Sonic Acts Critical Writing Workshop: Closing notes

Yoneda Lemma & Anna Mikkola, Sonic Acts at Paradiso, photo by Phileas van Urk
By Jennifer Lucy Allan As the Sonic Acts Academy wraps up for the weekend, the Critical Writing Workshop continues. Up in the rafters of de Brakke Grond, we will be playing catch up with the programme for the next two days, writing, interviewing, editing speakers and performers, and uploading more writing to the blog, adding to those already completed. As other discussions begin to dwindle and others fade out at close of play on Sunday evening, we find ourselves having bigger and deeper editorial and conversational discussions, prompted by the talks and performances here, and contributed to by the diverse mix of interests and experience present in the room: hard science, technology, art theory, music, the academy. We asked the biggest, oldest questions: Is that art? Is that music? Is it good? We also asked more immediate questions: How were those visuals generated? What’s the historical root of that aesthetic? What’s that theorist about? What emerged, through these investigations as well as the various bodies of text and speech that have been generated, were a broader set of questions, at the heart of what Sonic Acts is trying to do. An overarching theme was the tension and difficulties that occur when pre-existing structures and institutions attempt to absorb and accommodate non-standard routes to knowledge. Sally-Jane Norman talked about the role of practice based research for artists, and the distortions led by the drive towards PhD study, detailing the many conflicts in attempting to bring artistic practice and research into academic institutions, particularly where that activity does not fit the structures and demands of the academy. Norman expressed dismay at the knee-jerk invocation of a contemporary canon of fashionable theorists arbitrarily attached to artistic works in an attempt to conform to the requirements of academic research. Similar themes arose in Susan Schuppli’s talk, when she noted that those she presented her findings to in a legal framework were offended by the way she explained her information. Behind these discussions was another conversation, and one that recurred in our meetings: how do individuals use vocabulary to associate and determine the place in which their research and writing exists? Do we have a duty to use language in a way that enacts inclusion, not exclusion? Should we be talking to everyone, all the time? Many of the talks also became about repurposing, disrupting, and redefining the uses and applications of existing technology, modes of analysis, and research methods, to access different modes of understanding and thinking: Heather Davis spoke on the queering role of plastics, and Morehshin Allahyari and Daniel Rourke’s Additivist manifesto called for new attitudes towards 3D printing. But here we hit a problem: While individuals are able to propose and develop these new modes, the structures by which they can be absorbed are either completely lacking or structurally incoherent – the existence and cultural stronghold of traditional and corporate entities creates a hurdle that is difficult to overcome. At this point, I come back to the first conversation I had about this year’s Sonic Acts, where Rosa Menkman asked: How can the festival create knowledge, and how can it sustain knowledge created? In other words: How can the exchange and dissemination of ideas and research create knowledge both inside and outside the festival? To this end, we’ll be publishing text online until Tuesday, covering some of the issues that have arisen over the course of the weekend, and explaining some of the complex theories that have been presented. The talks at Sonic Acts are archived, have been live streamed, and humans have met, conversed, and exchanged thoughts and contact details. Next year the festival returns, for a full size week-long edition.

This site uses cookies.