It is interesting to note that most art critics are not apposed to sound art, there has not really been a critical backlash. Kim-Cohen, for example, has a theory of sonic idealism and she has been known to be critical of artists who fall outside of her strict theory. There is however not a critical group who are apposed to sound being used in art. (Of course there will be individuals who disagree and are apposed but these individuals haven’t formed a strong opposition and i am struggling to find negative readings of sound art). Richard Garet is one of these indiviudals who have been critical of MoMa’s Exhibition called ‘Soundings’, with his article called: Museum Tortures with Screechy Stylus, LED Frame: Review (2013).
“PEDRO: Do you think that discographic criticism in sound art is necessary? Why?
MASSIMO: I’m probably the worst choice for getting acceptable answers. I always define myself a “musician and music writer”, but I refuse to be called a “critic”. I believe that serious sound art has a legitimate right to exist and only those who are able to really understand the intimate nature of sounds (namely, particularly sensitive persons) should be entitled to write about it. It has become a too-easy-to-join bandwagon, by now. It’s all very trendy – both being an “artist” and a “critic” – so one has to be very careful.
P: What is your opinion about the evolution of experimental music and sound art on the Internet in recent years?
M: Positive, as far as diffusion of interesting materials and contacts with REAL artists are concerned. Extremely negative in terms of “anyone can be an artist”. A globalization, that’s right. Mixing cheap and excellent – now, that’s really negative. Just check the MySpace phenomenon. Awful.”