In the Blink of an Ear: Toward a Non-Cochlear Sonic Art by Seth Kim-Cohen

by Seth Kim-Cohen

Polemical, revisionist, In The Blink of an Ear argues for a reassessment of the short history of sound art, rejecting the tendency toward sound-in-itself in favour of a reading of sound s expanded situation and its uncontainable textuality.It has been nearly a century since Marcel Duchamp famously proposed a non-retinal visual art, rejecting judgments of taste and beauty. In The Blink of an Ear asks why the sonic arts did not experience a parallel turn toward a non-cochlear sonic art, imagined as both a response and a complement to Duchamp s conceptualism. Rather than treat sound art as an artistic practice unto itself, or as the unwanted child of music, In The Blink of an Ear relates the post-War sonic arts to contemporaneous movements in the gallery arts.Key ideas from art history, poststructuralism and deconstruction are leveraged to suggest that the sonic arts have been subject to the same cultural pressures that have shaped the most important post-war movements in the gallery Minimalism, conceptualism, appropriation and relational aesthetics. Sonic practice and theory have downplayed or, in many cases, completely rejected the de-formalization of the artwork and its simultaneous animation in the conceptual realm. John Cage and Pierre Schaeffer s predilection for sound-in-itself fuses Greenbergian media-specificity with a phenomenological emphasis on perception, and this tendency has established itself as the dominant paradigm for the production and reception of sound art. In The Blink of an Ear dismantles this history, excavating the conceptual implications of important instances of the sonic arts of the past six decades, and establishing the principles for contemporary non-cochlear sonic practice.Embracing the inevitable interaction of sound with the social, the linguistic, the philosophical, the political and the technological, In The Blink of an Ear announces a turning point in the theorization of the sonic arts.

Genres: Music, Academia, Art, Art History

Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Dont · Rating 1 out of 5]

This has to be the single worse book on sound art I have ever read. It reminds me of the sort of book written by someone who is driven by a set of prejudices the foundations of which they themselves do not fully understand. There is a kneejerk reaction against phenomenology that claims to come from a commitment to post-structuralism when, in fact, the truth of the story is far more complex than a sort of absurdly simplistic reaction where Husserl=bad. Even when Kim-Cohen attempts to say Merlea-Ponty=good, he in no-way finds it within himself the ability to qualify a difference between Husserlean and Merleau-Ponty (let alone Derridean) phenomenology. Phenomenology=Husserl=bad. The whole point of this kind of sophomoric silliness is that Kim-Cohen wants to argue for a kind of Rosalind Krauss notion of an expanded field of sound art. For Kim-Cohen this means sound art you don't listen to. Of course, he never engages the fact of Krauss's own conservatism where she eventually rejects the very notion of a post-medium condition (at the heart of the expanded field argument). No, all of this is about building the argument that the reason Cage missed the point of Duchamp was that Cage continued to compose music when the point is, here's the clincher, the point is the analytical proposition of conceptualism. Thus, what has all the appearances of a radical proposition (a post-medium sound art) is in fact HIGHLY reactionary; a return to the most conservative and petite bourgeois of all conceptions of art practice; the tautological. Thus, the politics of experience, the experience of politics, the conceptualization of struggle, the social processes of collectivity, the pedagogical proposition -- all the currents of a progressive conceptualism are summarily obscured so Kim-Cohen can turn back to the clock and tether sound art to the most conservative currents in conceptual art. All this would be laughable except I know that people are taking this book seriously. And it would be easy to dismiss the book as the maneuvering of an art historian, but what is clearly the enemy in this text is practice itself; the practice of experience, of listening together and the struggles around listening.

[Robin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author comes at sound art through visual art, specifically minimalism and conceptualism, which gives him a distinct perspective. Once you get through a difficult and rather dry chapter on same, Kim-Cohen will reward you with the clearest, most cogent readings of John Cage I have come across, along within insights into other important sound artists.

Be aware that he is most concerned with those working in the conceptual realm he brands "non-cochlear". Once this thesis and limited scope is taken on board, the reader will find many insights. An essential book.

[Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting discussion on the 'expanded field' of sound art and the conceptual work that sits in the spaces between sound, the gallery and conceptual work. Kim-Cohen rejects the notion of focusing on sound-in-itself (the materiality of sounds) and encourages the position of sound art as conceptual and a practice that should be considered an expanded form of art that challenges art conventions and histories.

[Ricardo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not everyone can be Rosalind Krauss.

[cleodweldt grundkeit · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book, I loved it!

[Lena · Rating 3 out of 5]

Academic text that appears to be in the same realm of research I'm interested in with A/V performance. So far I *love* his point that descriptors for art are mainly from the visual realm. In his intro he points out the the ear doesn't blink. It remains an open channel/receptor into our brains. My thesis made an argument along these lines: that critical models based solely in the visual realm are inadequate for considering interdisciplinary work. Seems pretty obvious, yeah?

I should also mention that so far, this is pretty readable for an academic text.

[Tara Brabazon · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a book that is useful for researchers thinking about and through sonic media. It can be the basis and foundation for further theorizations of sound. I found the book solid, but under-developed. Having said that, there are some very significant statements, concepts and interpretations introduced by Kim-Cohen.

It is worth reading by specialists in this field and is a productive text. For those without already existing expertise in sonic media, I would look elsewhere.

[Tamara · Rating 4 out of 5]

A mandatory sound text, supplements nicely to Audio Culture.

[Treynolds · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this a solid book to get bearings in critical social, historical and political discourse within sound works.

[Cory Card · Rating 3 out of 5]

problematic, drifting in places, with some interesting ideas