2. Old materialism, new materialism: A historical outline of research

New materialism grows out of the ‘old materialism of Marx’ (Bollmer Reference Bollmer2019: 6), emphasising the primacy of matter in shaping reality. As Cox (Reference Cox2011) stated, the second half of the 20th century saw materialist theorists – Gilbert Simondon, Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, and Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari – developing ideas building on Nietzsche’s rejection of hylomorphism (Cox Reference Cox2011). The term ‘new materialism’ emerged in the late 1990s and developed into an interdisciplinary field emphasising the active role of matter and agency of non-human entities (Parikka Reference Parikka2012; Cobussen Reference Cobussen2022). I consider key studies for new materialism to include Meeting the Universe Halfway by Karen Barad (Reference Barad2007), Vibrant Matter by Jane Bennett (Reference Bennett2010) and publications by N. Kathrine Hayles.

Jussi Parikka examines materiality within the aesthetic-technical framework of new materialism (2012). He emphasises that new materialism is not only about the positive and vibrant aspects of matter, such as causality and vitality, but also addresses toxic, damaged and harmful forms of matter. Parikka’s concept of ‘dirty matter’ refers to toxic substances that arise, for instance, from the decomposition of electronic equipment, contrasting with the ‘pure’ or ‘restorative’ vision of matter found in certain strands of new materialism. The researcher also proposes the concept of ‘medianatures’ to describe how media and matter form one continuous process: from matter through media back to matter (as waste, contamination). This continuum takes into account both tangible elements (hardware, toxic metals, chemicals) and intangible aspects (signs, signals, messages), as well as their intertwining.

Grant Bollmer (Reference Bollmer2019) understands materiality within media theory as the physical characteristics of technologies, content and practices that shape media creation and interaction. For him, materiality is fundamental to media, shaping meaning, communication, bodies, space, time and relationships, inseparable from practices and discourse, and requiring attention to the active role of matter. He distinguishes four types of materialism. Performative materialism views media in terms of what they materially do: in art, works not only represent but act in themselves, affecting bodies, objects and relationships. Spatiotemporal materialism assumes that media transform the experience of space and time, with the properties of art media determining their function. Neurocognitive materialism holds that media alter the neurological materiality of the brain, reshaping connections between brain, body and world. Vital materialism refers to the capacity of things – including works of art – to act as quasi-agents with their own tendencies and affective potential.

In conclusion, materialism in art emphasises the connection between ideas, representations and the physical substance of artworks and artistic media. Examining the material aspects of art helps us understand how artworks function, the effects they create and their role in shaping our reality. It is not just about what art represents; more importantly, it is about how it does it and what impact it has.

3. Sonic materialism

Contemporary theories of new materialism and sound materialism extend the materialist perspective to immaterial aspects, such as vibration and sound, emphasising their real and active participation in shaping reality. In the context of art sound, the materiality of sound and its relationship with space, technology and the listener become a focal point. On the grounds of new materialism, the theory of sonic materialism has emerged. Christoph Cox (Reference Cox2011) argues for a break with the dominance of the visual and linguistic paradigm, proposing an approach focused on sound ‘as such’ (Cox Reference Cox2011: 154). His sound materialism is based on the idea of a world in constant ‘becoming’ and ‘flux’ in which subjects are immersed, and sound is conceived as a vibratory, energetic and affective flow beneath the level of meaning and representation. This theory, while central to the consideration of sound materialism, has also faced some criticism. In 2014, Luc Döbereiner criticises Cox’s ‘Deleuzian materialism’, suggesting that Cox anthropomorphises matter in the name of materialism (Döbereiner Reference Döbereiner2014). He proposes a dialectical materialism of sound, based on the philosophy of Alain Badiou, Slavoj Žižek, and Karen Barad.

Also in opposition to Cox’s approach are Marie Thompson and Annie Goh, who in 2017 criticised the ‘origin myth’ of the sonic nature in his work. The researchers accuse Cox’s assumptions of perpetuating traditional metaphysical dualisms in the field of sonic studies (Goh Reference Goh2017), uncritically naturalising (Thompson Reference Thompson2017) a particular onto-epistemology, and basing ontology on a ‘white aurality’ (Thompson Reference Thompson2017: 266) that silences historical traces. Instead of adopting such a model that separates ontology (sound being) from social and historical issues, Marie Thompson (Reference Thompson2017: 277) suggests ‘that ontology requires resituating amongst its co-productive relations with the social world’. This means recognising that ontology is co-constituted by its relations with the social world, culture, history, politics, science, technology, epistemology, aesthetics and experience.

Goh (Reference Goh2017), on the other hand, proposes an understanding of sonic materialism rooted in her concept of ‘situated knowledges’ in sound studies. Building on Karen Barad’s ‘agential realism’, she emphasises matter as inseparably bound with material-discursive relations rather than as passive raw material of knowledge. In this view, sonic materialism must account for the inseparability of ontology and epistemology, nature and culture and language and matter in order to renegotiate the subject-object relationship in the production of sonic knowledge. Similarly, according to Seth Kim-Cohen (Reference Kim-Cohen2009), the opacity of the medium and its weight cannot be equated with phenomenological essentialism. He argues instead for a conceptual turn towards non-cochlear sonic art. The rejection of the notion of ‘sound-in-itself’ is crucial here, as such a perspective ignores the textual and intertextual nature of sound and its interactions with linguistic, ontological, social and political meaning (Kim-Cohen Reference Kim-Cohen2009). Moreover, Kim-Cohen’s (Reference Kim-Cohen2009) account opens sound art to perspectives and modes of reception that are not limited by the capacity to hear. Non-cochlear sound art is more inclusive in its discursive and social dimensions.

Salomé Voegelin is another key figure in sonic materialism. Her works, such as Sonic Possible Worlds (2014), follow Cox’s onoesthetic approach and argue against visual domination, viewing sound as a materiality that cannot be captured by a noun, but by a verb (‘becoming’). Voegelin sees sound as a fundamentally material, vibrating and relational force that is experienced bodily, operates outside the logic of representation and requires a radical rethinking of listening as the ability to perceive vibrations by all kinds of entities, both human and non-human (Voegelin Reference Voegelin, Sterne and Neal2019).

In 2015, Brian Kane criticised the ontoesthetic approach in sound studies (which includes the works of Cox and Voegelin). The researcher accused this perspective of being universalistic, ahistorical, and problematic in its treatment of concepts, such as representation and meaning (Kane Reference Kane2015). Instead, Kane suggests an alternative approach that is more relational, less focused on the opposition between meaning and sound/vibration, and more related to Deleuze and Guattari’s theories (See: Deleuze and Guattari Reference Deleuze and Guattari1987) on machine concepts. Kane proposes a research framework that places a stronger emphasis on the machinic and materialist aspects of sound.

In 2018, Asbjørna Blokkum Flø argues that ‘Materiality is key to understanding the resurgence of kinetics in sound art,’ (Flø Reference Flø2018: 233) challenging the traditional view of sound art and music as immaterial art forms. Flø points to direct contact with sound-producing objects as a central artistic practice. As a result, working with physical objects becomes both spectral composition (Flø Reference Flø2018). In the same year, Tara Rodgers argues that in order to address sound by listening to or feeling its vibrations, one must discover how it is interdependent with its material and social context (Rodgers Reference Rodgers and Sayers2018). The researcher conceives of sound not as an immaterial or purely abstract entity, but as a phenomenon deeply embedded in physical reality and interdependent with material and social contexts, experienced by the bodily listener.

Marcel Cobussen presents a perception of sonic materialism consistent with the concepts of Cox and Voegelin. Cobussen (Reference Cobussen2022) in the context of sonic materialism focuses on how the new materialism helps to understand the requirements of sounds, sound worlds and the role of sound in human existence, focusing on ‘what sound does or can do instead of what it is’ (Cobussen Reference Cobussen2022: 18). For Cobussen, the materiality of sound, within the context of sonic materialism, is not merely the physical matter that produces sound. Instead, it is fundamentally an active force (or actant) that interacts with both human and non-human entities through vibration and resonance, influencing them while also being influenced in return. This approach emphasises the causality of matter and its role in a dynamic network of relationships that goes beyond the traditional anthropocentric or visual understanding of the world. He proposes auditory ontoepistemology as an alternative way of encountering and learning about the world. He points out that sound exists only in relation to other factors, and that auditory materialism is a relational materialism in which everything vibrates and is interconnected.

Central to sonic materialism is the claim that sound is not merely an abstract meaning or ephemeral phenomenon but has an essential physical materiality that plays a key role in its nature. Sonic materialism highlights the connection between sound and vibration, which impacts bodies and other materials, often in a precognitive or affective manner. It addresses issues of representation and meaning by pointing out that sound – while an active component of the world – coexists with culture, language, history and is relational, involving interactions between materials, bodies, technologies and the environment. Also important is a broader perspective on listening and perception that extends beyond human auditory experience: listening can be understood as the ability of various entities to perceive vibrations. Sound phenomena are multisensory and transperceptual.

Materiality in sound art is therefore not passive; rather, it is relational, causal and space-transforming. Materiality is also not neutral, but meaningful; it shapes, influences, creates and changes meaning. Across centuries, sound in art shifted from cosmological and symbolic concepts (music of the spheres), through the embrace of noise and recording technologies in modernism, to postwar explorations of silence, everyday sound and embodied voice (Kahn Reference Kahn1999). Radio art differs in that it makes the medium itself – its transmission, materiality and ephemerality – the central artistic resource. For radio, sound is one of the elements, but ‘the material of radio art is not just sound. Radio happens in sound, but sound is not really what matters about radio’ (Whitehead Reference Whitehead, Kahn and Whitehead1994: 254).

Based on both theoretical concepts of materialism in sound art and the practical implementation of material-focused works, new aesthetics and creative forms are emerging. Mo H. Zareei, Dugal Mckinnon, Dale A. Carnegie and Ajay Kapur introduce the concept of sound-based brutalism. The authors reject the term ‘minimalist’ as insufficient to describe the experimental and independent sound works of recent decades. They argue that applying the term brutalism, understood as a crystallisation of the key features of modernism, to these works will emphasise their austerity, reduced form, focus on material and confrontational nature. The researchers introduce the term ‘sound-based brutalism’ as a suitable label for this aesthetic, noting its connection to the resurgence of brutalism and including works like Mo H. Zareei’s The Brutalist Noise Ensemble within this trend. A project that also emphasises the unprocessed nature of material and the fact that the medium is not transparent but becomes part of the work is Mikrofon w Puszczy Zielonce by Krzysztof Piechota (Misiak and Olejniczak Reference Misiak and Olejniczak2024). It is the materiality of direct sound transmissions, without recordings or carriers, that reveals the brutality of the acoustic environment. It operates on raw material – without editing, without arrangement – just like brutalist sound forms; yet instead of an aesthetic of ‘confrontation’, it proposes an aesthetic of attentive listening. Mikrofon w… is a gentle, reflective pole of the same tendency that, in sound brutalism, takes on a radical and confrontational form.

4. The materiality of radio art

Materialist theories in the study of art media indicate that we cannot think about the materiality of media while being outside of it; we always think in media. In the context of art, the materials an artist creates with and the technologies they use are not neutral; they actively shape what can be expressed and how it is received. Aspects of materialism, or dimensions of materiality, in the context of art are diverse and include the study of the physical matter of artworks, the materiality of art media and how matter shapes meaning, experience and cultural practices.

In 1989, Gregory Whitehead (Reference Whitehead1989: 10) posed ‘a question so elemental it now sounds almost anachronistic: what is the material radio, what is the “on air” made of?’ The artist viewed the radio work as the result of an exploration of the medium, and the body of the radio text must reflect the aesthetic qualities of its environment. Whitehead characterised the radio work as a multi-layered composition, where temporal, spatial and voice planes coexist. Its field of meaning is non-linear and filled with interruptions and interferences. From this perspective, radio is an elusive and ephemeral medium, where its users and creators connect, even though they are never fully present – only their voices and traces remain, along with echoes and a desire for contact. Whitehead also pointed to the paradox of the relationship between sender and receiver, who are simultaneously close through voice, whispering, sharing silence and far away through technological distancing. Radio as a medium strikes a balance between intimacy and mediation through its method of transmission. Whitehead’s ‘frontal physicality and truncated absence’ directly points to the physical materiality of the radiobody (Whitehead Reference Whitehead1990), i.e., voice, sound and waves, and at the same time, to its absence: a voice without a source. In Through the Wild Dark (2024), Whitehead continued his exploration of radio matter to find the dimensions of the radio work’s poetics, for which the raw material is precisely radio space. According to the artist, the experience of a radio piece is personal; radio broadcasts to each listener individually rather than to the audience as a whole. Whitehead emphasises that more important than sound in radio art is ‘the play of relationships that brings listeners out of the dark and into the mix’ (Whitehead Reference Whitehead, Hilmes and Bottomley2024: 207). The relationship is triangular between listener, player and media system. As artists become more aware of the radio space, radio broadcasts can resonate more strongly and reflect radio’s ‘intrinsic entropy’ (Whitehead Reference Whitehead, Hilmes and Bottomley2024: 207), along with its timeless impermanence, instability and the fragility of its signal. The primary material and raw ingredient for radio art are interferences, which are the audible effects of signal creation, processing, reception and natural fading (See: Whitehead Reference Whitehead1990). Whitehead’s essays thus highlight two interconnected perspectives: radio as a communicative medium of distribution, transmitting voices and messages across distance, and radio as an artistic instrument in itself, where the instability of the signal, interference and the disembodied voice become the very material of aesthetic practice. However, the passage of time and technological changes have meant that in today’s network of radio stations and in the era of podcasts and digital radio, these phenomena are different from the dimensions constituted by Whitehead in the late 80s.

Allen S. Weiss views materiality in a manner similar to that of Whitehead. The researcher states that the materiality of radio is based on: ‘(I) a necessarily electronic mediation; (2) the possible instantaneity of broadcast (“live” radio); (3) the geographic range of transmission, allowing penetration into even the most intimate realms of our private worlds’ (Weiss Reference Weiss1995: 79). The crux of radio art, according to Weiss, ‘is not in the mere existence of the recorded sound object, but rather in the very way in which sound establishes a relationship between an invisible (and perhaps dead!) creator and an equally invisible and usually anonymous (but hopefully living!) listener’ (Weiss Reference Weiss1995: 80). The recording separates the voice from the person who spoke it, creating an experience of the ‘other’ – a phenomenon that can feel hallucinatory and alien. The radio becomes acousmatic: we hear its sound without a visible source, the voice arrives without an image, without a corporeal presence, which gives space to the listener’s projections and fantasies. This ‘pure materiality’ (Weiss Reference Weiss1995) of sounds without a visible sender and ‘these features of the disincarnate voice – ubiquity, panopticism, omniscience, omnipotence – cause the radiophonic work to return as hallucination and phantasm’ (Weiss Reference Weiss1995: 32). The lack of imagery allows for intense paranoid and mystical projections, giving the listener space to project their own desires, fears and phantasms onto it.

Another aspect of materiality is emphasised by Doreen Mende (Reference Mende, Grundmann, Zimmermann, Braun, Daniels, Hirsch and Thurmann-Jajes2008: 149), who writes that ‘The dematerialization of the art object, in whose terms Lucy Lippard described art between 1966 and 1972, corresponds to the spirit of Audio Culture’. The author points out that audio culture, and therefore, radio art, is part of the historical process of making art independent of the material medium. However, there is a paradox: while sound appears to be immaterial, it operates through specific technological conditions (which are material), such as microphones, tapes, receivers and radio waves. In this context, materiality does not disappear; it simply takes on a different form. Mende (Reference Mende, Grundmann, Zimmermann, Braun, Daniels, Hirsch and Thurmann-Jajes2008) notes that radio and the radio work have situational and corporeal materiality – they are rooted in the concrete physical space of the receiver; the ‘on/off’ button symbolises and constitutes the boundary between the presence and absence of the radio work, between the inside and the outside. The medium as a device and physical interface becomes an integral part of the artwork.

Another important contribution comes from Margaret Hall (Reference Hall2015), who notices ‘shared materiality in the potential of radio’: the way artists form their works is considered material, and this materiality is often ‘repressed by mainstream radio’ (Hall Reference Hall2015: 48). According to Hall, materiality can be the main focus of the artist through physical interaction with the apparatus as a form of materiality. Hall also describes the distinction between transmission art, ‘when this action was integral to the concept of the work; (…) when a work emphasized “process” over “product’” (Hall Reference Hall2015: 211). Radio art, while also addressing issues of process and materiality, is more focused on aesthetics, institutional framing and exploration of narrative and format. The researcher suggests that transmission art and radio art are two different perspectives on practices that use radiophonic techniques and technologies. One (transmission art) emphasises the materiality of the medium and process more than the other.

The process and its variability are vital aspects of the materiality of the radio medium. As technology advances, the methods of broadcasting, fixation and distribution are changing, along with the way radio is received. Michelle Hilmes understands radio’s materiality as a feature that has evolved with technology, transitioning from an ephemeral and elusive form in the past to a tangible and permanent presence in the digital era. The researcher remarks that now, in the digital age, the materiality of radio has been transformed: digital platforms have overcome the former ephemerality, making radio more tangible and visible (Hilmes Reference Hilmes, Hilmes and Loviglio2013). Today, radio has become ‘soundwork’, a field so open that every digital sound clip potentially becomes part of radio’s new materiality, which includes ‘the entire complex of sound based digital media’ (Hilmes Reference Hilmes, Hilmes and Loviglio2013: 45). The contemporary materiality of radio according to Hilmes (Reference Hilmes, Hilmes and Loviglio2013) is based on overcoming ephemerality, radio as screen medium, with mobility, global reach and interactivity. However, as Whitehead observes, ephemerality is also the heart of its significance as a cultural form – e.g., his pieces are only radio art when they are on air – when accessed via the archive, etc., they are audio art, and the listening experience will be profoundly different (Whitehead Reference Whitehead2025). Broadcast radio shapes a standardised, simultaneous listening experience across a dispersed audience, often functioning as acoustic background. Digital media – streaming, podcasts and other online forms – operate through an expansive networked infrastructure, enabling timeshifting and the personalisation of auditory space, detaching sound from its event and introducing new, often distanced modes of acoustic representation.

Hall, nevertheless, argues that while this is emblematic of contemporary converged media, it is important to consider the aesthetic and historical specificity of radio, lest the autonomy of radio ‘be subsumed into being simply another constituent part of the complex of sound-based digital media’ (Hall Reference Hall2015: 17). Hall stresses that the materiality of radio is a key element in understanding and defining radio art. Materiality encompasses the physical aspects of technology, their evolution, and the way artists creatively harness these elements and use them to create meaning, pushing boundaries and provoking reflection on the relationship between technology and the listening experience.

5. The dimensions of materiality of radio art

Researchers point out that, on the one hand, radio as a medium and radio art as a content in it have been changing into a heterogeneous soundwork, and on the other hand, they postulate efforts in the name of preserving radio’s autonomy, individuality and idiosyncratic features. Despite the changing media system, the convergence of media, and the change in the way listeners use radio, it is still possible – even necessary – to outline the dimensions of the materiality of radio art. Whitehead’s writing radio, not for radio (Whitehead Reference Whitehead1989: 10), captures those aspects of radio art’s materiality that are inseparable from the very essence of the medium, the unchanging and crucial dimensions that shape radio’s artistic message. In my proposal, I aim to capture both the historical features unique to radio and its contemporary form, with a wide range of broadcasting and reception possibilities. In synthesis with the positions of the previously mentioned researchers, I include the following aspects: (1) sound as a distinct means of expression and (2) the phenomenology of sound, (3) relationality, (4) sound objects and their transformation and (5) the spatio-temporal dimension, (6) embodied listening, (7) the technical aspect of the medium and the infrastructure of transmission. These seven aspects outline a framework of change in radio art, capturing shifts in both technological infrastructure and aesthetic practices

Sound in radio art should be considered not only as a carrier of content but as a multifaceted element operating at the semantic, aesthetic and material levels. In radio art, sounds are arranged into sound figures, and the choice of specific figures is important for the overtones and argumentation of the works. Radio art frequently functions on a symbolic and abstract level, introducing the concept of sound symbolism. It can include elements that are not self-contained outside the broadcast, but which gain symbolic weight, meaning and aesthetic significance within the work. These non-self-contained elements often comprised the works of Eugeniusz Rudnik, who, among the tapes rejected by other artists and implementers, searched for fragments of recorded sounds, to which he restored value and meaning. Rudnik based the entire composition in Lekcja [Lesson] (1959) and Lekcja II [Lesson 2] (1965) on authentic recordings and other recovered or found sound material. The broadcasts include recordings of lessons from the early grades of school, audio of recited excerpts and sound quotations, as well as musical elements. The phonetic material was compiled as a collage, but the seemingly random arrangement of sounds creates a coherent and expressive structure (Cf. Kowalska-Elkader Reference Kowalska-Elkader2023). These elements were considered unnecessary, of no value, interfering with the purity of radio message. They are neither meaningful nor aesthetically important on their own; however, they gain weight and significance when incorporated into the piece through their composition, arrangement, and adjacency.

The analysis of materiality should consider the physical properties of the sounds used in the broadcast, as well as their phenomenology: frequency, amplitude, texture and their changes over time. Additionally, it should examine how these physical properties affect the listener’s experience. Spectrograms can be analysed to visualise sound spectra and their intensity over time. Research on a small sample of artistic radio programmes featuring war themes (Kowalska-Elkader Reference Kowalska-Elkader2025) indicates that these programmes make significant use of low frequencies, including sounds at and below the limit of audibility. Sounds below 20Hz, although not heard directly, affect the reception of the work. In Brygada Śmierci [Death’s Brigade] by Krzysztof Penderecki (1963), low frequencies dominate, evoking physical associations with a heartbeat, while contrasting high tones and rumbles build tension and drama. On the Shore Dimly by Gregory Whitehead (2015). A similar lack of literalism and illustration characterises the radio play Moi przyjaciele słuchają wojny [My Friends Listen to War] (dir. Roza Sarkisian, 2023), which is dominated by low-range electronics and distorted machine noises, complemented by occasional ambient sounds. All three pieces explore the potential of sound as a vehicle for a multidimensional narrative, engaging the listener on both sensory and emotional levels (Kowalska-Elkader Reference Kowalska-Elkader2025). While the sonic textures and low-frequency vibrations can be experienced similarly on streaming platforms, their phenomenological qualities draw on conventions and techniques developed in the era when radio was the only medium for such works. These qualities function as part of a broader materiality specific to radio art and interact with the other six aspects to create an experience shaped by the medium’s historical and aesthetic legacy.

The relationality of radio art is linked to the performative and spatio-temporal dimensions of media action. Media should be viewed not through the prism of what they are, but what they do – how they materially trigger events, enter into relationships and initiate responses. In analysing the materiality of radio art, it is helpful to differentiate it from other forms of sound art and media, highlighting its unique characteristics related to transmission and reception. Relationships happen on the lines of artist-media-receiver, at different times and in both directions. In 1990, Gregory Whitehead created Male Digger Bees, a work that expressively demonstrates the relational dimension of radio art. On the surface, the piece appears to be situated in the tranquil realm of nature, filled with the buzzing of bees, the droning of insects, and the rustling of leaves. However, beneath this surface lies a carefully crafted radio landscape that fully expresses the medium itself. This is the author’s reflection on radio, demonstrating that radio broadcasting is not transparent but actively shapes perception; production tools and choices influence reception and create meanings. The narrator’s voice coexists with the sonic environment, but also competes with it, as if the radio itself becomes the protagonist – interfering, not just transmitting. In response to this piece, Helen Thorington created Aphids and Others (1990), addressing the limits of what can be allowed on the air within public radio (Spaces 2012, online). Thorington’s work brings to the surface what is usually censored, suppressed, overlooked and unnoticed. The author’s narrative is interspersed with the sounds of insects and buzzing. Although they are initially directly related to the story, they quickly reveal their role as a sonic counterpoint – the micro-world becomes a starting point for reflection on the selectivity of media, the randomness and transience of what is allowed to be transmitted. Relationality can also be viewed in terms of how individual elements of a work align with one another and how they connect to the overall composition. This applies to both individual sounds and their broader structures, as well as the relationship between fiction and reality in quasi-documentary broadcasts. German artist Antye Greie-Ripatti, known as AGF, focused on the relationship presented in the works featured on the compilation Dissidentova (2018), which she dedicated to 15 iconic female figures in Russian culture. AGF blends documentary, poetic, and creative messages in her works, including both authentic and fictional female protagonists, such as in the piece unknown Russian astronaut 1961.

The spatio-temporal dimensions in radio art are related to the fact that radio is characterised by an intense present, while at the same time it seems to speak from outside of time. It can isolate an acoustic event from the time and place of its occurrence, as well as separate an act of speech from the physical presence of the speaker. As Migone (Reference Migone1996) notes, ‘The art of being everywhere is the same as the art of being nowhere’, which refers to the lost mooring. Space becomes everywhere and nowhere, while time transforms into a seamless continuum with no climax. Equally significant is the shift from synchronous, live broadcasting to asynchronous, on-demand listening, which alters the temporality of radio art and reconfigures the listener’s embodied relation to sound.

Through the term ‘The Dead Line’ (Migone Reference Migone1996), Migone draws a clear parallel between cell phone usage and the functioning of a radio transmitter, which gives the device a transtemporal quality that goes beyond the conventional understanding of time. Spatial relationships are not insignificant for Migone; the lack of physical proximity allows for freer expression of thoughts; when we speak ‘to no one in particular’, we grant ourselves more freedom than when a listener is present. This is the unique aspect of radio communication, combining both distance and an unprecedented intimacy of space. This was perfectly demonstrated in Whitehead’s experimental work, Pressures of the Unspeakable (Cf. Weiss Reference Weiss1995), the basis of which was the screams of listeners recorded on a specially created telephone line. The unspeakable was made speakable in isolation from the here and now of the listener, existing in a simultaneously intimate yet distant space. The archived screams were later processed by the author through selection and editing to create a unique soundscape. This phase of the work on the broadcast introduces another dimension of radio’s materiality: working with sound objects. Radio artists often work directly with recorded sounds, including the human voice, ambient sounds, musical instruments and synthetic sounds. The analysis should take into account how these sound materials are edited, deformed, combined and processed to create new meanings and effects. An analysis of the materiality of radio art must consider how specific sound materials – field recordings, archives, machine sounds, and voices – are manipulated. In Whitehead’s work from the 1980s (Kowalska-Elkader Reference Kowalska-Elkader2024), fragmentary sounds – including voices, archival recordings and music – are extracted and arranged in a way that transforms them into sonic objects. These objects are permanent and autonomous, serving as the fundamental building blocks of a radio programme’s structure rather than simply acting as illustrations. Their processing – based on interference and entropy – transforms selected sounds into aesthetic and conceptual vehicles: sound objects that are processed, overloaded and juxtaposed so as to show the materiality of the medium and the frailty of transmission and media memory. Such approaches became possible with the development of sound studios in the 1950s, which provided the technical means for complex sound manipulation, while radio emerged as an effective medium for distributing these works, allowing audiences to experience their temporal and structural intricacies. In the contemporary context, only the tools have changed: artists no longer work with tape, sound editing has become digital and reception often takes place through streaming.

In broadcasts like Eugeniusz Rudnik’s, the author transforms specific, recognisable sounds into new soundscapes, giving them fresh meaning and shape. Rondo [Roundabout] (1969), which is actually a study of voice transformation, is structured in this way. The sound of speech in this work is modified, devoid of its semantic meaning, and organised musically and sonically. Through the transformation and modification of words, voices and various effects, Rudnik created a completely new sound. In the context of the entire piece, as well as its structural and internal relationality – where individual elements relate to the composition as a whole – this approach also provided a new meaning. In Discardia #1 (1992), Kevin Jones uses voice and spoken word as a method of exploration. Thematically, the work delves into the human condition and the struggle to find meaning in life. Formally, Jones creates a fluid and ever-changing vocal landscape. Dan Lander’s Talking to a Loudspeaker (1989) creatively engages with radio conventions and questions traditional ideas about radio production. By utilising archival materials, he ‘pokes fun at the radio call-in show; the place of music in broadcasting; radio’s “commercial” values; balance in news reporting; and the notion of “broadcast quality”’ (Lander Reference Landern.d.). The works are structured in a way that resembles a radio collage. In this way, sounds are transformed into objects that possess their own aesthetic and symbolic significance, turning radio into a laboratory for sonic transformations. Additionally, the piece Talking… highlights the relational aspect of radio art.

Weiss (Reference Weiss1995) writes that ‘In radiophony, not only is the voice separated from the body, and not only does it return to the speaker as a disembodied presence – it is, furthermore, thrust into the public arena to mix its sonic destiny with that of other voices’. However, a ‘disembodied presence’ can morph into ‘embodied listening’, listening as an experience of sound in the body. This transition from ‘disembodied voice’ to ‘listening body’/‘embodied listening’ is made possible by the nature of radio art, allowing one to feel the trembling and enter a space filled with other voices and traces of absent bodies. I suggest framing listening as a situated activity that is influenced by the body, infrastructure and context. Sound, with all its meanings and physical effects, can penetrate the listener’s body, shaping their perceptions and emotions. The body enters the radio non-place, and although it can turn off the receiver, it can never close its ears fully and stop hearing. According to Thomas Csordas (Reference Csordas, Fraser and Greco2005), ‘Perception is always a mode of embodiment: in hearing, seeing, touching, one’s body is the site where sensation and signification coincide’, and listening is at the intersection of the symbolic and experiential dimensions, bridging the inside and outside. Anna Raimondo’s Mediterraneo Footnote ¹ keeps you breathless, while Whitehead’s The Problem with Bodies moves the listener’s mouth. On the one hand, listeners have ‘embodied relationships to technology’ (Friz Reference Friz2011). At the same time, as Ellen Waterman (Reference Waterman, Jensen and LaBelle2007) observes, there is a need for ‘embodied radio practices, as radio artists are still working in social contexts “on the ground,” and not in ethereal realms without consequence’.

The final issue involves the media-technological and infrastructure-transmission dimensions. In this regard, interference resonates strongly: both as an intrinsic aspect of radio, a constant form of interference, and as an aesthetic creation. Radio art is a media-art phenomenon, operating in a network of institutions, technologies, distribution and reception, and therefore has a number of systemic characteristics. Radio art as a field of artistic production is a system,Footnote ² which is characterised by:

Decentralisation – radio art exists more as parasitic art using the space of radio institutions (BBC, ORF), but at the same time it functions outside the mainstream (in community stations [e.g., Radio Kapitał], art foundations, festivals [Audio Art Festival]).

Partial privatisation – contemporary radio art can exist on commercial platforms (e.g. SoundCloud, podcast redistribution), but it primarily relies on public or independent foundations, grants and non-commercial stations.

Development in both directions: global and local – strong presence of local radio activities and site-specific projects, with simultaneous, partial global distribution (streaming, online archives and festivals).

Lack of commercialisation, extensive marketing or mass advertising – radio art is a rather niche, experimental field (even if the artist participates in the art market); no mass marketing; instead, it is supported by festivals, academic institutions and experimental art scenes.

Technological openness – radio art has always been a medium of technological experimentation; from tape to live coding and peer-to-peer networks, each era provides radio artists with a different set of raw materials (tape, MiniDisc, DSP and streaming servers).

Partial and low competitiveness of production and distribution institutions – not in the form of a market, but there is competition for grants and residencies (e.g. at WaveFarm), airtime or presence at festivals (e.g. Radiophrenia).

Moderate sensitivity to economic situation – the COVID-19 pandemic strengthened new audio forms and online audio art (e.g., the Nie słyszę… project by Katarzyna Michalak and Magdalena Świerczyńska-Dolot, the virtual edition of PRIX EUROPA [2020]), but did not cause lasting, irreversible changes.

Reception and responsiveness – radio art is open to interactive forms of radio plays, live performances and participatory elements (soundwalks).

The infrastructural and technological dimension, unlike the other aspects, cannot be considered unchanging; it evolves most rapidly, shifting from the analogue ether of traditional broadcasting to digital streaming, podcasts and mobile applications, which fundamentally redefine the technical materiality of radio art in the twenty-first century compared to the era of Whitehead or Rudnik.

In contrast to the approaches mentioned, I am not proposing a singular, definitive ontology of sound, nor am I concentrating solely on its phenomenology or causal impact. My proposal does not separate sound from its context within media; rather, it situates sound within the specific, historically and institutionally shaped system of radio. My model shifts the focus from ontology to situated mediality. I do not merely analyse sound as vibration (Cox) or experience (Voegelin), but as an effect of the relationship between artist, medium, technology and listener. I expand the concept of materiality to include transmission, infrastructure, cultural production, and auditory tensions, positioning radio as not only an aesthetic experience but also as a laboratory for media-social interaction. In the context of artistic practice, radio functions not only as a medium for transmitting content, but also as an instrument that generates, shapes, and transforms sound: it collects and broadcasts the sonic environment, produces unpredictable sounds, grants aesthetic significance to receiver-specific noises and interferences and acts as a multi-instrument enabling constantly evolving soundscapes and interactions between frequencies (Misiak and Olejniczak Reference Misiak and Olejniczak2024).

Each of these dimensions – from the physical presence of sound and its phenomenology, to working with sound objects, to the corporeality of listening and the infrastructure of transmission – not only defines the way a radio work exists but also points to its operational and epistemological dynamics. Thus, they are an attempt to create an analytical model that does not separate aesthetics from the material form of transmission. Instead, they consider radio art as a phenomenon that is deeply rooted in sonic causality, the dynamics of transmission and the context of reception. The analysis of the seven dimensions of materiality in radio art – ranging from the physical properties of sound to its transformation into phonic objects, embodied listening, and the infrastructure for transmission – enables us to understand the uniqueness of this medium as an art form, whose meaning is shaped at the intersection of sound, technology and the audience. Among these seven dimensions, some – such as sound, relationality, or embodied listening – represent enduring ontological features of radio art, while others – above all the infrastructural and technological dimension – are subject to ongoing transformation in the twenty-first century, reflecting the shift from broadcast to digital and hybrid forms.