Methodology
In addition to addressing a musical work as a form of philosophy, my analytical approach in this essay is one derived from the Actor-Network Theory (ANT). I consider material semiotic approaches (of which ANT is one) not as flat ontologies but, following Campbell, as part of a variegated framework that can account for “political and ideological forms” (Campbell 2021: 416). Campbell’s discussion of improvisation and indeterminacy is particularly relevant to the musical practices I consider here. I present these practices as a network of artist statements, both spoken and performed: in both cases these are treated as sonic statements, considered beyond the textual. Alongside an analysis of musical artefacts involving the instruments created by the two artists addressed in this video essay, I conducted additional research through semi-structured video interviews. This was done so that the artists’ work could be presented in their own words and to ensure that any conclusions drawn about their work were informed both by their experiences and by the sounding results of their instruments. This phenomenological component of the work is important, since I contend that the experience of materiality is not evidenced solely through the sounding property of materials. The interview material was therefore analyzed in terms of the material semiotic insights shared by the artists as well as the political and ideological dimensions of the music itself and of their musical practices.
Three questions were asked of the two artists:
- Please describe your creative practice in designing/building instruments.
- What is important to you regarding the sound/design/appearance, or other aspects, of your instruments?
- How do you deal with, allow for, or otherwise embrace indeterminacy in the processes of building and performing with these instruments?
They were also invited to share any other details of their practice that they found important but were not prompted by these questions. In the interviews, I allowed for responses that reflected their own interpretation of these questions, something which further revealed their priorities in their creative work.
As a result of these interviews, a comparison can be made with the philosophical exploration that opened this discussion. Bourriaud’s comments are drawn from his study and curation of the work of contemporary visual artists; Toksöz Fairbairn’s from his reflection on his own creative practice; Campbell’s from engagement with contemporary musical work; and James’s, in part, from the philosophical consideration of popular musics. None of these are divorced from an experience of art and music. Nevertheless, most of these viewpoints are drawn from encounters with the work of others, and Toksöz Fairbairn’s ideas arise from placing his work in an explicitly new materialist framework; he begins the discussion of his framework by stating that he addresses “sound as a physical, vibrating reality” (Toksöz Fairbairn 2022: 15).
The artists that I have interviewed may also have additional philosophical frameworks for their current and past work, but here we discussed their practice on a purely practical level, focusing on their engagement with instruments as a practice of making and doing. Toksöz Fairbairn states that “thinking sound is an activity” (Toksöz Fairbairn 2022: 15), whereas the artists focus on making and doing sound as an activity (Small 2012). This adds a further texture or layer to the complexity of the philosophical discussion with which I opened this article and further expands the discussion towards understanding these material practices of instrument building as a philosophy that is made and done as well as thought or sounded.
I am grateful to both Khabat and Sam for the time they gave to these interviews and for their generosity in sharing their work and ideas, both of which have contributed greatly to the development of this project.