I agree, James. One (in sound) is either a good illusionist, or not.
To me nothing about the end product matters more.
Bernie
On Sep 14, 2008, at 11:19 AM, mopani_wyness wrote:
> 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
>
|