Noise or silence: who decides?

[MrGongGong]

Not I, but the curators do this - inflicting "good for you" sounds on others, whether those others like it or not. How presumptuous!

I guess you have never programmed a concert then?
How presumptuous to inflict your choice of sounds on others

Nobody is talking about the sort of show where a sound artist works in partnership with a visual artist to create something new in which both of them are equal partners.

Nothing (well, not much) could be further from the sort of exhibition I started this thread about.

I know you weren't talking about that
BUT one of the ways in which people curate (yes that word again) exhibitions is to juxtapose, recontextualise and present in ways designed to make people think. That CAN include sound. Some of the folks here seem to think that it can't ever include sound which is what I disagree with.

One of the most enjoyable events I have been to was a late night event at Rouen cathedral where Monet's paintings were projected onto the front of the building and mapped to be in perfect alignment with the architecture. This involved the whole area around being in darkness and was accompanied by specially composed electroacoustic music. The paintings are robust enough to cope with being presented in this way.
From what I have read the BM exhibition is a bit naff BUT that doesn't mean the whole idea is wrong merely that this time it didn't work well.

[french frank]

Poor Scriabin
It's not the only "point at issue" at all

It was the point at issue in this thread: intrusive sound artistry at a museum exhibition - to the annoyance of visitors. You seem to think that 'blurring the distinctions between artforms' (and nothing wrong with that in itself) would give some sort of entitlement to a dance ensemble to perform at an art exhibition, coiling themselves around the visitors - in spite of the obvious annoyance of the members of the public

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I guess you have never programmed a concert then?
How presumptuous to inflict your choice of sounds on others

Clutching at imaginary straws here a bit, I think.

For school concerts I used to sell printed programmes rather than tickets. You can't be fairer than that. Parents didn't just know their offspring were performing. They knew exactly what to expect. No-one was ever hoodwinked.

[MrGongGong]

Clutching at imaginary straws here a bit, I think.

For school concerts I used to sell printed programmes rather than tickets. You can't be fairer than that. Parents didn't just know their offspring were performing. They knew exactly what to expect. No-one was ever hoodwinked.

You mean you didn't ask every parent BEFORE they came what they as "consumers" wanted?
How arrogant and presumptuous of you

[MrGongGong]

It was the point at issue in this thread: intrusive sound artistry at a museum exhibition - to the annoyance of visitors. You seem to think that 'blurring the distinctions between artforms' (and nothing wrong with that in itself) would give some sort of entitlement to a dance ensemble to perform at an art exhibition, coiling themselves around the visitors - in spite of the obvious annoyance of the members of the public

So you didn't enjoy our Hayward Gallery performance then? (Howard did)

Surely the point is that the people CREATING are the ones who decide what is in the creation ? (like what Scriabin wanted)
not some ridiculous idea of "democracy" or asking the "consumers"

Some people will always get annoyed
Some people will love things
Some people will hate them and write angry letters
Some people will decide never to come again
Some people will tell all their friends and bring them to the next exhibition
That's what people are like and a good thing too

[jean]

I've just been talking to my sister, who is a visual artist and happens to be preparing work for an exhibition at the moment. She says she would have no objection in principle to working with a 'sound artist' on a new creation that was the work of both of them, but the two forms are, she thinks, more distinct than appears to Mr GG and she would not want a 'curator' to come along afterwards and add sound to her work.

I pointed out that when she becomes really famous she may have to put up with being curated by someone else, even to the extent of having ambient sound imposed, over which she has no control.

So she's going to add a provision to her will to ensure that this can't happen. She is grateful to me for having flagged up the danger.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Some people will always get annoyed
Some people will love things
Some people will hate them and write angry letters
Some people will decide never to come again
Some people will tell all their friends and bring them to the next exhibition
That's what people are like and a good thing too

But I don't think that it's this simple division of "baddies" and "goodies", MrGG. What do the people who would love to see the artefacts but at the same time hate the curators' "creation"? For them, they have the choice either of having their immediate connection with the artefacts distorted by the creation, rather than (as is the presumed intention) enhanced by it or not seeing the artefacts at all - for them, the experience is like having somebody standing between them and a painting they wish to see - a painting that they have come miles to see - a painting that they can only see in that gallery. Are they simply to be told to go and ... enjoy ... themselves somewhere else? Do they not matter? Are they evil people to be eliminated from centres where such artefacts are on display - unworthy of the privilege of being in the presence of the artefacts?


Put another way - imagine the thing (painting, sculpture, tribal helmet, manuscript ... whatever) that you have always wanted to see, but, because it's in a museum in a part of the world which is difficult to get to, you've never managed to see it other than in photographs. It's coming to a centre not ten miles from you - and it's going to be shown in a curated event in which Paul McCartney will be singing Andrew Lloyd Webber's arrangement of DoG in the nude (and behind bulletproof glass, so you can't even get a decent punch thrown in). That's what you seem to be demanding others put up with - take it or leave it in the name of creativity - isn't it?

[ahinton]

a curated event in which Paul McCartney will be singing

Well, that'll be a first...

Andrew Lloyd Webber's arrangement of DoG in the nude

What? You mean he can actually write MUSIC? Well, that really IS news!

Oh, wait abit; you mean his arrangement is in the nude (i.e. empty of substance); I see what you mean now...

[Bryn]

For some light relief from the whiff-whaff of this thread, try this.

[jean]

I've no objection to you actually adding something to the discussion; but you could try to be less contemptuous of other posters' contributions.

(It's a trait you share with Mr GG I'm sorry to say.)

[Bryn]

I've no objection to you actually adding something to the discussion; but you could try to be less contemptuous of other posters' contributions.

(It's a trait you share with Mr GG I'm sorry to say.)

Perhaps you simply fail to recognise the reference to the ping-pong nature of the discussion, or the indeed that to light, which I feel the programme throws on the matter in hand. Frankly, I feel the reference to "contemptuous" says much more about you own attitude that mine.

[jean]

Perhaps you simply fail to recognise...

That's a pretty contemptuous way of addressing someone.

I'm sure I am not quite alone in my reading.

The point is that discussion isn't a mere back-and-forwards game of any kind, and what's appropriate to the one is a bit of an insult when applied to the other.

It is arrogant of you to assume that you are especially equipped to enable this particular discussion to be more productive. I have myself introduced points which have been quite ignored, but do you hear me complain?

.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

So she's going to add a provision to her will to ensure that this can't happen. She is grateful to me for having flagged up the danger.

[Bryn]

That's a pretty contemptuous way of addressing someone.

I'm sure I am not quite alone in my reading.

(But I am very surprised indeed to find you appealing to Boris Johnson as a source.)

I made no mention of the recently appointed Foreign Secretary. You might consider stopping your excavation activities.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Please could we confine personal disagreements to PMs. Otherwise posts may be removed.