Crash, boom, bang

Affordances for participation in sound art


  • Vadim Keylin Aarhus University



sound art, participation, pragmatism, mediation, affordance


Audience participation is a prominent thread running through much of sound art practice, yet it remains largely absent from the sound art scholarship. In this article, I argue that the most widespread methodologies employed in sound art research – roughly split into the phenomenological branch and the object-oriented branch – are ill equipped to tackle the questions of sociality and participation. Instead, I offer a framework for the study of participation in sound art – and, more broadly, for sound aesthetics in general – rooted in the pragmatist tradition. My starting point is John Dewey’s conceptualization of an artwork as an aesthetic experience developing in cycles of doing and undergoing – a structure, he claims, present in both the creative process and the reception of artworks, putting them on equal footing. I then expand this notion by turning to the contemporary pragmatist trends in creativity studies, ANT and affordance theory, introducing the concepts of we-creativity, mediation and affordance. The second half of the article focuses specifically on affordance – a relationship between a sound artwork and its audience delimiting and facilitating the possibilities for participation. I discuss the low-level affordances (facilitating elementary action) for creative listening and soundmaking and high-level affordances (facilitating complex behaviors) for creativity, experimentation and connectivity. I conclude that the pragmatist framework allows to go beyond the subject- or object-centeredness of phenomenological or object-oriented methodologies, bringing to the foreground the relational and social character of sound art.


Baschet, F. (1999). Les sculptures sonores. Chemsford: Soundworld.

Baschet, F., & Baschet, B. (1987). Sound sculpture: sounds, shapes, public participation, education. Leonardo, 20(2), 107–114.

Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial hells: participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. Verso Books.

Born, G. (2005). On musical mediation: ontology, technology and creativity. Twentieth-Century Music, 2(1), 7–36.

Born, G. (2019). On nonhuman sound: sound as relation. In R. Chow & J. Steintrager (Eds.), Sound Objects (pp. 185–208). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Bourriaud, N. (2002). Relational aesthetics. Les Presses du réel.

Brincker, M. (2015). The aesthetic stance – on the conditions and consequences of becoming a beholder. In A. Scarinzi (Ed.), Aesthetics and the embodied mind: beyond art theory and the Cartesian mind-body dichotomy (pp. 117–138). Dordrecht: Springer.

Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp. 233–253). London: SAGE Publications.

Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195.

Cox, C. (2011). Beyond representation and signification: toward a sonic materialism. Journal of Visual Culture, 10(2), 145–161.

Dewey, J. (1980). Art as experience (23rd ed.). Perigree Books.

Engström, A., & Stjerna, Å. (2009). Sound art or Klangkunst? A reading of the German and English literature on sound art. Organised Sound, 14(01), 11–18.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Glaveanu, V. P. (2010). Paradigms in the study of creativity: introducing the perspective of cultural psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(1), 79–93.

Glaveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: the five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81.

Glaveanu, V. P., Lubart, T., Bonnardel, N., Botella, M., Biaisi, P.-M. de, Desainte-Catherine, M., … Zenasni, F. (2013). Creativity as action: findings from five creative domains. Frontiers in Psychology, 4.

Goehr, L. (1994). The imaginary museum of musical works: an essay in the philosophy of music. Clarendon Press.

Grimshaw, M. (2015). A brief argument for, and summary of, the concept of Sonic Virtuality. Dansk Musikforskning Online, Special ed, 81–98.

Groth, S. K., & Samson, K. (2017). Sound art situations. Organised Sound, 22(01), 101–111.

Harries, G. (2013). ‘The open work’: ecologies of participation. Organised Sound, 18(01), 3–13.

Hennion, A. (2015). The passion for music: a sociology of mediation. Ashgate.

Hennion, A. (2016). From ANT to pragmatism: a journey with Bruno Latour at the CSI. New Literary History, 47, 289–308.

Hogg, B., & Östersjö, S. (2015). ‘Patterns of ecological and aesthetic co-evolution’: tree-guitars, river-violins and the ecology of listening. Contemporary Music Review, 34(4), 335–349.

Ihde, D. (2007). Listening and voice : phenomenologies of sound. New York: SUNY Press.

Kahn, D. (2014). Sound art, art, music. Tacet, 3, 329–347.

Kester, G. H. (2011). The one and the many : contemporary collaborative art in a global context. Duke University Press.

Keylin, V. (2015). Corporeality of music and sound sculpture. Organised Sound, 20(02), 182–190.

Kim-Cohen, S. (2009). In the blink of an ear: toward a non-cochlear sonic art. New York-London: Continuum.

LaBelle, B. (2015). Background noise: perspectives on sound art (2nd ed.). New York: Bloomsbury.

Landy, L. (2017). But is it (also) music. In M. Cobussen, V. Meelberg, & B. Truax (Eds.), Routledge companion to sounding art (p. eBook edition). Routledge.

Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation. Common Knowledge, 3(2), 29–64.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leduc, K. (2013). Art as affordance. Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, 21(1), 51–58.

Maes, L., & Leman, M. (2017). Defining sound art. In M. Cobussen, V. Meelberg, & B. Truax (Eds.), Routledge companion to sounding art (p. eBook edition). Routledge.

Maier, C. J., & Schulze, H. (2017). The tacit grooves of sound art. Aesthetic artefacts as analogue archives. SoundEffects, 7(3), 20–35.

Nancy, J.-L. (2007). Listening. Fordham University Press.

Neuhaus, M. (1994). The broadcast works and audium. In Zeitgleich: the symposium, the seminar, the exhibition. Vienna: Triton. Retrieved from

Neuhaus, M., & Jardins, G. des (Eds.). (1994). Max Neuhaus : sound works. Vol. 1: Inscription. Ostfildern: Cantz.

Polli, A. (2017). Soundwalking, sonification and activism. In M. Cobussen, V. Meelberg, & B. Truax (Eds.), Routledge companion to sounding art (p. eBook edition). London-New York: Routledge.

Rebelo, P., & Velloso, R. C. (2018). Participatory sonic arts: the Som de Maré project – towards a socially engaged art of sound in the everyday. In S. Emmerson (Ed.), The Routledge research companion to electronic music - reaching out with technology (pp. 137–155). London-New York: Routledge.

Samson, A., & Soon, W. (2015). Network affordances: the unpredictable parameters of a Hong Kong SPEED SHOW. The Fibreculture Journal, (24). Retrieved from

Schoeneberg, A. (1970). Fundamentals of music composition. Faber and Faber.

Sterne, J. (2003). The audible past. Duke University Press.

Strachan, R. (2013). The spectacular suburb: creativity and affordance in contemporary electronic music and sound art. SoundEffects, 3(3), 5–24.

Tanaka, A., & Parkinson, A. (2018). The problems with participation. In S. Emmerson (Ed.), Routledge companion to electronic music: reaching out with technology (pp. 156–177). Routledge.

Voegelin, S. (2010). Listening to noise and silence: toward a philosophy of sound art. New York-London: Continuum.

Vogel, P. (1996). Peter Vogel : Interaktive Objekte, eine retrospektive. Mainz: Skulpturenmuseum Glaskasten.

Wong, M.-S. (2012). Sound art. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from




How to Cite

Keylin, V. (2020). Crash, boom, bang: Affordances for participation in sound art. SoundEffects - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Sound and Sound Experience, 9(1), 98–115.