Yale School of Architecture
"The Sound of Architecture"
October 6, 2012 2pm - 4pm
October 6, 2012 2pm - 4pm
 |
| The Sound of Architecture at Yale School of Architecture |
“Listening is the process of confronting expressive movements around us” - Brandon LaBelle
Here we are at the final session of the symposium! I had been looking forward to this last portion since the last speaker is Brandon LaBelle, who in my opinion, is such an eloquent man. I will go on about him during the recap, but I did want to preface the following summaries by saying that I may have been distracted during the first talks in anticipation of his lecture. Now that I have made my little disclaimer...on to the last recap!
ACOUSTIC SPACE
Sabine von Fischer “Intimate and Infinite Space”
I appreciated the structure of von Fischer’s talk which was organized around a selection of terms relating to the study of sound environments from the 1920’s-1970’s. The terms presented were: the aural, sonosphere (sonisphere?), soundscape, acoustic space and acoustic horizon. These words were coined (or more explicitly defined) at varying times in the last century and through a range of texts, though by now they have all pretty much been widely appropriated. For instance, von Fischer refers to R. Murray Schafer’s distinction of “soundscape” from the 1960’s or Peter Sloterdijk’s use of the word “sonosphere” in the 1990’s which was used in Michael Southworth’s 1965 master’s thesis at MIT. Through tracing the history and evolution of these terms, von Fischer was able to track the changing attitudes towards pace, sound, and architecture. Additionally, she was able to move between technical and scientific investigations while emphasizing the importance of language and description communicating a rich and multidimensional understanding of auditory space and the experiments that advanced and explored it.
Alexander Nemerov “Acoustic Shadows: Macbeth and the Civil War”
Here we are at the final session of the symposium! I had been looking forward to this last portion since the last speaker is Brandon LaBelle, who in my opinion, is such an eloquent man. I will go on about him during the recap, but I did want to preface the following summaries by saying that I may have been distracted during the first talks in anticipation of his lecture. Now that I have made my little disclaimer...on to the last recap!
ACOUSTIC SPACE
Sabine von Fischer “Intimate and Infinite Space”
I appreciated the structure of von Fischer’s talk which was organized around a selection of terms relating to the study of sound environments from the 1920’s-1970’s. The terms presented were: the aural, sonosphere (sonisphere?), soundscape, acoustic space and acoustic horizon. These words were coined (or more explicitly defined) at varying times in the last century and through a range of texts, though by now they have all pretty much been widely appropriated. For instance, von Fischer refers to R. Murray Schafer’s distinction of “soundscape” from the 1960’s or Peter Sloterdijk’s use of the word “sonosphere” in the 1990’s which was used in Michael Southworth’s 1965 master’s thesis at MIT. Through tracing the history and evolution of these terms, von Fischer was able to track the changing attitudes towards pace, sound, and architecture. Additionally, she was able to move between technical and scientific investigations while emphasizing the importance of language and description communicating a rich and multidimensional understanding of auditory space and the experiments that advanced and explored it.
Alexander Nemerov “Acoustic Shadows: Macbeth and the Civil War”
Nemerov, who has explored the specific topic addressed in his talk in the book Acting in the Night: Macbeth and the Places of the Civil War, concentrated on describing a single performance of Macbeth in 1863 as a particular moment which encapsulates the cultural, spatial, and political forces of the time. Through a detailed study of all aspects of that day, October 17, 1863, including the performances (namely that of leading lady Charlotte Cushman), the theater itself (the architecture of Grover’s National Theater), and the political climate at the time (the “acoustic shadows” of Civil War battles in the distance), Nemerov is able to communicate the interconnected nature of seemingly disparate realms.
Veit Erlmann “Biology, Environment, and Sound: Jakob von Uexküll Revisited”
Erlmann pretty much lost me a couple sentences into this lecture. Perhaps it was because I am not really familiar with the specific language which seemed to overwhelm the research he presented, or possibly because I had not been previously acquainted with the work of Jakob von Uexküll. Regardless, it was a pity that felt I could not follow the train of thought and ideas presented, as after a cursory glance at Uexküll’s research concerns and findings, I feel that it had the potential to be a rather illuminating talk. Uexküll, a German biologist active during the early 1900’s, was particularly interested in investigating how living beings (studied through ticks, jellyfish etc) perceive their environment in reaction to sensory data. It seemed as though Erlmann was arguing for the importance of Uexküll’s perspective in terms of human awareness, and emphasizing the value of considering the way we construct our environment through perceived experiences particularly with regards to sound. Here’s one quote from the lecture I found noteworthy: “Space is to the aural architect as the spiderweb is to the fly.” When the fly becomes trapped, the fly assumes some spiderweb-ness and the spiderweb assumes some fly-ness. I think this scenario of mutual influence and feedback is quite strong and appropriate when considering relationships between our perception of space in relation to the built environment.
Brandon LaBelle “Shared Space”
I was first introduced to Brandon LaBelle’s books as required reading in the context of a studio art class, “Sound in Time, Sound in Space” taught by Marina Rosenfeld at Harvard University. His writing is descriptive and his observations are thoughtful and perceptive. Check out both his books “Background Noise: Perspectives on Sound Art” and “Acoustic Territories” if you are interested in reading some of his work.
While sound is deeply connected to experiences of sharing and reassurance, LaBelle described as he began his talk, it is also linked to disruption and confrontation. Following this idea, LaBelle turned his attention to an exploration of “noise” which he defined as “sound which oversteps particular limits.” The lecture was broken into three parts in order to examine qualities of “noise” through a selection of art pieces. These were: acoustics multiplied, supplement, and difference making. “Acoustics multiplied” referred to noise as pluralistic and concerned with overlapped acoustical spaces. A piece by Mark Bain explores ideas of vibration by capturing and transmitting energy passing through structures. By embedding an accessible headphone jack into the exterior wall of a building, passersby on the street can “plug-in” to the building and listen to vibrations which are captured by transducers inserted into the foundations of the building. In this way, the public can experience a simultaneous, yet inaccessible, space while remaining a part of the exterior and public street. The idea of “supplement” LaBelle explained, allows for the possibility of another narrative which “brings into question the wholeness of the original with a ‘more than’.” He shared one of his own pieces where he recorded a deaf man reading John Cage’s Lecture on Nothing as an example of this idea.* A second work, “The Sonic Body” introduced a series of “portraits” by LaBelle where he asked people to listen to music on headphones and then recorded the sound of them dancing to the music. All we heard in these recordings were the percussive steps and thumps of feet on the floor, the breathing of the individual, and the occasional sigh or melodic line escaping the participants’ lips. It was really quite fascinating, especially as fundamental qualities of the music they were listening to eventually became evident through the recorded interactions of the body in space, namely, rhythm. With “difference making”, LaBelle was interested in collapsing distance through the introduction of a difference. “Boomerang” (1974) by Richard Serra served as an example. In the video, Serra employs a slightly delayed echo which is played into the headphones of Nancy Holt as she speaks. Holt is listening to her own echo and trying to talk at the same time. You can watch a clip below. The sequence is quite powerful. Holt alters the speed at which she speaks as she tries to listen to, or align with, her own echo. In LaBelle’s talk we were introduced to several attitudes or approaches to noise. We began to understand the proposal set forth by LaBelle as he observed the inherent qualities of contamination and disruptiveness that are at once productive and uncomfortable when considering noise.
Veit Erlmann “Biology, Environment, and Sound: Jakob von Uexküll Revisited”
Erlmann pretty much lost me a couple sentences into this lecture. Perhaps it was because I am not really familiar with the specific language which seemed to overwhelm the research he presented, or possibly because I had not been previously acquainted with the work of Jakob von Uexküll. Regardless, it was a pity that felt I could not follow the train of thought and ideas presented, as after a cursory glance at Uexküll’s research concerns and findings, I feel that it had the potential to be a rather illuminating talk. Uexküll, a German biologist active during the early 1900’s, was particularly interested in investigating how living beings (studied through ticks, jellyfish etc) perceive their environment in reaction to sensory data. It seemed as though Erlmann was arguing for the importance of Uexküll’s perspective in terms of human awareness, and emphasizing the value of considering the way we construct our environment through perceived experiences particularly with regards to sound. Here’s one quote from the lecture I found noteworthy: “Space is to the aural architect as the spiderweb is to the fly.” When the fly becomes trapped, the fly assumes some spiderweb-ness and the spiderweb assumes some fly-ness. I think this scenario of mutual influence and feedback is quite strong and appropriate when considering relationships between our perception of space in relation to the built environment.
Brandon LaBelle “Shared Space”
I was first introduced to Brandon LaBelle’s books as required reading in the context of a studio art class, “Sound in Time, Sound in Space” taught by Marina Rosenfeld at Harvard University. His writing is descriptive and his observations are thoughtful and perceptive. Check out both his books “Background Noise: Perspectives on Sound Art” and “Acoustic Territories” if you are interested in reading some of his work.
While sound is deeply connected to experiences of sharing and reassurance, LaBelle described as he began his talk, it is also linked to disruption and confrontation. Following this idea, LaBelle turned his attention to an exploration of “noise” which he defined as “sound which oversteps particular limits.” The lecture was broken into three parts in order to examine qualities of “noise” through a selection of art pieces. These were: acoustics multiplied, supplement, and difference making. “Acoustics multiplied” referred to noise as pluralistic and concerned with overlapped acoustical spaces. A piece by Mark Bain explores ideas of vibration by capturing and transmitting energy passing through structures. By embedding an accessible headphone jack into the exterior wall of a building, passersby on the street can “plug-in” to the building and listen to vibrations which are captured by transducers inserted into the foundations of the building. In this way, the public can experience a simultaneous, yet inaccessible, space while remaining a part of the exterior and public street. The idea of “supplement” LaBelle explained, allows for the possibility of another narrative which “brings into question the wholeness of the original with a ‘more than’.” He shared one of his own pieces where he recorded a deaf man reading John Cage’s Lecture on Nothing as an example of this idea.* A second work, “The Sonic Body” introduced a series of “portraits” by LaBelle where he asked people to listen to music on headphones and then recorded the sound of them dancing to the music. All we heard in these recordings were the percussive steps and thumps of feet on the floor, the breathing of the individual, and the occasional sigh or melodic line escaping the participants’ lips. It was really quite fascinating, especially as fundamental qualities of the music they were listening to eventually became evident through the recorded interactions of the body in space, namely, rhythm. With “difference making”, LaBelle was interested in collapsing distance through the introduction of a difference. “Boomerang” (1974) by Richard Serra served as an example. In the video, Serra employs a slightly delayed echo which is played into the headphones of Nancy Holt as she speaks. Holt is listening to her own echo and trying to talk at the same time. You can watch a clip below. The sequence is quite powerful. Holt alters the speed at which she speaks as she tries to listen to, or align with, her own echo. In LaBelle’s talk we were introduced to several attitudes or approaches to noise. We began to understand the proposal set forth by LaBelle as he observed the inherent qualities of contamination and disruptiveness that are at once productive and uncomfortable when considering noise.
*At this point, I have to note that I am shocked that John Cage was not even mentioned until this point in the symposium! He was so completely concerned with bringing awareness to the aural environment within which we all live! Actually, as I think I have mentioned before, I am extremely critical of the fact that there was practically no mention (and no speakers) that dealt with sound/space/architecture as an artistic medium. Where were the discussions of Lucier, Neuhaus, Leitner? Where were the presentations by contemporary artists/architects actually working to explore the issues introduced in the lectures?
ReplyDeleteBefore you regret your café opening, it is necessary to know the bakery shop interior design. So you will get massive success. Bakery shops are quite famous for delivering the best taste and aroma in baked food like cookies, cakes, etc.
architects in chennai
architecturer firms in chennai