Tickets are free, with a suggested donation of £2. Donations support our international activities, and help fund bursaries for junior scholars to attend our biennial conference.
Wed, 16 June 2021 | 17:00 – 18:30 GMT+1 | Lecture
Brian Kane: Listening and Technique
Scholars in music, philosophy, and sound studies often consider listening to be a technique—one that is shaped by both the individual capacities of listeners as well as entrained social norms. Starting from that premise, this paper will attempt to pose some foundational questions about the specific kind of technique that listening might be, and the ways that we might theorize it. In particular, I will explore two themes: 1) What is the best framework for theorizing listening technique? I will suggest that the framework of “body techniques,” introduced by Marcel Mauss and taken up widely in the humanities, might be inadequate for conceptualizing the specificity of listening as a technique. 2) How similar or different are techniques and technologies? Rather than lump techniques and technologies under the broad heading of techné, I will sketch a more granular model of the relationship between listening techniques and audio technologies, one that sits at the intersection of cultural entrainment and media archaeology.
Brian Kane holds degrees from the University of California, Berkeley (B.A. in Philosophy, 1996; Ph.D. in Music, 2006). Prior to joining the faculty at Yale, he was a Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow in Music at Columbia University (2006-2008).
His scholarly work is interdisciplinary, located in the intersection of music theory, composition and philosophy. Working primarily with 20th century music, Kane’s emphasis is on questions of sound and signification. Central themes in his research are: music and sound art, histories and theories of listening, phenomenology, improvisation, music and subjectivity, technology, conceptualizations of sound and music in literature and philosophy, and theories of the voice.
Wed, 7 July 2021 | 17:00 – 19:30 GMT+1 | Panel
What is Openness? Institutions in Dialogue
This session raises questions against the background of the world’s recent turmoil. How does openness get inflected, displaced, and silenced by institutional structures (financial as much as aesthetic and political)? How might a critique of institutions and institutional dialogue help to square the relationship between disciplinary politics, funding agendas, and issues of gender and ethnicity on the one hand with the current evolution of Artistic Research, Performance Philosophy, Performance Studies, and Sound Art on the other hand? Can dialogue with and within institutions move from a state of indeterminacy towards a radical opening of their structural forms, thus reflecting and enhancing a genuine desire for social and artistic change?
Furthermore, what is openness in sonic artistic practice? What ethical and aesthetic potential does sonic practice have when it is so intimately enmeshed in the physical world, when the world is re-born, re-placed and re-made by each ethical and aesthetic action? What attitudes towards open dialogue and towards more open institutions might be fostered by, and within, sonic practice? How do the pragmatic lived positions of sonic artists square with institutional activity? What becomes of the openness of a sonic prerogative when its artist is working within an institution?
Performance philosophy relishes unexpected events that twist artists in new directions, and that keep artistic practices open. In a twisted time such as the present, they are a welcome impetus to sonic practice, and a means of maintaining the open engagement with the world championed by performance philosophy.
Art’s capacity for intervention – therapeutic encounters, political negotiations, mediated consumption of events – is grounded in assumptions about the value of openness. In parallel, the transformative potential of academic institutions is grounded in assumptions that openness enhances their soft power. This paper explores the role of openness in Performance Philosophy, a young discipline with complex relations to artistic practice and academic institutions. Varieties of openness coexist in its name: disciplinary hybrids of performance and philosophy and their methods, plus ideologies from indeterminacy to negotiated praxis to dialogue at all costs. Given the dynamic institutional space occupied by Performance Philosophy and the pressure upon academic institutions for equality of representation and sustainability, this paper asks: how meaningful is openness?
Cage – archetypal performance philosopher – might have responded, “That is a very good question. I should not want to spoil it with an answer.” (Cage, 1961, 126) Today, though, we need provisional answers. To wit: triangulating between openness, institutional positioning, and artistic imperatives requires performance philosophers to prioritise equality and engage the material world (Cull Ó Maoilearca & Lagaay, 2020, 129 & 286), these modes of openness being the basis for working in and with institutions with integrity. Performance Philosophy’s potential to reinvigorate its practitioner’s institutional situation can be performative and philosophical – if certain varieties of openness constitute its core.
Leona is an independent creative practitioner based in Cardiff, Wales. She gained her MA in Performance Writing from Dartington/Falmouth, an experience which allowed her to explore the unheard, overlooked and hidden spaces of language, before expanding it into the examination and joy of sound. Sound is being studied as never before, beginning to be recognised as a vast assemblage, multisensory, embodied, and a structuring aspect of societies. Using examples of her work, she’ll wonder and wander around the relationships between institutions and arts, particularly with experiences of negotiating (or not) the various gatekeeping involved with all formal bodies. She’ll question how it’s possible for an artist to survive within an institution given the institution’s seeming need for form and adherence to politics, funding and tradition, and an artist’s seeming need to work outside the box and respond fleetfootedly to opportunities as and when they are identified. What can both learn from each other, and can each support the other when an emphasis is placed on ‘happening’?
My aim is to address the current situation of institutionalized forms of music performance within the context of our contemporary climate, given the precipitated crisis that has forced their limitation. I argue that current hierarchical structures have an effect on limiting the possibilities of supporting emerging creative work by musicians that often requires new reception forms for contemporary performance in our digital age.
I address the need to think in terms of providing more open frameworks for the future of our new creative artists and indeed for the future of music performance, focusing in particular on higher educational institutions as the place where such changes could begin. My contribution offers a plea for a radical opening, in the form of an active dialogue between pliable structures that would allow for their wider cross-fertilization within the practice of music performance. Such a solution would encourage the creation of cross-disciplinary networks that work together to promote new performance forms. Drawing on examples I cite the existence of some institutions that engage in the exchange of cognate art disciplines together with technology. This emphasis offers a possible process of transition in current artistic practices, whereby a healthy ‘interference’ between institutional specialists can take place.
At conventional levels of epistemic processing, words remain the primary mechanism for the disbursement of theological ideas. As such, the question of what an argument for the prospect of non-linguistic theology might look like raises questions of knowledge, interpretation and power. The ‘othering’ of African-diasporic sacred musicking within Western Christian musicking is a parabolic means by which we understand better the way/s in which music itself – characterised by Steven Pinker as ‘auditory cheesecake’ and nothing more than a domesticated adaptation of language – is still understood as an aesthetic makeweight incapable of the theological heavy lifting that only language can bear.
Herein lies the paradox: theologians of music would be the first to argue that musicking can constitute genuine theological praxis but as a subdiscipline, music theology as currently practised is the antithesis of openness – which fundamentally undermines its claims with direct regard to the ‘evangelion’ that ipso facto does not allow for anything other than full anthropological parity across peoples. The question of what a more ‘open’ approach to the practice of music theology might look like necessitates an antiracist re-evaluation of not only method/s but also hermeneutics – a task that an antiracist philosophy of music manifestly committed to avoiding epistemic injustice would be uniquely equipped to undertake.
Wed, 14 July 2021 | 17:00 – 19:30 GMT+1 | Panel
‘To exhibit means to fix, to present, to hang on the wall, to mount. An exhibition lets the viewer take in the works in their immobile position, returning as many times as they wish. Music is transient, unfolding in time, in the moment just past – thus speaks to us from our memory. Yet to preserve this separation – exhibited art in one place, transient music in another is to ignore a multitude of diverse historical requirements and developments.’ (Darmstadt, 2012)
It is forty years since curator Germano Celant exhibited vinyl recordings by Jean Dubuffet, longer still since the first exhibitions of Robert Morris’s ‘Box with the Sound of its Own Making’. Yet, music and music’s sounds were often distanced from the main attractions. Distancing has however turned into proximity. Notably in the last twenty years, music and musical performances in many forms have been deliberately introduced into art museums and exhibitions. These have included cross- and inter-disciplinary collaborations as well as ‘immersive and site-specific’ installations where music and other musical soundings have been integral to the work. Could visitors be encouraged to ‘hear’ the paintings, and ‘see’ the sound, as The National Gallery claimed for their 2015 ‘Soundscapes’ Exhibition, thus continuing to promote a late-Romantic obsession with synaesthesia?
This panel will critically evaluate the affective experiences of such interventions, reaching back to Walter Pater’s assertion that ‘all art constantly aspires to the condition of music’, and forward to 21st century as we experience the affect and sensation of a polyphonic, multisensory, downright noisy kind of spectatorship. We will interrogate the ways music, sound and performance might fulfil curator Laurence Alloway’s assertion that ‘an Exhibit is a way of accepting the limited conditions of an exhibition and overcoming them to make a drama of space that involves the spectators.’
Franz Liszt’s plea that ‘all musicians of art and of social progress’ should be treated with the same ceremony as were the great artists of the time, with a quinquennial exhibition of religious, dramatic and symphonic music at the Louvre, has been met with a more sympathetic reception in the twenty-first century, particularly with the advent of superstar-status art museums.
Challenging the fixed boundaries between concert hall and art museum, the opening of Tate Modern in 2000 celebrated with the site-specific ‘Seventeen Tate Riffs’ by Birtwhistle, sounding the Turbine Hall, a space surely Wagnerian in its ambitions and affect. Music, dance and indefinable genres of performance have been deliberately introduced into mainstream art museums and public galleries, an irresistible compulsion to play with spectator: audience experiences which deny the white cube its ritualised act of looking. Composers have responded to paintings and works of art, to create the over-freely used ‘immersive experience’, thus eliding the duration of music with the spatial concerns of the artwork. Can visitors be encouraged to ‘hear’ the paintings, and ‘see’ the sound, as The National Gallery claimed for their 2015 ‘Soundscapes’ Exhibition? In this ongoing exploration of the affective impact of music-in-museums, I question how these interventions might endorse curator Laurence Alloway’s assertion that ‘an exhibit is a way of overcoming the limited conditions of an exhibition to make a drama of space’. Does Rancière’s ‘emancipated spectator’ emerge, transformed, from passive to active? Where does affect and its subjectivities come into all this?
The collaborative work of theosophists Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater was a meditation on subtle matter and the invisible world. In Thought-Forms, 1901, they explored the reciprocity between music and visual image; the emergence of form and colour from the perception of sound. From the acoustic experiments of German physicist and musician Ernst Chladni to contemporary Cymascope technologies, or Margaret Watts Hughes’ eidophone pictures made with her own voice, the correlation between sound and image has fascinated artists, scientists and philosophers since antiquity and probably long before. The intrinsic connection between mathematics, geometry and music reveals an implicit harmony in the natural world that Pythagoras described as a ‘Music of the Spheres’. This paradigm has prevailed and been renewed by modern physics – the perplexing discoveries in the quantum realm described by A. Sommerfeld as “a real music of the spheres of the atom” … “It is the mysterious organ on which Nature plays the music of the spectra and according to whose rhythm it controls the structure of the atom and the nucleus.”
Camden Art Centre has a history of platforming innovative work by artists whose practices embrace music and visual art synchronously. I will focus on three recent examples: Japanese artist Yuko Mohri whose exhibition involved live performances by experimental musicians Akio Suzuki and Ryuichi Sakamoto; Athens-born and conservatoire-trained Athanasios Argianas whose interdisciplinary practice explores the translation between aural and material experiences; and The Botanical Mind, a group exhibition featuring Jordan Belson’s visual music, Channa Horwitz’s numerological scores, Yves Laloy’s musical paintings and traditional weavings by indigenous Amazonian artists.
Though it has frequently been observed that the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries gave birth to new regimes of looking and new practices of observation, what is less often remarked upon is the concurrent development of novel ways of listening – and of silencing. Museums like the Louvre, the Prado and the British Museum became crucial sites for the development of these new disciplinary procedures. Habits that for much of the twentieth century were largely second nature to most gallery-goers – don’t touch! and, crucially, don’t talk! – had to be carefully instilled in the burgeoning publics for spectatorship in the age of reason. Such then-new national museums combined the exotic thrills of a coffeehouse cabinet of curiosity with the more monastic air of an aristocratic private collection. Inevitably audiences more used to the former had to be inculcated with the more rarefied attitudes previously reserved for the latter. If today, museums are once again growing noisy, they nonetheless continue to struggle with the sonic arts – a genre that remains comparatively underrepresented in most major collections. Though contemporary exhibition practices are as likely to enjoin their audiences to interact (sometimes noisily) as keep shtum, we can still recognise some of the contours of the disciplinary regimes of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as we await the emergence of a more polyphonic, multisensory spectatorship.
Wed, 21 July 2021 | 17:00 – 18:30 GMT+1 | Lecture
Nina Power: Music as Philosophy
What critical force does music possess today? With the collapse and attacks on tradition, music and sound are no longer separable forces, nor does music as a cultural form, despite its seeming ineffability, escape the worst excesses of commodification. Music is frequently used to pacify populations, to deliver messages regarding how love and life should be understood, or simply plays the role of aural wallpaper. Yet sound and music are also the source of social conflict in the form of ‘noise’, and the subject of legal complaint. Cities have been quietened in some respects during lockdown – less movement, enforced domesticity, restrictions on sociability – but music as an ‘invisible friend’ as been a comfort to many. Music can make us feel less ‘alone’ as we carry on, and in that sense it has a real and material emotional and conceptual force. But how can we understand music as a conceptual force in its own right? What philosophical – that is to say thoughtful – meaning does music today have? This paper will suggest that we can think of music (in relation to sound and noise) as Philosophy. It will examine the role of music within Philosophy before making the case for music as a mode of philosophising in its own right – a mode of expression that is far more powerful in its own right than we often give it credit for. Music’s ubiquity does not ultimately undermine its force.
Nina Power is a writer and philosopher. She is currently teaching at the Mary Ward Centre and is the author of many articles on culture, politics and thought. Her next book What Do Men Want? will be out this year from Penguin.
We thank the Margaret Beaufort Institute, Cambridge, for the use of their Zoom account to host this series.