Danko Nikolić’s notion that art allows us to reorganise new memories and connections between sense and concept (2016) concurs with neuroscientist and philosopher Alva Noë’s suggestion that both art and philosophy are reorganisational processes. Noë proposes that as organisms, we are governed by nested levels of organisation— biological, cultural and social. When we make art we draw attention to these systems of organisation, interrupting, complicating and altering them in some way. Negotiating these differences is what makes us aware of the underlying organisation that is generally occluded from our consciousness. ¶ 1

Noë’s notion has strong resonances with the “law of conscious awareness” (Vygotsky, 1987). (1)The term is translated as “the law of awareness” by A. Kozulin, in the 1986 edition of Thought and Language, and as the “law of conscious awareness” in the 1987 Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky translated by N. Minick. Generally I use the Kozulin translation but here I will use Minick’s version as it makes the notion of consciousness explicit. Developed by Swiss developmental neurologist Édouard Claparède and built upon by Vygotsky, the law of conscious awareness suggests that a child develops the capacity to notice difference earlier than similarity, as similarity requires a concept of generalisation that only develops later. Vygotsky summarises that

the differences that exist between objects results in non-adaptive behaviour on the part of the child. This nonadaptive behaviour elicits conscious reflection…The more we use a given relationship, the lower the level of our consciousness awareness of it. (1987, p. 183) ¶ 2

Noë says that our everyday activities are “involuntary modes of organisation” performed as second nature (2016, p. 29). Art’s purpose is to disrupt assumed and ignored structures causing us to renegotiate and re-evaluate the organisational or perceptual structure that is in focus. In truly potent art, our involuntary perceptions are challenged with a problem or a difficulty, the negotiation of which results in a heightened awareness of the perceptual process as it is happening. This is why Noë calls art a “strange tool” (2016). Tools by their nature assist in performing a function, but art’s function is either that it doesn’t—it’s broken in some way—or it doesn’t function in the way it is expected to. Art disrupts and reorganises perception, and through this process allows us to delve more deeply into the project of conscious existence. ¶ 3

Listening to sonic art, or indeed listening to the world as a focused activity, requires that nothing is taken for granted, that there are no assumptions about how and what will happen next. The irregularities, obstacles and idiosyncrasies of this type of sonic art require that we become conscious of our negotiations with our senses and our thoughts—that we become conscious of listening. The inner speech that ensues for me when listening to sonic art manifests this consciousness of listening, which in turn allows me to listen to my consciousness. ¶ 4

(1) The term is translated as “the law of awareness” by A. Kozulin, in the 1986 edition of Thought and Language, and as the “law of conscious awareness” in the 1987 Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky translated by N. Minick. Generally I use the Kozulin translation but here I will use Minick’s version as it makes the notion of consciousness explicit.

Nikolic, D. (2016). Ideasthesia and art. In K. Gsöllpointner, R. Schnell, & R. K. Schuler (Eds.), Digital synesthesia: A model for the aesthetics of digital art (pp. 41–52). De Gruyter.

Noë, A. (2016). Strange tools: Art and human nature. Hill and Wang.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (newly revised ed., A. Kozulin, Ed.; E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: vol. 1, Problems of general psychology (R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton, Eds.; N. Minick, Trans.). Plenum Press.