Talk:Sound art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Sound art is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.


I believe the Sound Art listing should be a disambiguation page pointing to the following three topics: Sound Sculpture, Sound Poetry and Electronic Art Music. While sound art is mostly ignored by the contemporary art scene, contemporary music crowds use the term willy nilly to describe the aforementioned types of work. For example, my work fits under the term sound sculpture while some of my colleagues compose electronic art music, we all however, consider ourselves sound artists. This is a common problem which generally leads to some terminology juggling by artists to figure out who is working in what medium. Part of this problem is due to the fields being relatively new and the academic art world's "hands off" approach to works using sound. In general the term needs to be better defined and this is a decent place to start. For reference to other perspectives on Sound Art, please see the German Wikipedia Klangkunst to understand how they sub-categorize the term. I think their four category layout (three for English because Sound Installation points to Sound Sculpture) demonstrates the need for a disambiguation page.

I think there's enough to avoid being simply a disambig; however, it should mention the things you list. I obviously didn't look at this article much earlier, since the state it's in now it would be a likely target for deletion. What I will do is simply translate the German article and use that for this article, and from there you can make additions and changes. How does that sound? Sarge Baldy 02:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Thank you sir. Grokboy 21:25, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the article benefits from a clear message that splits Sound Art into various sub disciplines (Sound Poetry, Sound Sculpture, etc). However the distinction between these disciplines are often so fragile that it would be a wise idea to discuss them from a different point of view. It is my opinon that Sound Art's most intriguing and infuriating quality is the difficulty found by observer and creator in identifying a suitable discipline which best encompasses a specific work. For this reason I think it best to introduce the article with as brief a possible outline of a sound artists objectives, rather than the discipline to which he/her may belong, following that a brief reference to the various sub disciplines would be appropriate. Following that I think the article would benefit from mention of the main contributors to Sound art; from it's beginings in pre 1st World War Italy (Luigi Russolo' Art of Noise) and Dadaist works (Marcel Duchamp and others) through to Dadaist poetry, Concrete Poets and of course John Cage. I've nothing to do tomorrow so i'll be writing a draft, including details of the existing article. I'll put it up and maybe i could get a little feedback? John Stokes 11:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well i must say this rewrite is brilliant, and contains everything i wanted to say and says it far more eloquently and succintly than i would have myself. it's very pleasing to see such a good explaination of how music and sound art are different from one another. It's a very interesting article. John Stokes 00:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoever did the rewrite, I encourage you to see Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers for more information about Wikipedia and article conventions. Hyacinth 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I note that this page makes no mention of musique concrete composers such as Stockhausen -they should certainly be represented under the banner Sound Art. (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry for format errors, etc.[edit]

sorry, I did the rewrite and didn't thouroughly check the formal parameters. I had never looked up 'sound art' before on wikipedia, and just added this rewrite off the top of my head, so to speak. Helpful in terms of fleshing out the topic, but creates more revision work unfortunately.

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Hyacinth 07:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I removed the external links for an art group or project called "Disinformation." The Sound Art article is for sound art in general. It is not the place to promote one group or artist. If this group is notable, create an article and then provide an internal wikilink. Otherwise it reads as spam (in other words, every artist and group on YouTube will be linking here). Please read WP:EL. Also, do not accuse another editor of vandalism for merely editing an article, as this violates WP:AGF. Thank you. Freshacconci 18:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

List vs. See Also[edit]

It seems like the See Also section of this article and List of topics related to Sound Art is duplicative. I think the list of links in See Also should be merged to the List article. Then, just the List link should be on this page for the See Also section. Otherwise, they will always be out of sync. --Clubmarx (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


Isn't Two Virgins, Life with the Lions, and Wedding Album sound art not just music? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sonic Art[edit]

I have added sonic art in brackets, as it is another widely used term for the same topic. I feel while the term sound art is relatively self-descriptive, it doesn't sound as good English to me, as I read it as "art, which is sound" (as in sound reason). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel679 (talkcontribs)

"Sound art" is well established and is fine in English, as "sound" has multiple meanings. It is unlikely anyone will mistake it for another meaning. You need a source that shows wide usage of "sonic art". freshacconci talktalk 11:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


Can someone fix these up? I believe the first one is Noise, Water, Meat: A History of Voice, Sound, and Aurality in the Arts: A History of Sound in the Arts by Douglas Kahn14.201.111.133 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)