The safest bet, for me, has always been to build separate "rooms" for works with sound, or to place things with sound as far from each other as possible. I suppose that's a bit obvious, though. Not as thoughtful as the Beall..
When the artist is ok with it, I frequently offer headphones for, say, video pieces with an important sound component.
If it is appropriate, it is also nice to offer sound recordings in catalogues, so that pieces can be listened to in different spaces & contexts.
Of course, the issue is complicated. How site-specific is the work? What "embodiment" or "immersion" conditions does it ask for? How reasonable is it (not) to separate the sound from the "rest" of the peice, by capturing & distributing recordings?
ryan griffis <email@example.com
The Beall Center at UC Irvine has used (clear) plastic inverted domes
(suspended from the ceiling), fitted with speakers, for limiting the
range of sound for installations that need to be controlled or are
visually/conceptually tied to a specific space in the gallery.
On Nov 18, 2004, at 5:20 AM, Seth Thompson wrote:
> The use of sound is sometimes very controversial within a museum
> exhibition--especially when multiple works have a sound element. I
> was wondering if you could describe some of the innovative ways that
> museums and galleries have handled sound within a museum/gallery
> environment without compromising the works. Please let me know at
> your earliest convenience. Thanks in advance.
-> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
-> questions: email@example.com
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org
web site is open to non-members
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo!