around the listener

Dance music changes the perspective – makes it repetitive and hypnotic

Sound and distance

All sound has forms of distance – (as you go down the list it gets further in distance)

Intimate

Personal – conversation

Informal

Formal

Public – no interaction – hardest

Sound and memory

We use sounds/songs to conjure up associations of the past. A certain sound or song can bring us back to a memory. I've also found that sometimes I like a song better  if I have a memory to go along with it. 

Sound as event

Northern Ireland is one of the only places that give sectarian meaning to sound. For example there are specific catholic and protestant drums which are the boron and lam-beg drum.

There is also a difference in speech. Protestants speech is harsher – this comes from the Anglo sax-ans, the language is more guttural. All our swear words came from the Anglo sax-ans, which is why they sound so harsh. Catholics speech is softer because it comes from the Gaelic language which seems lyrical. It was interesting to hear about the spelling test to distinguish what religion a person is. You could clearly hear the difference in the letter “h” but you wouldn't pick up on it in everyday life.

I was in integrated education since I was four and I wouldn’t take much notice about religious differences. My mum says that in primary school (when you were in contact with the same teacher everyday) every year our speech would change slightly depending on what religion the teacher was.

In class the issue was discussed that, would your accent not make a difference to the way you pronounce it, rather than your religious background? I was thinking about this and most people live in an area that is either one way or the other, there aren’t many places that are integrated. Therefore you would be able to know where a person was from, because of their accent, and if you know the area you would probably know what religion the area is. Although obviously there is always exceptions.

Everything should be provocation

John cage 4.33 (created around 1947-48) Was a turning point and the birth of conceptual art. It made artists realize that it wasn't so much about the art itself, but the idea behind it.

Personally I can’t see how this piece was taken so seriously and how people actually spent hundreds of pounds on tickets to watch four and a half minutes of silence. I can understand that each silence is different and that the piece was meant to provoke a reaction from people, but how could they take it so seriously. It made me feel uncomfortable. Up until the clock came on I sat waiting for something to happen and then at that point I realised that it was going to be silent the whole way through.

“All sound is music, music is all sound" - John Cage

After hearing the John Cage piece, i started thinking about any pieces of music that i liked that didn't have vocals and i thought of a band called "The XX" and they have a song called "Intro" which has no lyrics, i watched the video on you tube and found out that Rihanna sampled it and added lyrics to it, for one of the songs on her new album. So i clicked on the link and listened to it. Its horrible. I think she ruined it (and I'm a Rihanna fan). It was such a nice piece of music that it doesn't need lyrics because you can almost imagine your own. Also I think that because I had heard it before and had sort of imagined the style of vocals that would work with the music. Now that she added vocals I don’t think they work, they just sound too different from the style of the original song. Sometimes less is more. And i think that this piece shouldn't have lyrics. I've put videos for both songs below:

Has life became secondary to simulation?

Simulacra suggests that the line between reality and simulation is blurred. And that we live our lives through simulations of real life rather than real life. And that for some people things aren’t real until they’re put on facebook. I don’t agree, there’s things that happen that don’t be put on facebook but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t happened or aren’t real. I know they happened and the people that were with me know they happened and just because it’s not put online doesn’t make them any less real. Maybe they just don’t need the online approval? Is there a certain age which we feel like we need approval? Weather we admit it or not everyone has the need for validation with everything they do, to make sure were doing the right thing, from a young age this approval comes from family but as we get older it comes from external sources such as friends, and social networking sites. 

"Technology is the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it" - Max Frisch

Magazines can provide simulation. I don’t really buy any magazines but I would sit and flick through one if it was there. I would look at the pictures and think “oh that’s nice” but I wouldn't go out and buy the clothes that are in it just because some celebrity is seen wearing it.

Gaming is changing how publishers think. Most games don’t have a story they let the gamer decide what to do and how to create the story (getting them more involved). Gamers like to be challenged. In an interview with Jane McGonigal she was asked how was gaming positively affecting the world, this was part of her reply:

“There is the positive impact of traditional games, and then there's this second, newer category of games that are engaging gamers to solve real problems. One of my favourite examples is the Foldit game, created by researchers at the University of Washington. This is a 3D game, a kind of really complicated Tetris, that teaches you how to fold proteins and folding proteins is a way to investigate the causes of diseases like cancer or Alzheimer's. Recently, more than 50,000 players of this online game, Foldit, were credited as co-authors in a scientific article in the journal Nature about the steps involved with curing cancer. These gamers had actually outperformed the most advanced supercomputer algorithm that scientists had been using to try to fold proteins. And these were, according to the researchers, almost exclusively people who were untrained in biochemistry, gamers who used their creativity, their problem-solving stamina, their resilience, and their collaborative skill.”

I found this so interesting that games were providing the collaboration between people with different skills to help push research forward. The full interview is here.

Technology has changed how we behave, and how accessible we are. Everything is now constant.  Its only beginning now and it can only progress further. Is this a good or bad thing? If you didn’t like your job you wouldn’t want it to be 24/7 but if you did you wouldn’t mind it being constant. This then makes me wonder should jobs be better tested before we do a degree. Because some people go into their subjects without knowing what it would be like, for example criminal forensics where there isn’t an A-level for it. How can someone know at age 18 that they’re going to enjoy the course and future job without any experience of it?

Everything is mobile now; the iPod started this but the iPad is the absolute game changer, it has more technology available in it than the worldwide technology in 1985, and it’s completely mobile. The only catch? Prices start at £399, (for an iPad 2) then you have to pay for most of the apps you want to download or access. But with the likes of this technology will this eradicate Phones, laptops, cameras, TVs, and magazines? You can design and personalise it to suit you and your lifestyle, there are thousands of apps for everything, there’s even apps for making apps. And it’s all more interactive and interesting – this would keep kids more focused and get them to explore and ask questions more. Plus you have the touch screen element, which lets people feel more involved. If all you need is the initial purchase of the iPad and then you pay less for all your apps that you would for say a hard copy of a magazine or a TV license, it could be worth it. I’ve roughly calculated how much some of the things that the iPad could do that other hardware could do - phone £170, laptop £310, Camera £90, TV £100, Total - £670 which is £271 more than the iPad, And could you carry all these round at the same time, with the same amount of effort as the iPad? But I suppose the real question is would you want to? Is it really necessary to have that much technology with you at all times? And are we becoming too dependent on it?

How many friends do you have?

It’s crazy to think that the year I was born was the first year that a text was sent. I couldn’t imagine a world where everyone didn’t have phones and couldn’t be contacted both instantly and constantly. But is it healthy to have a world where we can’t get away from technology?

“In a media blackout 79% of students feel distress, confusion and isolation” (link).

I would feel completely isolated if I couldn’t have my phone. You don’t just use it to keep in touch with other people but I would use mine for the time because I don’t wear a watch. I feel like I have a fear of missing out. I could do without emails or TV but not my phone or face book.

It’s interesting how we spend a lot of time on the internet and social networking sites and ringing and texting less but even though face book was only created in 2004 there are now other social networking sites which are becoming bigger.

 “You have five friends, and the rest is landscape” - Portuguese saying

Apparently on average every person has 6.4 friends. And everyone else is an acquaintance. I researched a bit about this and found this wee description “a friend is someone who will drop what they’re doing and come and help you, if you need it.” I counted and I have 7 friends that I could call close and if I picked up the phone I know would do anything for me. One of these friends doesn’t have face book and I have to admit that I don’t talk to him as much because it’s not as easy.. When you’re on face book you can leave a wall post or a message and then you can log out and leave your computer, then when they go on they can reply when it suits them. Whereas if you’re ringing someone for a catch-up you have to make sure that you both have an hour or two free to actually have a proper conversation with them. Although it is nice if you haven’t been talking to them in a while and they haven’t seen your face book and know every detail about what you’ve been doing, you can actually have a proper conversation and you don’t find them saying “seen that on face book”

Social Networking does just reinforce social interaction for the friends that you are close to and will talk to but it diminishes it at the same time for the people you aren’t close to. If you just think of someone that you haven’t talked to in a while, instead of phoning them and asking what they’ve been up to all you need to do is go on face book and look at they’re page. It saves a lot of time and effort, than having to make conversation that you don’t have time for. But this in turn is destroying the art of conversation.

Although this poses a question “do we put too much online?” If any of your acquaintances can just go onto your page and find out what you were doing after just a few clicks. Sometimes some of your acquaintances just don’t need to know what you’re doing... Especially family, there are just some things they don’t need to know. And if employers check your online presence you really need to watch what you say because they make the decision on face value.


Heres a short video i found on the statistics of Facebook for 2011. The part about how much happens in 20 minutes is quite interesting and relates to the question "do we put too much online?"

I recently heard a discussion on the radio that the presenters mum followed him on twitter so she could find out what he was doing in his daily life. It wasn’t because she was being nosy or anything but because maybe she wouldn’t hear from him in a while and when she did, he would have forgotten about things that she might like to hear about.

Presenting the new: Exhibition and Publication

How does the way we exhibit art affect the meaning of it?

Art has to connect with the public so they can then talk about it and get more publicity. If you have no opinion on something are you going to go and tell everyone about it? But how do you connect if you can only look and can’t make the connections through touch... Are galleries preventing us from the full experience? I hate going to galleries where you aren't allowed to touch or stand close to the art work. When I look at something I usually want to run my hand over it and feel the textures that are in it, I want to hold it in my hand to see that it’s real and I want to stand extremely close and see the tiny brush strokes that the artist has made. In most galleries now they have sensors, glass boxes, railings or something else along those lines that mean you can’t get close to the art work. They usually have security guards in the rooms as well and they watch you and come over and tell you to stand back, this has happened to me, the guard was actually able to tell us a lot about the painting, not just one piece but the majority of the gallery, he genuinely seemed to have an interest.

Some galleries don’t always have the work surrounded but you still aren’t allowed to go to close too it. I went to a gallery in Dublin, one of the pieces was in the centre of the room sitting on a large rug/blanket, I lost my balance and stumbled onto the edge of the rug/blanket (I touched about the size of a stamp at the very edge) there was an employee that sat in the room he basically shouted at me that I shouldn’t be so careless and that I should have more respect for it, etc. Okay it was his job but it was an accident. The point of the story is, that because of this, I don’t actually remember what the piece of art was. The vibe in the room was awkward and I just wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible because the employee was still looking at me. The atmosphere that's created where the artwork is exhibited, is important. If somewhere has an awkward and uncomfortable atmosphere you won’t enjoy it and you won’t go back to it in a rush.

Have galleries changed the perception of what an exhibition space should look like? Which would people prefer, a clean, warm, white, bare room or an interesting, old, dark room, which in itself is a piece of art? I think that as long as the space doesn’t distract or take away from the art and if it adds to the experience then it should be used. But then you have to ask the question of who is your audience? Will it appeal to them?  Will they see the beauty in a dark dirty, beautiful area and appreciate it? Or will they think it doesn’t look like a gallery space and therefore it isn't real art being exhibited.

Do we really even need galleries anymore when there are things such as land art and site specific art, which the public can get more involved with? Land art is about changing the landscape into a piece of art, and in some cases it can be functional. Site specific art uses concepts about the place, an exhibition would then be set up in that place, members of the public can then go and look, and explore the art. The fact that it is about the community and for the community, means that people can have a better relationship with it and they understand it better. They can go and look and touch it without having to go into, the sometimes uncomfortable, setting of a gallery.

The art of attention. Nowadays the world is so fast moving that you only have a few seconds to grab people’s attention, it has to be interesting enough in those first few seconds or they just don’t have time for it. Does it really have to be amazing though? They do always say “Any publicity, is good publicity” If a piece of art was awful people would be more likely to talk/complain about it quicker than they would praise a good piece. The society that we live in now enjoy/glorify insults. Although if you’re going to use this approach of bad publicity you should really know what you’re doing and that the thing they are complaining about is not the “art” this could create a bad reputation for the artist.

Marcel Duchamp  redefined art. His work proposed the questions “What is art?” “Where do you see it?” and “How do you get people to connect with it?” Duchamp was part of the Dada movement. Dadaism was a cultural movement which peaked between 1916 to 1922. It was an anti art and a rebellion against everything before. Dada had the opposite beliefs as art. It ignored aesthetics and intended to offend. Collage, Photo montage, Assemblage and Ready-mades were all art techniques developed during this movement. Duchamp used the ready-made technique for his piece “fountain” he signed and dated the pieces to make them "real art". This technique used manufactured, real life, objects and called them art. This really changed how art is perceived because now in contemporary art, basically anything can be seen as art.

"Fountain" - Marcel Duchamp

"Generate ideas, no matter how wild or far-fetched, and enable new associations to be made in the gray matter of your brain." - Marcel Duchamp