Well, personally I don't have a problem with this if you start to think in
terms of perception. I can recall situations where the 'reality' of a
soundscape is heard and (felt) as a series or even a continuum of impressions.
It's back to the instability of the terms. I might be wrong but I think this
thread started with the terms hanging on to their painterly meanings. In that
context (with all the baggage of art history) there's often a prejudice against
the 'realistic' portrayal as opposed to the impressionistic but it's unfair and
simplistic to carry the analogy over to soundscape practice.
So to summarise, and at the risk of being pedantic, I'd be tempted to challenge
someone using these terms (especially if some sort of value judgement was
floating around the place) to define them in the context of soundscape art.
That usually brings the discussion to a long pause, or there follows a
scholarly article...
James
|