SOUND INSTALLATION
In search of an analytical method of documentation
Catherine Hocking
School of Music - Conservatorium, Monash University
email: kyalami@ozemail.com.au
Abstract
Sound installations cross disciplines such as music,
visual arts and architecture in the process of
exploring new possibilities, but very little has been
written in terms of analysing these works. I will
explain the methodologies I have developed for the
analysis of sound installations, with the hope of
forming a basis for more in-depth documentation of
this art form. I have used three elements as a basis
for this analysis: form - the basic physical and aural
form of the work; space - how it occupies the space,
and time - how form and space develop over time. To
demonstrate these methodologies I will analyse sound
installations by Dr Ros Bandt and Nigel Helyer,
comparing and discussing various characteristics
that contribute to an effective sound installation.
1 Introduction
The term ‘installation’ is generally used to
describe site-specific works of an interdisciplinary
nature. In addition to this, there is often a strong
emphasis on bridging the gap between life and art.
Although installations or works of a similar nature
have been produced throughout the twentieth century,
with some earlier examples such as Wagner’s theory
of Gesamtkunstwerk, the term ‘installation art’ has
only come into use relatively recently1. In their 1994
book, Installation Art, Oliveira, Oxley and Petry
suggest that it is only in the previous decade the term
came to be used to describe artworks which
encourage the audience to consider the relationships
and interactions of elements within their context
much more closely than they usually would (Oliveira,
Oxley and Petry 1994: 8).
Installation is an art form which tends to blur the
boundaries between such conventional art forms as
music, visual art and architecture (Minard 1996: 9).
Installations involve at the very least some
consideration of architecture, combined with aspects
of another art form. Flesh Antenna (Mowson 2002)
consisted of thirty-six pink transistor radios laid out
in a grid, hanging aerial down from the ceiling at
about head level, each set to a different radio station.
The layout of the radios gave a sculptural element to
the work, the venue was taken into consideration
inasmuch as the installation filled the area assigned to
it, and the radio broadcasts provided the element of
sound. This set-up provided a simple but effective
sound environment. Another means of apparently
basic sound installation is described in Minard’s book
on the subject, in which he talks about how space can
be ‘coloured’ (conditioned) by sound, creating a static
or uniform sound texture (Minard 1996: 14-18). In
contrast to this is the concept of ‘articulated’ space, in
which sounds are more localised and can be made to
appear to move through space, for example sound
travelling from one end of a room to the other
(Minard 1996: 18-21). Various sculptural or visual
elements and electronics (encompassing sound, light,
video, motion and audience interaction), as well as
social or political commentary can be added to these
basic elements. The complexity or simplicity of an
installation is up to the artist(s), and depends on the
appropriateness of artistic elements to the venue,
technology or available funding, and the artist(s)
skills.
Installation art is generally conceived for and
tailored to a specific location. The physical presence
of an installation in its venue can range from
domination of an entire space to a subtle, almost
unnoticeable colouring of space. The environment in
which the works are located often plays an important
part in the content of the installation, therefore artists
need to be particularly sensitive to various aspects of
the site they are going to use (see Bandt 1985: 20-25).
Installations are often located outside conventional
venues such as galleries and concert halls. By using
specific ‘non-art’ sites, particularly public spaces, the
installation artist is in some way creating a fusion
between art and life (Oliveira, Oxley and Petry 1994:
7). These sites both bring the art to life, and
transform everyday life into a work of art as the
general public and surrounds become part of the
installation. They bring those who may not usually
have an interest in art into contact with it. Although
installations are generally site specific, they can (with
varying degrees of success) be recreated in other
suitable venues, making them accessible to a larger
audience.
 The relationship between the audience and the
work is perhaps the most important factor in
installation art. Rather than playing a passive role, as
is often the case with more conventional artworks and
compositions, the installation artist presents a
challenge to the viewer/listener to become actively
involved in the work. In this way, the
viewer/listener’s ability to direct their experience of
the work (by the controlling of various parameters
through direct participation in creating sounds or
other outcomes or by varying their observation point
in relation to the work and deciding on the length of
the encounter) is integral to the art form. As noted by
Minard, an audience’s perception of a space can also
be directly influenced by sound.
By defining these aspects of installation art,
some possible directions for analysis are being
revealed. It is clear that there are three main aspects
to these works: their interdisciplinary nature, the
importance of site, the relationship between the
audience and the work. By extending these through
the integration of analytical methods it is possible to
build up a solid methodology for the study of sound
installations.
2 Analysis of Sound Installations
Analysis is an important element to learning in
any field. Unfortunately, no detailed work has been
undertaken on the methodical analysis of sound
installations, and that which has been written has
been directed at documentation (see Bandt 2001) or
historical perspective (see Oliveira, Oxley and Petry
1994). A quick look at the article on analysis in The
New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians
reveals little reference to non-notated forms of music
(Bent and Pople 2001). While installations can be
notated by either traditional or graphic means
(Bandt’s Mack Memories being a good example) it is
not possible to get a full impression of the piece
through the score only. While one cannot say
traditional analytical methods are irrelevant, simply
looking at these elements alone will not adequately
represent sound installations, or experimental music
in general.
Texts dealing with installations tend to divide
works into various categories, although care is taken
to explain that many fit into more than one. In her
book titled Sound Sculpture, Bandt uses the following
categories as chapter headings – Place as Acoustic
Space, Sonic Objects, Time and Motion, Human
Engagement, Installations, and Spatial Sound Design
and Spatial Music, each category having several
subsections (Bandt 2001). Oliveira, Oxley and Petry
use fewer categories, dividing installations under the
headings Site, Media, Museum and Architecture
(Oliveira, Oxley and Petry 1994) based on the
emphasis of the piece as opposed to Bandt’s more
descriptive classifications. While these categories to
some extent give an understanding of various types of
installations and how they relate to each other in
general terms, they fall short of providing significant
insight into individual works.
2.1 Definitions
Form. This is where the usual basic description of
the work fits in, the more physical elements of the
installation. It will consist of a detailed description of
the following elements of the work: how it looks,
what it comprises of, how the sound is produced and
what the sound is.
The description of how it looks is reasonably
self-explanatory. What the work comprises of deals
with what materials are used by the artist. Who or
what produces the sound and whether it is acoustic or
electronic. Finally, what the sound is deals in part
with the sound source (particularly the original source
for electronic or pre-recorded sounds) but mainly
with detailed description of the form of the sound
component and looking at any scores or artist’s
documentation that may be available. This part of the
analysis concentrates on the more definable elements
of the work.
Space. This element deals with the installation in
relation to the venue, a look at how the piece works:
how the installation inhabits the space around it and
how the space inhabits the installation. What
elements of the space has the artist taken into
account? Does the work dominate the area around it,
or take a more subtle approach? How has the artist
used space: is it conditioned or articulated? Does the
installation change the audience perception of the
space, since the space has now become a work of art?
Also important to this analytical element is looking at
whether or not the site is of particular significance to
the work. How suitable is a space for housing an
installation, and, linking in with the areas covered
under the element of time, what type of audience is
the venue likely to attract?
Time. Due to the nature of installations it is not
possible to describe a definitive audience encounter,
as everyone will experience the work differently, but
there is the potential to give descriptions of several
ways in which the audience might come in contact
with the installation. How the installation develops
over time, whether it is continuous, evolves over
time, or is interactive are some of the areas to look at
here. Also important in terms of an audience’s
interaction with an installation is the amount of time
it takes to gain an understanding of the work. Does
the installation require a lot of descriptive or
instructional materials for an audience to be able to
“get” it?2 If it is interactive, how long
(approximately) will it take the audience to learn how
to ‘play’ with the work? This is the area in which it
will be possible to look at the suitability of an
installation to its venue and the audience it is likely to
attract in order to get some idea of how effective a
work it is.
2.2 Mack Memories
Melbourne based sound designer Dr Ros Bandt’s
sound installation Mack Memories was on display at
the Geelong Art Gallery from the 12th of July to the
1st of September 2002. The title relates to Ludwig
Hirschfeld-Mack and his association with the
community of Geelong through his position as Art
Master at Geelong Grammar School from 1942-1957.
Hirschfeld-Mack was a founding member of the
Bauhaus school in Weimar, Germany. It was the
philosophy of the school to bring art and design into
the domain of daily life through innovative and
practical designs, ranging from furniture and
buildings to new kinds of festivals and musical
instruments (Butler, Cleave and Stirling 1994: 506;
Bandt 2002).
Form. Mack Memories exists in its own space in the
gallery. It consists of: four ceramic urns raised on
metal stands, six speakers (four of which are located
in the urns), the SSIIPP (Sound Sculptural Interactive
Installation Performance Playback), twelve ‘Colour-
Chord 12 string boxes’ (six high, four middle and two
low register) supported on a metal rack, a conductor’s
console, a score, eight information panels and one
photographic panel.
Figure 1. Mack Memories – Geelong Gallery 2002.
The SSIIPP is a playback system consisting of
two four-track tape players that can also be linked to
sensors to become interactive, or in Bandt’s words,
behave “like a moving chess game” (Bandt 2002)3.
‘Colour-Chord 12 string boxes’ (invented by
Hirschfeld-Mack) consist of a rectangular hollow box
on a stick with a handle on top. On each of the four
sides of the box are three strings tuned to a common
chord and coded by colour. Four coloured cylinders
can be pushed through holes in the top of the
conductor’s console by means of pedals. The colour
being shown on the console would direct the
performers as to which side of their instrument to
play, and for how long.
The sound is produced electronically, recorded
onto two tapes in six separate tracks and played back
through the SSIIPP. The SSIIPP allows the tapes to
be started at different times and to have a different
rewind speed for each tape. The sound materials used
for the work are recordings of interviews of those
who came into contact with Hirschfeld-Mack during
his time in Geelong, conducted by Bandt, and the
sounds of his instruments, played in their “out-of-
tune state” (Bandt 2002). Like Hirschfeld-Mack’s
instruments, Bandt uses colour coding in her score to
highlight the different voices (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Mack Memories score.
Each person and the instrument is allocated a
colour which is blocked in on the score. In addition
to this, Bandt gives reference points to what is going
on in the dialogue, so it is possible for the audience to
follow in real time and deduce the location of the
tracks. Each tape loop is fifteen minutes long. The
first tape contains four tracks and the second, two.
The three panels each cover five minutes of the loop,
the timeline is clearly divided into one minute
intervals with the tape counter numbers also given.
The tracks of the two tapes are clearly numbered,
grouped and separated. Although the layout of the
score suggests that the two tapes are played in
alignment, this is not the case and Bandt has
indicated the shifting relationships on the score. In
terms of the placement of the recorded materials on
the score, the red blocking (denoting the sounds of
the instrument) appears on all tracks to a small extent,
but mainly provides a soft, almost continuous
background on tracks one and two. The various
voices also move about, some appear on both tapes,
making it possible for the one person to be heard on
two tracks at once. However, no one voice overlaps
itself on the one tape.
Space. The geographical location of Mack Memories
is important to the installation. While it could be
reproduced in other cities, the fact that it is on display
in Geelong strengthens the work’s link between
Geelong and the Bauhaus. The work is also linked to
the Geelong Gallery, as Hirschfeld-Mack’s
instrument and conductor’s console are part of the
gallery’s collection. The installation occupies an
otherwise empty room in a simple, museum-like
layout (Fig. 3).
SSIIPP
Urn
Conductor’s Instrument
Console
Figure 3. Mack Memories floor layout (not to scale).
The instruments and conductor’s console take
central position. The urns containing the speakers are
placed around two walls of the room, the remaining
two speakers are located on either side of the
instruments. The SSIIPP is made a feature of the
installation, residing in a corner in full view to the
audience – no attempt is made to hide the technology
producing the sound. The installation dominates the
space, but in the manner of a museum exhibition its
presence is not at all overbearing.
The placement of the speakers around the room,
with up to six different tracks playing simultaneously
gives the effect of a general background noise.
Occasionally a sound will stand out (the interview
with Vanessa Gough seems quite a lively one, her
voice tending to stand out from the general texture in
particular) but the general impression is of a jumble
of voices and the soft playing of plucked strings
(Hirschfeld-Mack’s instrument). Although this gives
a general sense of the sound ‘colouring’ or
‘conditioning’ the space, the fact that the different
voices change location gives some form of
articulation.
Mack Memories is not what most people would
expect to find in a place such as the Geelong Art
Gallery which houses a high proportion of colonial
artwork. The work also has the possibility of
changing the audience’s perception of the city’s
history, Bandt herself had been unaware of the link
between the Bauhaus and Geelong (Bandt 2002).
Time. While the material on the two fifteen minute
tapes is fixed, the sound world of Mack Memories
evolves constantly. Shifting relationships between
tapes provides for endless variation as it is extremely
unlikely they will line up again in the same
configuration, at least not in the time one might spend
in an average encounter of the installation. While the
work does not involve any specific audience
interaction, it is possible to experience Mack
Memories in a number of ways. While recording the
work I observed most people passing through the
installation were doing just that – passing through.
They would briefly look at the instrument, perhaps
read some of the information panels and generally
listen to the audio element as peripheral sound while
walking through and in other nearby areas of the
gallery. Some would spend longer than others, but
the general impression given was that of just having a
look en route to the gallery’s other collections. Being
housed in a gallery with traditional works forming the
core of its collection, the general audience for Mack
Memories is most likely to be of people just passing
through. Burt comments that a problem of placing
installations in galleries is that “people in art
galleries, used to structuring their own time, in their
own way, have trouble shifting gears and dealing
with a work in which the work structures their time
more than a painting would. I know I do, and I even
make this stuff” (Burt 1994: 58). The fact that this
audience may never have experienced this type of
work compounds the problem.
A more intimate experience would be to listen
directly to the memories recorded in interviews by
Bandt at each urn. Considering each tape loop is
fifteen minutes long, this would take quite a while.
Yet another possibility would be to spend time
listening in general to the shifting relationships
between the two tapes. The unfortunate absence of
seating in the room housing Mack Memories
discourages extended listening. There is a bench in
the adjoining room, but perhaps in a later re-creation
of the work the inclusion of somewhere to sit would
encourage closer listening.
This work has a relatively long duration,
although the audience of course is free to spend as
much or as little time as they choose with the
installation. This, coupled with a rather large amount
of information to process to be able to “get” the
concept behind the work. The type of audience that
is likely to be visiting the gallery suggests that it is
unlikely that most people seeing Mack Memories will
take the time to gain a sufficient understanding of the
work.
2.3 Meta-Diva
Nigel Helyer, an Australian sculptor and sound
artist, is the creator of the sound sculpture Meta-Diva,
located in the grounds of Werribee Park Mansion.
Originally installed on the shores of Lake Teachong
in the mountains of Korea, the work was the winner
of The Helen Lempriere National Sculpture Award
2002 and is now a permanent feature of the historic
property.
Form. Meta-Diva is described by Jeanette Leigh as
an “elegant multi-media environmental sound
sculpture incorporat[ing] sounds of the natural
landscape: chirping birds, frog and insect songs from
budding florets on top of 3.5-metre aluminium stalks
that sit like giant lotus flowers in a pond” (Leigh
2002).

Figure 4. Meta-Diva ‘floret’ detail.
The ‘bed of lotus plants’ as Helyer describes
them, consists of thirty poles rising from the waters
of the ornamental lake. Each pole has a ‘floret’ of
eight speakers and a solar panel about a metre down
the stem to power it. Helyer used powder coated
aluminium (the eight exponential horns on each stem
are of spun aluminium) and digital electronics in the
construction of the work. A wire runs up the middle
of the stem from the solar panel to a plastic 35mm
film canister inside the cap of the floret where the
electronics are housed. The thirty units were
designed for installation in a lakeside context, and
should require no maintenance for a minimum of ten
years, being fully marinised and running entirely on
solar power.
A miniature digital audio chip in each unit
produces the sounds used in M e t a - D i v a
electronically. The aural impression is of sampled
sounds from the natural world – frogs, birds and
insects. The sounds, in fact, were not actually
recorded by Helyer, rather the digital chips he used
were the kind of low-tech commercial devices
produced by Hong Kong toy and game
manufacturers. There are about eight different
‘voices’ distributed through the thirty units. The
deliberate use of non-natural sounds creates a play on
people’s expectations of the environment the work is
located in, as will be discussed under the element of
space. A digital timer gives the sounds produced by
each unit its own ‘unique time signature’. In addition
to this, fluctuations in the power supply as the
location of individual units might change from full
sun to shade also adds to the sculpture’s natural
presence. Some of the rhythms provided by the units
are possible to pick out without too much difficulty,
while others blend into the general soundscape of the
work. Meta-Diva has no score as such (Helyer 2002),
but I have transcribed some of the easily audible
rhythms (Fig. 5).
Each of these rhythms is repeated with varying
lengths of time in between each occurrence of the
sound. Some sounds, such as the bird notated above,
are heard continuously. In addition to this, the voices
may sound at different pitches. The overlapping of
sounds from the thirty closely spaced sources creates
a densely polyphonic texture of constant sound.
Figure 5. Meta-Diva rhythms.
Given his background is mainly in sculpture and the
visual arts, it is unlikely that Helyer chose the
rhythms and lengths of time delay for any specific
musical effect such as polyrhythms.
Space. Meta-Diva’s location is important in that it
was designed for installation in a wetland site. The
sculpture adds to the depth of its sonic surroundings,
blending in well with natural sounds. In an interview
with Bandt, Helyer describes the work as a ‘pastiche
on natural systems’ and being a bit tongue-in-cheek
as it was designed for manmade lake and wetland
systems which have heavily disturbed acoustic
ecologies (Helyer 2002a). The fact that Helyer places
manmade sounds to supplement those of the
disturbed natural environment could be seen as
poking fun at attempts to recreate destroyed habitats.
Meta-Diva is not a dominating work, its physical
form, colour and sound blend with the environment
somewhat, but it is not at risk of becoming lost in the
space. The sounds of the sculpture can be heard from
locations almost all the way round the lake, it is only
really when the small island grotto in the lake comes
between the work and the listener that it can not be
heard. The exhibition catalogue goes so far as to
make the claim “[…] the soundscape blends so
seamlessly with the natural environment that it is
quite difficult to distinguish the artificial from the
natural” (Anon. 2002: 30), however, I found the
electronic sounds stood out quite distinctly.
The subtle soundscape provided by Meta-Diva
acts as a colouring factor in the pre-existing sound
environment. Minute developments between the
different sounds produce subtle variants in texture,
but the overall effect is that of a static and continuous
low-level background noise.
Time. Meta-Diva is a work that interacts with
weather and environmental conditions rather than
with people. The sound samples for each unit are set,
to consider the development of sound one has to think
in terms of the subtle shifts in sound relationships and
how such elements as weather conditions and time of
day are affecting the sound production.
The audience encounter with Meta-Diva is a
somewhat distant one. The physical placement of the
work makes it impossible to get close enough to
listen to sounds from individual units without wading
through water. In this way, the audience’s experience
is set at arms length, much in the manner of sounds in
the natural environment. There is still a variety of
ways in which the work can be experienced. Firstly
by passing through, the original main feature of the
ornamental lake is a grotto located on the island, and
tours of the grounds pass by here at regular intervals.
One can sit on the nearby bench listening to the
interaction of the sculpture’s sound with those of the
natural environment, and it is possible to follow the
sound as one walks around the lake.
The duration of Meta-Diva is indeterminate. The
tendency would probably be towards it being a
‘short’ work, as the audience is not required to
process a great deal of information in order to “get”
the concept behind it. Simply by listening for a
second or two, it is possible to get the gist of the
piece’s play on the natural and the manmade. The
sound component in itself is incredibly long, whether
it fades out and stops in the absence of sunlight is
unknown, but it could be possible for it to run twenty-
four hours, seven days a week.
3 Comparison of Installations
Both Mack Memories and Meta-Diva are located,
to some extent, in unexpected places. While it is not
uncommon to find installations in galleries, the
general impression of the Geelong Gallery is that of a
traditional space for traditional works of art (or at
least in traditional mediums). To have the austere
silence of a gallery of this type broken by continuous
noise could come as quite a shock to visitors. This
parallel in venue makes for a close relationship
between the likely audience types for each work.
Given that the majority of visitors to both the
Geelong Gallery and Werribee Park would be entirely
unaware of the presence of an installation until they
come across it, the general audience type will be
people ‘just passing through’. The content and
comprehension time for each installation will be
major factors in whether people will stop to look or
simply continue on their way. Each work has its
advantages and disadvantages in this area. Mack
Memories is in a gallery, where people might be more
inclined to at least have a look at everything, but
there is the problem of the ‘barrier’ described by Burt
dealing with a work that structures the viewers time
(Burt 1994: 58). A further barrier to this installation
is the large amount of information it presents. The
audience needs to process a lot of material in order to
understand the piece and, once the information is
processed, there is potentially one and a half hours
worth of listening (if each track is heard in its
entirety). Meta-Diva, on the other hand, is a very
simple work in that the audience does not need any
background information at all. It also does not
demand any specific length of listening and like the
natural sounds it mimics one could spend either
seconds or hours listening to it. In relation to the
sculpture’s location, it is slightly out of the way and
people could possibly go past without noticing.
However, the sign near the bridge to the grotto island
and the sounds would draw attention to it. In terms
of the venue encouraging people to spend more time
experiencing the installations, the lakeside
environment of Meta-Diva with its lawns and
benches is quite pleasant. The gallery situation of
Mack Memories, as previously noted, is not
particularly conducive to spending long periods of
time taking in the various aspects of the installation.
Considering Burt’s concern for works often not
operating properly (Burt 1994), perhaps it is relevant
to consider how each of the installations would cope
if one or more aspects of the technology involved
failed. When using electronics, there is always a
likelihood of something going wrong at some stage.
To start with, on my first two visits to the Geelong
Gallery to view Mack Memories two of the six tracks
were not operating. These were tracks one and two,
providing a general background of the instrument
being played. While disappointing, this was not a
huge loss because the voices were still there and the
shifting relationship between the two tapes remained
intact. As it turned out, it was simply a matter of the
volume levels being set too low. What, though, if the
SSIIPP failed to operate at all, would the installation
still be able to communicate anything? The high
level of background information combined with the
museum-like layout would, in the end, save the work
from becoming completely incomprehensible in this
situation. Meta-Diva, however, would be reduced to
little more than a peculiar bunch of metal rods with
speakers on the ends sticking out of the water if the
technology failed. The absence of sound would
severely reduce the impact of the sculpture.
So, it can be seen that each work has its
advantages and disadvantages. It is clear that both
Bandt and Helyer have taken the demands of the
venue for their works into account to a large extent,
but there are areas that could be improved on. In
terms of the suitability of the installation to venue and
audience type, and providing everything is fully
operational, Meta-Diva seems to be the slightly more
effective work. This installation/venue/audience
relationship was always going to be a bit more
problematic for Mack Memories to start with, being
housed in an art gallery, but in the end Helyer’s
combination of a simple design that is easily “gotten”
with a relatively short duration gives the impression
of quite a successful installation on Burt’s terms.
4 Conclusion
As already noted, it is impossible to accurately
recreate sound installations, whether through scores,
audio or video recordings, or written descriptions.
Combining these documentary forms will give the
closest representation, but they cannot in any way
replace the experience of being there. While this is
true for all art forms, the highly spatial nature of
installations, combining the design of sound through
three-dimensional space and time, greatly increases
the problem. The most that can be done is to give as
detailed an analysis as possible, in order to promote
further work in this field and educate future sound
artists. Cook notes that in analysing music “[…] you
develop an intuitive knowledge of what works in
music and what doesn’t, what’s right and what isn’t,
that far exceeds your capacity to formulate such
things in words or to explain them intellectually.”
(Cook 1987: 1-2)
Given that this level of analysis is difficult for
such potentially complex sound installations as Mack
Memories, it is fair to say that much analysis that has
been done in the past is superficial. This method has
the potential to facilitate more in-depth analysis and
evaluation of these works. It is hopeful, then, that
this methodology will be of particular use to sound
artists. By evaluating the suitability of other
installations to their venue and likely audience it will
be possible for artists to create works that will receive
a greater level of audience response, greater public
acceptance and therefore more representation from
musicologists. Composers and sound artists will no
longer have the sole responsibility for documentation
of their art form.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Dr Ros Bandt and Nigel Helyer
for allowing me to write about their work and for
their co-operation with my research.
References
Anon. (1996). "Installation". J. Turner (ed.). in The
Dictionary of Art. London, Macmillan Publishers
Limited. 15.
Anon. (2002). 02 The Helen Lempriere National Sculpture
Award exhibition catalogue. Melbourne, The Helen
Lempriere National Sculpture Award.
Bandt, R. (1985). Sounds in Space: Wind Chimes and
Sound Sculptures. Melbourne, Victorian Arts Council
and Council of Adult Education.
Bandt, R. (1994). "Technology in Australian Sound
Installations: Three Recent Approaches." Continuum
8(1): 44-57.
Bandt, R. (2001). Sound Sculpture: Intersections in Sound
and Sculpture in Australian Artworks. Sydney, Fine Art
Publishing Pty Ltd.
Bandt, R. (2002). Mack Memories. sound installation.
Geelong Gallery, Victoria, Australia. 12 July- 1 Sept.
Bent, I. D. and A. Pople (2001). "Analysis". S. Sadie (ed.).
in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians.
London, Macmillan Publishers Limited. 1: 526-589.
Burt, W. (1994). "Installation at Experimenta: Fighting the
"So-What" Factor in Electronic Art." Continuum 8(1):
58-68.
Butler, A., C. V. Cleave, et al. (1994). The Art Book.
London, Phaidon.
Cook, N. (1987). A Guide to Musical Analysis. London and
Melbourne, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Davies, H. (1996). "Sound and Art". J. Turner (ed.). in The
Dictionary of Art. London, Macmillan Publishers
Limited. 29.
Davies, H. (2001). "Sound Sculpture". S. Sadie (ed.). in The
New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians.
London, Macmillan Publishers Limited. 23: 785-791.
Helyer, N. (2002). RE: Meta-Diva. Email to the author.
20th August.
Helyer, N. (2002a). "Nigel Helyer: On-site interview with
Ros Bandt
Nigel Helyer: On Meta-Diva Methodology with Ros
Bandt." The Australian Sound Design Project. 28 Aug.
2002.
<http:/www.sounddesign.unimelb.edu.au/web/biogs/gal
lery/P000295g.htm>
Leigh, J. (2002). "Crowd Pleasers." The Age. 17 April
2002, Domain: 6
Minard, R. (1996). Sound Installation Art. Graz, Institut für
Elektronische Musik an der Hochschule für Musik und
darstellende Kunst in Graz.
Mowson, B. (2002). Flesh Antenna. Sound installation.
TCB gallery, Melbourne, Australia. 14 - 25 May.
Oliveira, N. d., N. Oxley, et al. (1994). Installation Art.
London, Thames and Hudson Ltd.
1
It is not my intention to discuss the origins of this art form
in detail, for a history of installation see the following
references –
Oliveira, N. d., N. Oxley, et al. (1994). Installation Art.
London, Thames and Hudson Ltd, Bandt, R. (2001). Sound
Sculpture: Intersections in Sound and Sculpture in
Australian Artworks. Sydney, Fine Art Publishing Pty Ltd.
Davies, H. (2001). "Sound Sculpture". S. Sadie (ed.). in The
New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. London,
Macmillan Publishers Limited. 23: 785-791.
, Anon. (1996). "Installation". J. Turner (ed.). in The
Dictionary of Art. London, Macmillan Publishers Limited.
15, Davies, H. (1996). "Sound and Art". J. Turner (ed.). in
The Dictionary of Art. London, Macmillan Publishers
Limited. 29.)
2
This is discussed in detail in Burt, W. (1994). "Installation
at Experimenta: Fighting the "So-What" Factor in
Electronic Art." Continuum 8(1): 58-68.
3
In her article ‘Technology in Australian Sound
Installations: Three Recent Approaches’, Bandt gives a
good explanation and graphic representation of how the
SSIP (at the time) was used in her installation Time Warps.
Bandt, R. Ibid."Technology in Australian Sound
Installations: Three Recent Approaches." 44-57.