8/12/2019 AgainstSoundscape-AutumnLeaves

1/2

Tim Ingold

Against SoundscapeI v being felt not onlyin and archaeologY'to befallen studiesin t it means to beable to see. That s to say, it scarcely deals with the phenomenon of light. lt is rather about the relationsbetween objects. images and their nterpretations. A study of aunl culture, built alonq the same lines,would be about the nterpretaton of a world of things rendered in their acoustic forms. lt has becomeconventional to describe such a world by means of the concept of soundscape. Undoubtedly when it wasfirst ntroduced, the concept served a useful rhetorical purpose in dnwing attention to a sensory registerthat had been neglected relative to sight. I believe however that it has now outlived its usefulness. Moreto the point. it carries the risk that we might lose touch with sound in just the same way that visualstudies have lost touch with light. ln what follows I will set out four reasons why I thnk the concept ofsoundscape lvould be better abandoned.First, the environment that we experience, know and move around in is not sliced up along the lines ofthe sensory pathways by which we enter into it. The world we perceive is the some world, whatever pathwe take, and each of us perceives it as an undivided centre of activity and awareness. For this reasonI deplore the fashon for multiplying - scopes of every possible kind. The power of the prototypicalconcept of landscape lies precisely in the fact that it is not tied to any specific sensory regster - whethervision, hearing, touch, smell or whatever. ln ordinary perceptual practice these registers cooperte soclosely, and wth such overlap of function, that their respectve contributions are impossible to teaseapart. The landscape is of course visible, bul it only becomes visuol when t has been rendered by sometechnique, such as of paintng or photography, which then allows it to be viewed indirectly, by way ofthe resulting image which, as t were, retuns the landscape back to the viewer in an artificially purifiedform, shorn of all other sensory dimensions. Likewise, a landscape may be oudible, but to be ourol itwould have to have been first rendered by a technique of sound art or recording, such that it can beployed bockwiThin an environment (such as a darkened room) in which we are otherwise deprived ofsensory stimulus.We should not be fooled by art historians and other students of visual culture who write books about thehistory of seeing that are entirely about the contemplation of images. Their conceit is to imagine thatthe eyes are not so much organs of observation as nstruments of playback, lodged in the image ratherthan the body of the observer. lt is as though the eyes did our seeing for us, leaving us to (re)view theimages they relay to our consciousness. For the active looking and watching that people do as they goabout their business, visual theorists have substtuted regimes of the 'scopic', defined and distingushedby the recording and playback functions of these allegorical eyes. Although the apparent etymologicalkinship between the scopic and the 'scapes' of our perception is spurious ('scape' is actually derivedfrom the Dutch schop, cognate with the English suffix'-ship'. refening to a fellowship or community ofpersons with a commonality of land, law and custom), such a connection is commonly presumed. Thusin resorting to the notion of soundscape, we run the risk of subjecting the ears, in studies of the aural,to the same fate as the eyes in visual studies. This is my second objection to the concept. We need to

avoid the trap, analogous to thinking that the power of sight inheres in images, of supposng that thepower of hearing inheres in recordings. For the ears, just like the eyes, are organs of observation, notinstruments of playback. Just as we use our eyes to watch and look, so we use our ers to listen as wego forth in the world.It is of course to light, and not to vision, that sound should be compared. The fact however that soundis so often and apparently unproblematically compared to srght rather than light reveals much aboutour implicit assumptions regardng vision and hearing, which rest on the curious idea that the eyes arescreens which let no lght through, leaving us to reconstruct the world inside our heads, whereas theears are holes in the skull which let the sound right in so that it can mingle with the soul. One result ofthis idea is that the vast psychological literature on optical illusions is unmatched by anhing on thedeceptions of the ear. Another, that I have already noted, is that studies of visual percepton have hadvirtually nothing to say about the phenomenon of light. lt would be unfortunate if studies of auditoryperception were to follow suit, and to lose touch with sound just as visual studies have lost touch withlight. Far better. by placing the phenomenon of sound at the heart of our inquiries, we might be able topoint to parallel ways in which light could be restord to the central place t deserves in understandingvisual perception. To do this. however, we have first to address the awkward question: what rs sound?This question is a version of the old philosophical conundrum: does the tree fallng in a storm makeany sound if there is no creature present with ears to hear t? Does sound consist of vibrations in themedium? Or s it something we regster inside our heads? ls it a phenomenon of the material world or ofthe mind? ls it but there' or'in here'? Can we dream it?It seems to me that such questions are wrongly posed, in so far as they set up a rigid division betweentwo worlds, of mind and matter - a division that is reproduced every time that appeal is made to themoterolity of sound. Sound, in my view. is neither mental nor material, but a phenomenon of experienct- that is, of our immersion in, and commingling with, the world in which we find ourselves. Suchimmersion, asthe philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1964) insisted, s an existential precondition forthe isolation both of minds to perceive and of things in the world to be perceived. To put it another way,sound is simply another way of saying 'l can heal. ln just the same way, light is another way of saying 'lcan see'. lf this is so, then neither sound nor light, strictly speaking, can be an object of our perception.Sound is not whot we hear, any more than light is what we see. Herein lies my third objection to theconcept of soundscape. lt does not make sense for the same eason that a concept of'lightscape' woulcnot make sense. The scaping of things - that is, their surface conformaton - is revealed to us thanksto their illumination. When we look around on a fine day, we see a landscape bathed in sunlight, not alightscape. Likewise, listening to our surroundings, we do not hear a soundscape. For sound, I wouldargue, is not the object but the medium of our perception. lt is what we hear in. Smilarly, we do not seelight but see in it (lngold 2000: 265).Once light and sound are understood in these terms, it becomes immediately apparent that in ourordinary experience. the two are so closely involved with one another as to be virtually inseparable.This involvement, howevet rases interesting questions that we are only beginning to address. How, forexample, does the contrast between light and darkness compare with that between sound and silence?It is fairly obvious that the experience of sound is quite different in the dark than in the light. Does theexperience of light likewise depend on whetherwe are simultaneously drowned in sound or cocoonedin silence? These kinds of questions bring me to my fourth objection to the concept of soundscape.Since it is modelled on the concept of landscape, soundscape places the emphasis on the surfoces ofthe world in which we live. Sound and light, however, are infusions of the medium in which we findour being and through which we move. Traditionally, both in my own discipline of anthropology and

Tim Ingoldim lngold

Against Soundscape very much we l come th e recen t exp los ion of interest in sou nd , th e impact of wh ich is being fel t no t o n lyin m y o w n discipline of anth ropology , bu t also in th e related fields of ar t, arch i tecture and archaeology,to name just a few. Bu t a m also conce r ned l e st we r e pea t m is tak e s that have already befa l len studiesi n v i sual cul ture. The v isual , in these s tud ies , appears to have nothing to do with wha t it means to beable to see. That is to s a y , it scarce ly dea ls w i th t h e phenomenon o f l ight . It is rather abou t th e relat ionsb e tw e e n o b je c ts , i m a g e s a n d their interpretations. A study of a u r a l culture, built a l o n g th e s a m e l i n e s ,would b e aboutthe inte rpre tat ion of a world of things r e n d e r e d in their acoustic f o r m s . It h a s b e c o m econventional to descr ibe such a wor ld by means of th e concept of soundscape. Undoubtedly when it wa sfirs t in t roduced, th e concept sewed a useful rhetorical purpose in drawing attention to a sensory registertha t h ad b e en neglected relative to sight. believe however that it has no w out lived i ts use fu lness . Moret o t h e point , it carries th e risk that we might lose t ouch with sound in j ust th e same way that visuals t u d i e s h a v e losttouch with light. In what follows will s e t ou t f our r e a s o n s wh y think th e concept ofs o u n d s c a p e would b e better a b a n d o n e d .First, th e env i ronment tha t we exper ience , know and move a round in is no t sliced up along th e lines ofth e sensory pa thways by wh ich we enter i n to i t. Th e wor ld we perceive is th e same wor l d , wha t eve r pathwe take, and each o f u s perceives it a s an undivided centre o f activity and awareness. Fo r th is reason

deplore th e fashion fo r mult iply ing scopes o f eve ry poss ib le k i nd . T he powe r of th e prototypica lconcept of landscape lies precisely in t h e f ac t that it is no t tied to any speci fic sensory register whe t he rv is ion , hear ing , t ouch , smell or whatever. In ordinary percep tua l p rac ti ce these registers cooperate soc lose l y , and with such over lap o f function, that the i r respective cont r ibut ions are impossible to teaseapar t .The landscape is of course v is ib le , bu t it only be comesv i s ua lwhen it has b ee n r en de re d b y s om etechnique, such a s o f paint ing o r pho tog raph y , w h ic h t he n allows it to be v iewed indirect ly , b y w ay ofth e resulting image which , a s it were, returns th e l andscape back t o t he v iewer in an artificially purif iedf o rm , s ho rn of all other sensory dimensions. Likewise, a l andscape may be audib le , bu t to be aura l itwou l d have to have been first r e nde re d b y a t echnique of sound ar t or reco rd ing , such tha t it c an b ep layed back within an env i ronment (such a s a da rk ened r o om ) in wh ich we are othen/vise deprived o fsensory stimulus.W e should no t be foo led by ar t his to r ians and other students of visual c u lt ur e wh o w r it e books abou t th ehistory of seeing that are en t ir e l y abou t th e contemplat ion of images. The ir conce it is to imagine thatth e ey es a r e no t so much o r gans of observat ion a s instruments o f playback, lodged in th e image rathert han the body of the o b s e r v e r . It is a s t hough the e y e s did ou r s e e i n g fo r u s, l e a v i n g u s to (re)view th eimages they relay to ou r consciousness. Fo r th e active looking and watch ing that p e op le d o a s they goabou t the i r business, visual theorists have subst ituted regimes o f th e scopic, defined and dist inguishedby th e r e co r di ng and p l ayba ck functions of these allegorical eyes. A l though t he apparent etymologicalkinship be tween th e scop ic and th e scapes of ou r pe r cept ion is spurious ( scape is actually derivedfrom th e Dutch schap, cognate w i th t h e English suffix s h i p , referring to a fel lowship or communi ty ofpersons with a commonality o f land, law and custom), such a connect ion is commonly presumed. Thusin resort ing t o th e notion of soundscape , we r un th e risk of subject ing th e ears, in studies of th e aural,to th e s a m e fate a s th e e y es in v i su a l s t u d ie s . T h i s is m y s e c o n d objection to th e concept. W e n e e d to

llir

li

. H q

l

Tim lngold

avoid th e t rap, analogous to thinking that th e powe r o f sigh t inheres i n images , of supposing that th epower of hearing inheres in recordings. Fo r th e ears, just like th e eyes, are organs of observat ion, no tinstruments of playback. Just a s we use ou r eyes to watch and l o o k, s o we use ou r ears to listen a s weg o forth in t he wo rl d.It is of course to l ight , and n o t t o vision, that sound shou ld be compared. Th e fact however that soundis s o often and apparent ly unprob lemat ica lly compared t o s ig h t rather than l ight reveals much abou tou r implicit assumptions regard ing v ision and hearing, wh ich rest on th e curious idea tha t th e eyes a rescreens wh ic h l et no l ig h t t h ro ugh , leaving u s to r econs t ruc t t h e wo r l d inside ou r heads, whereas th eears are holes in th e skul l wh ic h l e t th e sound right in s o that it can mingle with th e sou l. One result ofthis idea is that th e vast psycho log ica l l i terature on optical illusions is unmatched by anything on th edecept ions of th e ear. Another, that have already noted, is that studies o f visual percept ion h a ve h advirtually noth ing to say abou t th e phenomenon o f l ight . It wou l d be unfortunate if studies of audi torypercept ion were to fo l low su it , a nd to lose t ouch with sound j ust a s visual studies have lost touch withl ight . Fa r better, by placing th e phenomenon of sound a t t h e h e ar t o f ou r i nqu ir ies, we might be able topoint to paral lel ways in wh ich l ight could be restored to th e centra l p lace it deserves in understandingvisual percept ion. T o do th is, howeve r , we have fi rs t t o address th e awkward quest ion: wha t is sound?This quest ion is a version of th e old ph i losoph ical conundrum: does th e t ree falling in a s torm makea n y s o u n d if there is n o c r ea t u r e p r e se n t with e a r s to h e a r it? D o e s s o u n d c o n s is t of vibrations in th em e d iu m ? O r is it something w e r e g is t er i ns id e ou r h e a d s ? ls it a phenomenon of th e m a t e r i a l wo rl d o r ofth e m i n d ? ls it out there o r in h e r e ? C a n w e d re a m it?It seems to me that such quest ions are wrongly posed, in s o far a s they s et u p a rigid div is ion betweentw o worlds, of mind and matter a division that is r e p ro du ced e ve ry time that appeal is made to th emateriality of sound . Sound , in my v i ew , is nei ther mental no r material, bu t a phenomenon o f exper ience that is , of our immersion i n, a nd commingling w i th , t h e wor ld in wh ich we fin d ourselves. Suchimmersion, a s th e ph i losophe r Mau r ice Mer l eau -Pon t y ( 1964) insisted, is an ex istent ia l precondi t ion fo rth e isolat ion both of minds to perce ive and of th ings in th e wor ld to be perceived. T o pu t it another way,sound is simply another way o f saying I can hear. In j ust th e s ame way , l ight is another wa y o f say ing Ican see. I f t h is is so, then nei ther sound no r l igh t , strict ly speaking, c an b e a n ob jec t of ou r percept ion.Sound is n ot w h at we hear, any mo re t han l ight is wha t we see. Herein lies my third ob j ec ti on t o th econcept of soundscape. It does no t make sense fo r th e same reason that a concept of l igh tscape woulcno t make sense. Th e scaping of things that is , the i r surface conformation is revealed to u s thanksto the i r i l luminat ion. W h en w e look around on a fin e day, we see a landscape bathed in sun li gh t, no t al ightscape. Likewise, listening to our sur roundings, w e d o no t hear a soundscape. Fo r sound , wou l dargue, is n ot t he o b je ct b u t t he medium o f o ur percept ion. It is wha t w e h e ar in . S im il ar ly , w e d o no t s eelight bu t s e e in it (lngold 2000 : 265).Once l ight and sound are understood in these terms, it becomes immediate ly apparent that in ou rordinary experience, t he t w o a re s o closely involved with on e another a s to be virtually inseparable.This involvement, however, raises in terest ing quest ions that we are on l y beg inn ing to address. How, fo rexample , does th e contrast between l ight and darkness compare with that between sound and s il e nce?It is fairly obv ious that th e experience of sound is quite different in th e da rk t h an in t h e l igh t . Does th eexperience o f l ight l ikewise depend on whe t h e r we are simultaneously drowned in sound or cocoonedin s i lence? These kinds of quest ions br ing me to my fourth object ion to th e concept o f soundscape.Since it is modelled on th e concept o f l andscape, soundscape places th e emphas is on th e surfaces ofth e wor ld in wh ich w e l iv e . S o un d a nd l ight , however, are infusions of th e medium in wh ich we fin dou r be ing and th rough wh ich w e m ov e . Traditionally, both in m y o w n discipline o f anth ropology and

8/12/2019 AgainstSoundscape-AutumnLeaves

2/2

Tim lngold

more widely in fields such as cultural geography, art history and material culture studiet scholan havefocused on the fixities of surface conformation rather than the fluxes of the medium. They have, inother words, imagined a world hat has already precipitated ouL or solidified,from these fluxes. Going on to ings with their materialty. they have contrivedto dematerialse the medium in ally immersed. Even the air we breathe, and onwhich life depends, becomes a figment of the imagination.Now the mundane term for what I have called the fluxes of the medium is weother. So long as we are- as we say -'out in the open', the wea ' lt is. to thecontrary fundamental to percePtion. h erceive rn (lngold2005). We do not touch the wind, but t it; we do not hearrain, but hear in it. Thus wind. sunshine and rain, experienced as feeling, light and sound, underwrite ourcapacities, respectively. to touch, to see and to hear. ln orderto understand the phenomenon of sound(as indeed those of light and feeling), we should therefore turn our attention skywards, to the realm ofthe birds, rather than towards the solid earth beneath our feet. The s s not an object of perception,any more than sound is. lt is not a thing we see. lt is rather luminosity itself. But in a way, t is sonoritytoo, as the musicologist Victor Zuckekandl explained (Zuckerkandl, 1956:344). ln the experience onehas of looking up into the s according to Zuckerkandl. lies the essence of what it means to hear.lf this is so, then our metaphors for describing auditory space should be derived not from landscapestudies but from meteorologY.This leads me to two further points, in conclusion, that address not the concept of soundscape itself butrather its implied emphasis on, first, embodiment, and second, emplocement.l have mentioned the wind,and the fact that to live we must be able to breathe. Wind and breath are ntimately related inthe continuous movement of inhalation and exhalation that is fundamental to life and being- lnhalationis wind becoming breath, exhalation is breath becoming wind. At a recent anthropological conferenceon 'wind. life and health', the issue came up of how the wind is embodied in the constitution of personsaffected by it. For my part, I felt uneasy about applying the concept of embodiment in this context.It made breathing seem like a process of precipitation, in which airwas somehow sedimented into thebody as it solidified. Acknowledging that the living body. as it breathes, is necessarily swept up in thecurrentsofthe medium, I suggested thatthewind is notso much embodied asthe bodyenwinded. ltseems to me, moreover, that what applies to wind also applies to sound. After all. the wind whistles, andpeople hum or murmur as they breathe. Sound, like breath, is experienced as a movement of coming andgoing, inspintion and expiration. lf that is so, then we should say of the body, as it sings, hums, whistlesor speaks, that it is ensounded.ltis like setting sail, launching the body rnto sound like a boat on thewaves or, perhaps more appropriately. like a kite in the sky.Finally, if sound is like the wind, then it will not stay put. not does it put persons or things in their place.Sound flows, as wind blows, along irregular, winding paths. and the places it describes are like eddies,formed by a circular moveme nt oround rather than a fixed location within.Io follow sound. that is tolr'sten, is to wanderthe same paths. Attentive listening. as opposed to passive hearing, surely entailsthe very opposte of emplacement. We may, in practice, be anchored to the ground, but it is not soundthat provides the anchor. Again the analogy with ffying a kite is apposite. Though the flye/s feet maybe firmly planted on the spot, it is not the wind that keeps them there. Likewise, the sweep of soundcontinually endeavours to tear listeners away, causing them to surrender to its movement. lt requresan effort to stay in place. And this effort pulls ogornst sound rather than harmonising with it. Placeconfinement, in short, is a form of deafness.

Referenceslngold, Tim (2ffi) The perception of the environment: essoys in livelihood, dwelling ond skill. London:Routledgelngold, Tim (2005) the eye of the storm: visual perception and the weathel Visuol Studies 20 (2), 97 -104Merleau-Ponty,Maurice (l 964) 'Eye and mind , trans. C. Dallery in The primocy of percePton, ondother essoys on phenomenologicol psychology, the philosophy of orl history ond politia, ed. J. M. Edie.Evanston, lL: Northwestern Univesity Presl pp.l 59-l 90Zuckerkandl, Victor (1956) Sound ond symbol: music ond the externol world,tans, W. R. Trask,Bollingen Series XLIV, Prnceton, N.J.: Princeton University Press

Tim lngoldTim lngold

m o r e widely in fields s u c h a s cultural g e o g r a p h y , art history a n d m a t e r i a l culture s t u d ie s , s c h o la r s h a v ef o c u s e d o n the fix it ies of s u r f a c e conformation rather than th e fiuxes of th e m e d i u m . They h a v e , inother words , imag ined a wor ld of persons and objects t h a t has already p rec ip i ta t ed ou t , o r so l id i fi ed ,f rom t h ese f luxes . Go ing on to equate th e so l id i ty o f th ings w i th t h ei r materiality, they have contrivedto dematerial ise th e medium in which they are primordially immersed. Even th e a ir we b r eathe , a nd o nwh ich life depends , becomes a figment o f th e imaginat ion.No w th e mundane term fo r wha t have ca l led th e f luxes o f th e medium is weather . So long a s we are a s we s a y out in th e open, th e weather is no me re phanta sm , th e stuf f of dreams. It is , to th econtrary, fundamental to percept ion. It is no t so much wha t we pe rce ive a s wha t we pe rce ive in ( lngold2005) . W e d o no t touch th e wind, bu t touch in it; w e d o no t s e e s u n s h i n e , bu t s e e in it; w e do no t h e a rrain, bu t hear in it. Thus wind, sunshine and rain, experienced a s feeling, l ight and sound , undenrvr ite ou rcapacities, respectively, to t ouch , to see and to h ear . I n order to understand th e phenomenon of sound a s i n d e e d those o f l igh t a n d feeling), w e s h o u l d therefore turn ou r attention s k y v v a r d s , t o t h e r e a l m ofth e birds, r a th e r t h an t owa rds t h e so l id ear th b e nea th o u r f ee t. T he sky is no t an ob jec t of percept ion,any mo re than sound is . It is no t a thing w e see. It is rather luminosit y itself. Bu t in a way, it is sonoritytoo, a s th e musicologist Victor Z u c k e r k a n d l e x p la i n ed (Zuckerkandl , I956: 344). In th e e x p e ri en c e o n eh a s of looking u p into the s I y a c c o r d i n g to Zuckerkandl , l i e s th e e s s e n c e of what it m e a n s to h e a r .If this is s o , t hen ou r m e t a p h o r s for d e s c r i b i n g auditory s p a c e s h o u l d b e d e r i v e d no t from l a n d s c a p es t u d i e s bu t from m e t e o r o l o g y .This l eads me t o t w o fu r ther points, in conclusion, that address n o t t h e concept of soundscape i ts e l f b u tr a t h er i ts i m p li ed e m p h a s i s o n , first, embodiment, a n d s e c o n d , e m p la c e m e n t. h a v e mentioned th e wind,and t h e f ac t that to l iv e we must be able to b r ea the. W i nd and breath are int imately related int h e con ti nuous movemen t of inhalat ion and exhalat ion that is fundamental to life and be ing . Inhalat ionis wind becoming brea th , exhalat ion is b r eath b e coming wind. A t a recent anth ropological conferenceon w ind, life and health , th e i ssue came up of ho w th e wind is embodied in the const i tu t ion o f personsaffected by it. Fo r my pa rt , fel t uneasy abou t applying th e concept o f embodiment in t h is con tex t .It made breathing seem like a process o f precipitat ion, in wh ich a ir was somehow sedimented into th ebody a s it sol id ified. Acknowledging that th e living body, a s it breathes, is necessarily swep t up in th ecurrents of th e medium, suggested t h a t t h e wind is no t so much embodied a s th e body enw inded . Itseems to me, moreover, that wha t applies to wind also applies to sound. After all, th e wind whist les, andp e op le h u m o r mu rmu r a s they b r eathe . Sound , l ik e b r eath , is experienced a s a movement of coming andg o i n g , inspiration a n d expiration. I f t ha t is s o , then w e should s a y of th e b o d y , a s it s in g s , h u m s , whistlesor s p e a k s , that it is e n s o u nd e d . I t is l i k e setting s a i l , launching t he body i nto s o u n d l ik e a boat o n th ewaves o r, perhaps more appropriately, like a kite in th e s k y .Finally, if sound is like th e w i nd , t h en it w i ll n o t stay put , no t does it pu t persons or things in the i r place.S o u n d f l o w s , a s wind b l o w s , a l o n g i r r e g u l a r , winding p a t h s , a n d th e p l a c e s it d e s c r i b e s a re l i k e e d d i e s ,formed by a circular movement around rather than a fi x ed l oca ti on w i th i n . T o follow sound , that is tolisten, is to wander th e same paths. Attentive l istening, a s opposed to passive hear ing , su re ly entailsth e very opposite of emplacement. W e ma y, in practice, be anchored t o th e ground, bu t it is no t soundthat provides th e anchor. Again th e analogy w i t h f ly i ng a kite is apposi te . Though th e flyers fee t mayb e firmly p l a n t e d o n th e s p o t , it is no t th e wind that k e e p s them there. L i k e w i s e , th e s w e e p of s o u n dcontinually e n d e a v o u r s to tear l i s t e n e r s a w a y , c a u s i n g them to s u r r e n d e r to i ts m o v e m e n t . It r e q u i r e san ef fo r t to stay i n p l ac e . An d th is effor t pul ls against sound rather than harmonising with it. Placeconfinement , in short , is a form of deafness.

l

iIl

w W Y- - - .q_

v i f- - . . _ p , -

M i n n l = r w Q 3w . : fi _ . a 4 : g a pse

l

1 - - . _ _ _ _ ; a

Tim lngold

Referenceslngold, Tim ( 2 0 0 0 ) The perception of the env i ronment: essays in l ivel ihood, dwe l li ng and skill. London:R o u t l e d g elngold, Tim ( 2 00 5 ) T he ey e o f th e storm: visual percept ion and th e weather Visua lStud ies 2 0 ( 2) , 9 7 -I 4Mer leau-Ponty , Maur ice (1964) Eye and mind, trans. C . Dallery in The primacy of perception, an do ther essays on phenomenologicalpsycho logy, the ph i losophy ofa r t, h i st o ry and politics, ed . J. M. Edie.Evanston, IL : Northwestern University P r e s s , pp . l 59-190Zuckerkand l , Vic to r (1956) Sound an d symbol: music and t he e x te r na l wor ld , trans, W . R . Trask,B o l l i n g e n S e r ie s X L I V , P r i n c e t o n , N . J . : P r i n c e t o n University P r e s s