书评:法律与可见

Ruoyu Li
{"title":"书评:法律与可见","authors":"Ruoyu Li","doi":"10.1177/17438721221107181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"practice, the Manus Recording Project Collective aligns silence with listening, Schuppli works with fragmented stories, Spring discusses hearing loss, d’Envie and Bervin rely on inaudible cosmic vibrations, Dockray connects silent surveillance to modes of power, and Young explicitly distinguishes silence (which is idealistic and attends to the environment) from muteness (which draws attention to itself and trusts the experiment). Important to note is also the Reader’s design which is an eclectic mix of plain text, photography, and primary source materials, often placed next to each other on the page. This design might make the Reader less approachable to some. However, by inviting listeners to read excerpts from voice recordings and answering machine messages (Schuppli and the Manus Recording Project Collective), look at eardrum images (Spring), and juxtapose personal impressions with the transcripts of field recordings (d’Envie and Bervin), the Reader indeed inspires efforts to generate deeper resonances between academic writing-styles and research contents. In that regard, it is disappointing that the Reader itself still predominantly relies on visual language. It is furthermore unfortunate that, with the exceptions of Schuppli and d’Envie and Bervin, its contributors fail to inform the layperson about the actual sound art exhibition and its curational practice. In the “Foreword,” Norie Neumark describes this practice as one that listens to artists, instead of simply giving voice to them. However, Neumark remains silent about the details and implications of this curational listening. Altogether, Eavesdropping: A Reader initiates an important conversation about the ethics and politics of listening, and about ways to understand eavesdropping as a multifaceted practice that involves bodies, materialities and social situations. The conversation is waiting to be continued, and the Reader can be read as a call to develop its artistic ideas into substantive theoretical and empirical frameworks, as well as to think about their wider political implications. Thus, the Reader might unfold its greatest effect when it is brought into conversation with existing scholarship in the social sciences and humanities on listening, reminding social scientists of both the understudied sonic dimensions of legal matters and the political relevance of art, and urging sound artists to reflect on the ethico-political implications of their works.","PeriodicalId":43886,"journal":{"name":"Law Culture and the Humanities","volume":"18 1","pages":"511 - 514"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review: Law and the Visible\",\"authors\":\"Ruoyu Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17438721221107181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"practice, the Manus Recording Project Collective aligns silence with listening, Schuppli works with fragmented stories, Spring discusses hearing loss, d’Envie and Bervin rely on inaudible cosmic vibrations, Dockray connects silent surveillance to modes of power, and Young explicitly distinguishes silence (which is idealistic and attends to the environment) from muteness (which draws attention to itself and trusts the experiment). Important to note is also the Reader’s design which is an eclectic mix of plain text, photography, and primary source materials, often placed next to each other on the page. This design might make the Reader less approachable to some. However, by inviting listeners to read excerpts from voice recordings and answering machine messages (Schuppli and the Manus Recording Project Collective), look at eardrum images (Spring), and juxtapose personal impressions with the transcripts of field recordings (d’Envie and Bervin), the Reader indeed inspires efforts to generate deeper resonances between academic writing-styles and research contents. In that regard, it is disappointing that the Reader itself still predominantly relies on visual language. It is furthermore unfortunate that, with the exceptions of Schuppli and d’Envie and Bervin, its contributors fail to inform the layperson about the actual sound art exhibition and its curational practice. In the “Foreword,” Norie Neumark describes this practice as one that listens to artists, instead of simply giving voice to them. However, Neumark remains silent about the details and implications of this curational listening. Altogether, Eavesdropping: A Reader initiates an important conversation about the ethics and politics of listening, and about ways to understand eavesdropping as a multifaceted practice that involves bodies, materialities and social situations. The conversation is waiting to be continued, and the Reader can be read as a call to develop its artistic ideas into substantive theoretical and empirical frameworks, as well as to think about their wider political implications. Thus, the Reader might unfold its greatest effect when it is brought into conversation with existing scholarship in the social sciences and humanities on listening, reminding social scientists of both the understudied sonic dimensions of legal matters and the political relevance of art, and urging sound artists to reflect on the ethico-political implications of their works.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law Culture and the Humanities\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"511 - 514\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law Culture and the Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17438721221107181\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Culture and the Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17438721221107181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

实践中,马努斯录音项目集体将沉默与倾听联系在一起,Schuppli处理零散的故事,Spring讨论听力损失,d’Envie和Bervin依赖于听不见的宇宙振动,Dockray将无声监视与电源模式联系在一起,杨明确区分了沉默(这是理想主义的,关注环境)和沉默(这引起了人们对自身的关注并信任实验)。值得注意的还有读者的设计,它是纯文本、摄影和主要来源材料的折衷组合,通常在页面上并排放置。这种设计可能会让读者变得不那么容易接近。然而,通过邀请听众阅读录音和答录机信息的摘录(Schuppli和Manus Recording Project Collective),查看鼓膜图像(Spring),并将个人印象与现场录音的转录本并置(d’Envie和Bervin),《读者》确实激发了人们在学术写作风格和研究内容之间产生更深共鸣的努力。在这方面,令人失望的是,《读者》本身仍然主要依赖视觉语言。此外,令人遗憾的是,除了Schuppli、d'Envie和Bervin之外,其贡献者未能告知普通人实际的声音艺术展览及其策展实践。在“前言”中,Norie Neumark将这种做法描述为倾听艺术家的声音,而不是简单地为他们发声。然而,Neumark对这次策展聆听的细节和含义保持沉默。总之,《窃听:读者》引发了一场关于窃听的道德和政治的重要对话,以及如何将窃听理解为一种涉及身体、物质和社会状况的多方面实践。对话正在等待继续,《读者》可以被解读为一种呼吁,将其艺术思想发展成实质性的理论和经验框架,并思考其更广泛的政治含义。因此,当《读者》与现有的社会科学和人文学科学者就听力进行对话时,它可能会发挥出最大的效果,提醒社会科学家法律问题的声音维度和艺术的政治相关性研究不足,并敦促声音艺术家反思其作品的伦理政治含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Book Review: Law and the Visible
practice, the Manus Recording Project Collective aligns silence with listening, Schuppli works with fragmented stories, Spring discusses hearing loss, d’Envie and Bervin rely on inaudible cosmic vibrations, Dockray connects silent surveillance to modes of power, and Young explicitly distinguishes silence (which is idealistic and attends to the environment) from muteness (which draws attention to itself and trusts the experiment). Important to note is also the Reader’s design which is an eclectic mix of plain text, photography, and primary source materials, often placed next to each other on the page. This design might make the Reader less approachable to some. However, by inviting listeners to read excerpts from voice recordings and answering machine messages (Schuppli and the Manus Recording Project Collective), look at eardrum images (Spring), and juxtapose personal impressions with the transcripts of field recordings (d’Envie and Bervin), the Reader indeed inspires efforts to generate deeper resonances between academic writing-styles and research contents. In that regard, it is disappointing that the Reader itself still predominantly relies on visual language. It is furthermore unfortunate that, with the exceptions of Schuppli and d’Envie and Bervin, its contributors fail to inform the layperson about the actual sound art exhibition and its curational practice. In the “Foreword,” Norie Neumark describes this practice as one that listens to artists, instead of simply giving voice to them. However, Neumark remains silent about the details and implications of this curational listening. Altogether, Eavesdropping: A Reader initiates an important conversation about the ethics and politics of listening, and about ways to understand eavesdropping as a multifaceted practice that involves bodies, materialities and social situations. The conversation is waiting to be continued, and the Reader can be read as a call to develop its artistic ideas into substantive theoretical and empirical frameworks, as well as to think about their wider political implications. Thus, the Reader might unfold its greatest effect when it is brought into conversation with existing scholarship in the social sciences and humanities on listening, reminding social scientists of both the understudied sonic dimensions of legal matters and the political relevance of art, and urging sound artists to reflect on the ethico-political implications of their works.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Our mission is to publish high quality work at the intersection of scholarship on law, culture, and the humanities. All commentaries, articles and review essays are peer reviewed. We provide a publishing vehicle for scholars engaged in interdisciplinary, humanistically oriented legal scholarship. We publish a wide range of scholarship in legal history, legal theory and jurisprudence, law and cultural studies, law and literature, and legal hermeneutics.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: The Living from the Dead: Disaffirming Biopolitics Book Review: King Leopold’s Ghostwriter: The Creation of Persons and States in the Nineteenth Century Book Review: The Pen, The Sword, and the Law: Dueling and Democracy in Uruguay Book Review: Earthbound: The Aesthetics of Sovereignty in the Anthropocene Diagnosing Dignity’s De-Realization: Lessons From The ‘Laws Of Captivity’ Thesis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1