On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Marco Donnarumma wrote:

I could also ask why does the fact that the resulting music itself
doesn't have much to do with censorship matter?

Because the title of the work is Ť Sonification of IT censorship technologies ť and this title is the public's first contact with the work.

If one can't reasonably hear the censorship in it, is it appropriate to advertise the work using such a title ?

Also, if the media you give for documenting the work is a soundfile, and not a way to witness the process, how can the audience relate to your process instead of just to your soundfile ?

Maybe the wisdom is exactly that, that a censored world will sound just like a non-censored world, and one will not be able to percept that "something is missing", which is dangerous if you think about it. Imagine you go home one day and some important things of yours have been stolen but you go on without noticing their absence, even with the time passing. Scary!

Andras