Month: April 2023

Again another text by Peter Wright gave me further reflection on my field recording practice for my portfolio project 2. Here are some quotes.

The term “Post-Natural” is currently situated within arts and humanities discourse and the pervasive debates surrounding the Anthropocene. This proposed new epoch underscores how humans have, and are, changing the geological make-up of Earth by way of fossil fuel extraction, war, slavery, technologies, and advanced capitalism.

So we are in a current post-human stage of our existence. Anthropocene really is in effect, we must consider how as humans actions have consequences and sound arts is one of the practices.

A Post-Natural filter aids this new approach by reinvigorating environmental sound art’s relationship to silence, technology and subjectivity. Furthermore, it offers new methods for listening, through publications and creative audio works; it provides questions to sonic materials and treats recordings as documents to be read through a listening approach that fuses cartographic research with imaginary speculations

So this post-natural filter we exist in, our technology and artistic endeavours really do help us understand our relationship with our environments in different ways.

In a time where human impact is radically altering the sedimentary signature of the earth, a Post-Natural approach asks if it plausible to claim “non-impact” anymore? Has the long-empathetic notion of non-invasive environmental recording become a redundant ideal that is as illusionary as so-called Nature itself? Can the recording of species and phenomena continue to be deemed inconsequential? How is technological agency performed and part of an ecological approach? Whom do “we” speak for in the sounding of environments? What is the impact of such questioning in the field and how do aesthetic modes of documentation and production respond?

So this is what really shakes me up, this archetype of a nature recordist, who says they have a non-impact way of recording. I think it’s interesting and what has taken me to be more free within my second project, I really have taken a step back from my nature recording passion.

The dominant aesthetic message is an unheard one, as recordists perpetually mute their own presence for the most “natural” or technically “cleanest” documentation of an environment or species. The recording “I” is associated with lo-fi acoustic detritus such as microphone handling, wind, and interference noise: all are aspects that must be silenced as part of the general signal-to-noise ratio. Whether for science or art, self-dissolution hovers over every instance the record button is about to be pressed.

Muting our presence is true, I have been taught this or perhaps thought this was the correct way of recording. It’s something that was imposed on me without reflecting on why, which now I have done, has allowed me to consider different ways of recording and using field recording equipment.

I take seriously the proxy proposition that sound is a social political agent and strive to treat the medium as material that matters, working against a culture of digital sound capture that falsely claims inconsequentiality as its implied default.

I agree, I think if we consider a recording as something that matters and can be used as a social-political agent, we would listen differently, but currently, we don’t even consider recording as creation, but as documentation. That recording even if you do nothing in post-production is not creation.

I saw this in another essay bibliography and through searching online for more research to do with field recording discourse. I found this short essay/article interesting as it describes and relates the noisy-non self as a monster, something that stays hidden throughout the recording. I want to perhaps challenge this with my own recordings. Why do I chase this idea of perfection and silence myself through the recording? Why can’t it be a loud recording, something obvious?

Here are some quotes.

This article endeavours to re-hear the fringe identity of the environmental field recordist and analyze the promises and threats of self-erasure. I propose a new concept , the Noisy-Nonself, as a way of understanding such an identity. It is a chimeric figuration that seeks to collapse human, animal, and technological binaries, prompt ethical critique, and ask, “What are the consequences of hearing our own monsters?”

I like this opening statement, to consider the threats of self-erasure as something worthy of discourse is down my league currently.

Recording and archiving environmental sounds enabled the medium itself to be considered a viable social and cultural artifact, something that soundscape studies and the World Soundscape Project would later harness in the context of acoustic ecology. These bioacoustic archival bloodlines silenced their own authors in order to privilege objective “facts.” The legacies that arrive from such preservation-based contexts prioritize non-intrusive or hi-fidelity recordings of an environment or species.

This battle between science and the arts, for the silencing of the recordist, means that perhaps the value of the field recording is for information on the recorded subject or environment and the human noise is unwanted, but why do we still consider this for our own creative field recordings?

I initiated a persona that would represent a troubling doubling of the archetypal nature recordist: a crypto-character, part shadow, part absurd doppelgänger, a bipedal assemblage of another. I moved towards my own spectral and material skins that grafted technology and the body as well as the animal. “Naturally” a fluffy onesie that resembled a microphone windshield was developed (!). Windshields or windjammers are used primarily to suppress breathing sounds and wind noise: they are the mediators of self-silence. Made commercially from synthetic fur but often adapted by DIY enthusiasts from real animal furs such as wolverines, the material encases the microphone within its meshed cage. They are commonly referred to as “fluffys” or “dead cats.” Smaller windjammers are known as “dead kittens.” The windshield continually cancels mediating bodies; technical, human, environmental apparatus, and subjects are softened into an absorbent milieu. It renders recordists as soundless agents: mute performers matted within the flesh and fur of their own bodyapparatus.

Mark created a personal onesie covered in Ryecote windjammer synthetic fur. Something I recently purchased, I was angry at the recordings being windy, perhaps I should take it off? Wind noise could be good? If on purpose? I also like this idea of the archetype of the nature recordist, part shadow, the sneaking silent person who records animals without disturbance, attempting to never influence the environment it goes into, it’s kind of difficult not to think how absurd this sounds.

Whom do “we” speak for in the continual sounding of species and phenomena? What is really being captured and processed beyond the so-called signal? What is not being heard

Again to think that our recordings represent something, or perhaps even other species, that have hugely different ways of experiencing our field recordings is not accurate. I strive to do the opposite, I want my field recordings to be an emotional response. Not fact.

The Noisy-Nonself simultaneously invades environments and evades self-analysis; it occupies a parasite-host duality like a shimmering thing caught in its own medial web of entrapment.

It’s true, the recordist fails to analyse their own position in the field, something I believe is what I’m attempting to do currently with this project. How will I do that? Perhaps by making sure I’m heard in my recording.

In a similar capacity, I researched this Brazilian artist. I found one project on Bandcamp that was three pieces of audio of sound walks, recordings, and other audio.

https://alefenerich.bandcamp.com/album/cole-o-peripat-tica-de-sons-peripatetic-collection-of-sounds

The written element to accompany the book held many interesting aspects, quotes, writings, drawings, and memories from the audio as well as explaining what they had recorded.

Thelmo Cristovam

After reading into Thelmo’s work I found this on Bandcamp the description says this. 

https://thelmocristovam.bandcamp.com/album/stenella-longirostris

The work that Thelmo Cristovam takes to Fernando de Noronha challenges symbolic boundaries between art and science, synthesizing them as a method of sound mapping of the archipelago, in a continuous attempt to understand the world and to invent tools to research and describe it. in the form of art and consequently, preserve it.

This research trip where I accompanied him, in October 2018, was the continuation of work that Thelmo has been doing for decades, in Northeast Brazil and the Amazon, mapping soundscapes of places where one can stay without the intercession of human noise. or sound signals not coming from natural phenomena. As much for art as for science and finally for politics, it is of immense importance to record these environments, which tend to disappear as the so-called modernities gain. These recordings guarantee, in some perspective, that this natural heritage will be preserved for the future.

This time, what takes us to the archipelago are the underwater sound noises, especially from the cetaceans that inhabit this rich maritime environment. This work takes place in collaboration with the NGO Golfinho Rotador, which since 1990, together with ICMBio, has been working on research and preservation of this species and the sustainability of its habitat.

I found the recordings really lovely to listen to and had similar themes to Gordon Hempton on the importance of silence and at the border between science, and artistic endeavours of sound-based recordings, and a good map in a non-linear way/format. He seems to enjoy not making an actual map but more of the sound collection as perseveration.

What I did find interesting is he is recording in a human way of listening, preserving recordings for humans, but without human interference? I think as a political statement it does raise good questions, but I think recordings with a human presence for the sake of stating that it is better is a confusing argument for me at least.

Before I did an exercise I decided to actually see how I could make a sound map.

I thought first I would identify what I want.

I would like a Google maps style sound map, where you click a pin and audio plays. Something similar to Locus Sonus.

It would be nice if I could include a name, photo and embedded audio?

Also free, easy to access and not required to set up a whole website. Or maybe a website might be good? Could the sound map be a part of my work as well? As well as the small booklet, the Photos, the field notes, and the sound map can offer a sense of place that perhaps is missing?

I found this website here that went through two different ways of making sound maps.

https://www.spencerbruce.com/blog1/2021/8/2/building-a-sound-map

Firstly it was using google my maps, you can insert pins and attach a title and description, the only issue is that the audio has to be on another platform such as SoundCloud which means that once you click out of the map you may have to close down another webpage to get back to the map which is not ideal, as well as this the map still has lots of things to click on and can look cluttered? The advantage is that it is simple, and does not require any website or anything else, just a Google account. Looks good. I tried it out quickly with some recordings I took from Brighton and it was working pretty good! Looks interesting.

The photo and audio are not correct but it was more of a test.

The next website advertised was a $40 plugin for WordPress, where the actual audio link was embedded within the map such as this.

I did feel this looks a bit ugly, hmmm. Need to research more perhaps, or fill out the original google maps webpage that was simple.

I emailed Divfuse after attending Jez’s sound installation about the potential of seeing his talk on Sunday as I had missed the opportunity to order a ticket, as I didn’t see the promotion for it. After this, I received an email back that said I could come.

The venue again was small and we all introduced ourselves as Jez asked.

Jez began by saying that he is mainly interested in listening in situ, his practice really comes from listening and not what he can do later. The recording and releasing really is a reflection and outcome of recording rather than capture being his preference.

Jez first began his recording career at an early age, he created this contact mic from a zine he found about making a DIY piezo guitar amplifier and he put it on a fence while reading some notes, he began listening to a fence at 14, and decided that for him it was more interesting and better than himself on an instrument.

Jez continued to speak about his work and the uses of contact mics that he builds, he began by speaking about this project called. Listening matters. This was speakers in a tree playing sounds he had recorded, at first he received a lot of negative comments from visitors who complained why an artist had put speakers in a tree, to ruin the soundscape, after this experience he decided to put silent speakers, and the same amount of negative complaints were received, this was the point where he realised how much listening matters, people thought something was coming out of the speakers, even when it was silenced! Gathering material is no longer what he likes after this and his fascination for listening began.

Audible silence the effect of place,
Jez Riley French,

Another project Jez was part of where he wanted to listen to the building not focus on the sound collection, This project was very personal to Jez, he managed to sleep there and record where he and his mum used to go. Kettles yard, he recorded the building and the resonances of it, and for him, this was sound as memory.

His key tool is duration, a few hours records for some times, other times 45 minutes, but the key is 45 minutes is when the fifth audible listening begins this is when your brain stops trying to listen and accepts the sounds it is experiencing. Residences de Lumiere was an experience that he had where he mic’ed up the rooms outside of the performance, as an experimental artist himself he still is curious why we watch performances in front of the performers, why not in a different room?

Building microphones and searching for low frequencies was his next task, he felt that there was a way to capture low-end within-contact microphones, so he created his own, he also recorded fences and played examples.

Since at the start we discussed why we were here at this talk and what we wanted out of it, I communicated that I was there for my research for my portfolio and Jez kept giving me pointers towards my questions, he did mention that animals experience other sounds, bird song for us is nice, but animals can hear the vibration, the noise pollution resonating, they have expanded hearing, we think from a human-centric point of view if we consider only what we like as “natural” sounds or relaxing.

Duration, the more you listen to the more continuous change occurs Jez says, something I have encountered a lot while field recording. Sometimes it feels set up like the environment keeps changing and having dynamic interactions. But this is the truth here this is what actually happens.

Nan shephard, environmental the Living Mountain. This was a book he recommended. I have booked this out, as I am interested to read this after his recommendation.

Jez goes on to say about his love of sound outside of our attention, Micro listening he calls it. And what captures his attention is the Infinite detail, such as the rhythms inside a stone.

One way of listening, preserving what we like at the risk of others??! Something he also said.

Contact Mic allows us to get closer to their world. The world of other species.

Saving the planet for us,
Always invading, that is what we do. We should realise that saving the planet for us is not a good thing, we don’t own this planet.

Hydrophone patent, 2026 USA environmental action. Something he felt was controversial.

EQ gains hiss for hydrophone.
INDEPENDENCE MATCHINg piece. is important for maximum frequency response!

Dr Marie Po and fish
In ichthyology, women at the time were key in underwater sounds. Might be worth researching further?

Tim Lamont,
Sound of fish-eating, attracting them back.

Sound collector, trying to find an interesting sound.

Field fest. Field recording festival.

Els Viaene artist.

Peterson bat box

After this talk I felt inspired to embrace the micro tonal works I have been doing before, I think after all this reading and essay reading and practical recordings, I think this glorified idea I had of travelling with my recording equipment and capturing the most silent man free soundscapes number one arent accurate depictions. They felt wrong to do, how can I invade these spaces, and for what reason? Am I doing any good?

I think going on from this I’ve gained a further idea of what I want to do, its simple but all this research has allowed me to get to this point. I want to test out a sound map, explore durational listening and then create a piece of work that is a sound, a date, a photo, and a field note. A small booklet with a DVD.