Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:50:06.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Staging the Kinetic: How music automata sensitise audiences to sound art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2018

Linnea Semmerling ,
Peter Peters  and
Karin Bijsterveld
Linnea Semmerling*
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Grote Gracht 90–92, 6211 SZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
Peter Peters*
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Grote Gracht 90–92, 6211 SZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
Karin Bijsterveld*
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Grote Gracht 90–92, 6211 SZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
*
*Emails: l.semmerling@maastrichtuniversity.nl; p.peters@maastrichtuniversity.nl; k.bijsterveld@maastrichtuniversity.nl
*Emails: l.semmerling@maastrichtuniversity.nl; p.peters@maastrichtuniversity.nl; k.bijsterveld@maastrichtuniversity.nl
*Emails: l.semmerling@maastrichtuniversity.nl; p.peters@maastrichtuniversity.nl; k.bijsterveld@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Western audiences have long been fascinated with music automata. Against this backdrop, it may not be surprising that art and music curators display historical examples of such mechanical instruments together with contemporary sounding art. Yet what exactly do these curators aim to accomplish when combining historical music automata with kinetic sound art? And do visitors understand the connections between the objects on display in the ways intended by the curators? To examine the curators’ ambitions, this article analyses three exhibitions: Für Augen und Ohren (West Berlin 1980), Ballet Mécanique (Maastricht 2002) and Art or Sound (Venice 2014). To unravel visitors’ responses, we focus on the Berlin exhibition, the best documented case. We argue that the curators staged the automated kinetic as a key historical link between mechanical musical instruments and contemporary sound art, and that they tried to tap into specific dimensions of public fascination with musical automata – the magical invisible, mechanical wonder and blurring of boundaries – to open their audiences’ senses to sound art. As we will show with the help of the notion of ‘listening habitus’, visitors’ responses indeed drew on these dimensions, but more often than not displayed a preference for the historical automata rather than contemporary kinetic art.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 23 , Special Issue 3: Sound and Kinetics: Performance, artistic aims and techniques in electroacoustic music and sound art , December 2018 , pp. 235 - 245
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, W. V. 1968. Takis: Evidence of the Unseen. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 1980. Student letters. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Nr. 1093-03.Google Scholar
Artist, . 1980. Letter. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Nr. 1093-03.Google Scholar
Art historian, . 1980. Letter. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Nr. 1093-03.Google Scholar
Bachmann, C.-H. 1980. Der Kopf wird zum Lautsprecher. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Becker, J. 2011. Exploring the Habitus of Listening. Anthropological Perspectives. In P. N. Juslin and J. Sloboda (eds.) Handbook for Music and Emotion: Theory, Research, Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bijsterveld, K. 2008. Mechanical Sound: Technology, Culture, and Public Problems of Noise in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Block, R. 2016. Interview with L. Semmerling on 6 October. Berlin.Google Scholar
Block, R. and Hertling, N. 1977. Exposé. First exhibition proposal. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Nr. 1093-01.Google Scholar
Block, R. and Hertling, N. 1979. Pressemitteilung. Press Release. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Nr. 651.Google Scholar
Block, R. and Hertling, N. 1980. Für Augen und Ohren: Von der Spieluhr zum akustischen Environment. Berlin: Akademie der Künste.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. [1977] 2013. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1992. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Brenken, E. 1980. Klänge brauchen die Stille. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Burnham, J. 1968 [1975]. Beyond Modern Sculpture. The Effects of Science and Technology on the Sculpture of this Century. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
Busche, E. 1980. Singvogel-Pistolen und Äolsharfen – für Auge und Ohr. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Celant, G. 2014. Art or Sound. Milan: Fondazione Prada.Google Scholar
Chau, C. 2017. Movement, Time, Technology, and Art. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Coenjaarts, P. 2002. Algemene informatie Festival ‘Ballet Mécanique’, 26 april t/m 5 mei 2002 te Maastricht. Press release. Archives Intro in Situ, Maastricht. [Email archives Ans Muijres]Google Scholar
Coenjaarts, P. 2016. Personal communication with K. Bijsterveld, Maastricht, 5 July.Google Scholar
Coenjaarts, P. 2017. Interview with K. Bijsterveld, Maastricht, 16 October.Google Scholar
Dieterich, B. 1980. Kuriositäten zum Hören und Sehen. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Die Wahrheit, . 1980. Vom Trautonium zum Synthesizer. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Egelkraut, O. 1980. Kostbarkeiten für Augen und Ohren. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Flemig, K. 1980. Im Raum stehen wie Möbel. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Geitel, K. 1980. Harmonisch umspielter Stundenwechsel für Auge und Ohr. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Göpfert, P. H. 1980. Ein Vögelein piepst im Revolverlauf. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Guggenheim, . 2018. Kinetic art. www.guggenheim.org/artwork/movement/kinetic-art (accessed 1 April 2018).Google Scholar
Herbort, H. J. 1980. Alles klingt – klingt alles? Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Hirt, K. M. 2010. When Machines Play Chopin: Musical Spirit and Automation in Nineteenth-Century German Literature, Vol. 8. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koetsier, T. 2001. On the Prehistory of Programmable Machines: Musical Automata, Looms, Calculators. Mechanism and Machine Theory 36(5): 589–603.Google Scholar
Kotschenreuther, H. 1980. Das Niemandsland zwischen Hören und Sehen. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Label, . 1980. Exhibition labels. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Fotos, Nr. 4225.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 1994. The ‘Something to Hold on to Factor’ in Timbral Composition. Contemporary Music Review 10(2): 49–60.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 2007. Understanding the Art of Sound Organization. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 2016. But Is It (Also) Music? In M. Cobussen, V. Meelberg and B. Truax (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Sounding Art. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lang, K. 1981. Für Augen und Ohren: Impressionen von einem Ausstellungsbesuch in der Akademie der Künste. Radio manuscript. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Nr. 1094-01.Google Scholar
Maes, L. 2013. Sounding Sound Art: A Study of the Definition, Origin, Context, and Techniques of Sound Art. PhD thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Mainetti, M. 2017. Personal communication with L. Semmerling on 29 November.Google Scholar
Mansell, J. G. 2017. The Age of Noise in Britain: Hearing Modernity. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
de la Mettrie, . [1748] 1996. Machine Man. In A. Thomson (ed.) Machine Man and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moholy-Nagy, L. 1947. Vision in Motion. Chicago: Paul Theobald.Google Scholar
Nassar-Fredell, L. M. 2013. Performing the Mechanical: Industrialism, Androids, and the Virtuoso Instrumentalist. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Newmark, D. 1972. An Interview with Stephan Von Huene on his Audio-Kinetic Sculptures. Leonardo 5(1): 69–672.Google Scholar
Nicol, G. 1980. Ein Pianola – nicht nur für Lola. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Ohff, H. 1980. Wenn Ohren sehen und Augen hören. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Pigott, J. 2017. Across Fields. Sound, Art and Technology from an Electromechanical Perspective. Organised Sound 22(2): 276–285.Google Scholar
Pinch, T. J. and Bijsterveld, K. 2003. ‘Should One Applaud?’ Breaches and Boundaries in the Reception of New Technology in Music. Technology and Culture 44(3): 536–559.Google Scholar
Rhode, W. 1980. Spieluhr und Sauerkrautpartitur. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Richards, A. 1999. Automatic Genius: Mozart and the Mechanical Sublime. Music & Letters 80(3): 366–3689.Google Scholar
Roell, C. H. 1989. The Piano in America, 1890–1940. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Sanchez, F. 2017. Phone interview with L. Semmerling, 12 December.Google Scholar
Sattler, K.-H. 1980. Von der Spieluhr bis zum akustischen Environment. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Schaaf, U. 1980. Sehen – Hören – Anfassen. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Sharp, W. 1968. Air Art. New York: Kineticism Press.Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound-Shapes. Organised Sound 2(2): 107–126.Google Scholar
Stepken, A. 1980. Im Reich der Sinne. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Stone, M. 1980. Ton und Farbe, Klang und Skulptur. Newspaper article. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, Historisches Archiv [AdK-W], Presseausschnitte, Nr. 659.Google Scholar
Tate, . 2018. Kinetic art. www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/k/kinetic-art (accessed 1 April 2018).Google Scholar
Théberge, P. 1997. Any Sound You Can Imagine: Making Music/Consuming Technology. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Toop, D. 2002. Humans, Are They Really Necessary? Sound Art, Automata and Musical Sculpture. In R. Young (ed.) Undercurrents. The Hidden Wiring of Modern Music. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Uit in Maastricht, . 2002. Amerika festival, Rekening en verantwoording, September. Announcement. Archives Intro in Situ, Maastricht.Google Scholar
Wolf, R. 2009. Musik und Mechanik bei Johann Nepomuk Mälzel. Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 66(2): 110–126.Google Scholar
Wolf, R. 2012. Die Musikmaschinen von Kaufmann, Mälzel und Robertson. Eine Quellenedition. München: Deutsches Museum.Google Scholar