Final draft of my first listening activity, Ear Pilots. At the beginning of writing these activities, I had so many different issues and ideas I wanted to bring up. I was interested in stimulating thought about the histories of a place: what has been removed, transformed, and silenced. Also thinking about engagement with the non-human, and engagement with our own intuition, that of navigation. I ended up with a more simple piece that is very self-reflective. The self is a great place to begin! I also kept it curious and open to interpretation. Any reflections that arise will directly some from the listener’s engagement with the place.
A sketch; what is a new radical movement we need for the future?
Perhaps it’s not only wealthy capitalists and big polluters we need to chat with or delete but also those who are designing future technologies that further our immersion in digital space. Do we live in the cusp of the metaverse? I believe in alternatives. We cannot reject technological development, but we can continue embracing and exploring our physical world to remind ourselves and the nerds the importance of intimacy and physical relations. What practices would encourage this exploration and intimacy?
I made a friend recently who is a financial historian. They research global trade networks, material sourcing and working conditions. They work with international companies in making important decisions. I found it fascinating to learn about the current developments that they are involved in: making sure the transition to “renewable” energies is possible with the right intersection of interests, companies and resources. This intersection carries a lot of suffering too. My friend remains hopeful while also prospecting dark futures: the likely continuity of power differentials and mass exploitation for building infastructures of reneweable energy.
They don’t believe in the possibility of rejecting technological development. For them the ugliness and harm is softened by what they believe to be true: that as a whole, today is still more equal and fair than the past. This helps them survive and be hopeful. I feel inspired.
Does the metaverse intersect with the transition to renewable energy? Maybe all the windmills will be less attractive than artificial landscapes. The snake eats itself!
I want to imagine alternative aesthetics and practices to the developement of metaverse/nerd lab cities and digital cultures. I will still be dependent on digital technologies to inject these aesthetics and practices into society, like the Situationists used mass media to criticise itself.
Not a total revolution, just to play my part ^o^ heehee follow my heart. ~ The cultures of the future will be a result of conflicting interests and tensions. So to manifest any visions we have into reality, we have to work with other people, find common goals and explore our differences. I will continue to organise with friends, and develop practices for listening and navigation that reflect these visions. My first group practice will be recorded for the audio paper; it is an experiment and an opportunity to learn and get feedback from other people.
A little history of network culture, and how some radicals believed in the libratory potentials of new technologies. (Notes from The Digital Condition by Felix Stalder.
Imagining history and development as a stream, where each event was dependent on others to exist, to stick, to proliferate…
AM Kaangieser is a geographer and sound artist. I find her practice very inspiring. Her ideas about translation and indigenous knowledge led me to some further research about these complexities.
~ Suspend the will to know, and allow the ambiguity of what is being heard flow through ~ Kaangieser also points out that knowing fully is impossible, and translating into certain knowledge systems or languages is reductive. I appreciate this and want to explain this in my listening activities.
From “To Tend For, To Care With: Listening as Method.” On being unwanted:“If Anglo-Europeans can undo our conception of nature, of environment, and conceive of our relations to/with places as dynamic and interdependent, then attuning to a ‘no’ becomes much more imaginable. That environments hold histories within them is incontestable. The world is filled with stories of places haunted by spirits and memories, by the energetic and atomic residues of traumatic events. There are many places that are not to be entered, or even spoken of, by certain people. Sacred sites for ceremony or important transitions are not to be encroached on, and it is not possible to always know what places hold what significance. The acknowledgement of such places through conservation and heritage designations map awkwardly over spiritual perimeters. I can feel, even when human permission is given, that there are places that are not appropriate for me to be in. The moment in the rainforest showed me that even where clear protocols of asking and granting permission are undertaken with villagers, this does not mean that such negotiations can be translated onto the specific place itself. Permission needs to be sought again and again, each and every time, from everyone and everywhere.What I carry with me in listening is that I cannot assume consent based on prior interaction. Listening as taking-leave is about acknowledging that my presence is doing something to where I am. I have learnt to attend to what I sense, even when I might not understand why. I-Kiribati and African-American scholar Teresia Teaiwa writes that “Indigenous knowledge is not always transparent or accessible to all, nor is it meant to be” (2005: 16). Knowledge of environments, knowledge of places are not always mine to ask for or to hear, and to meet the world with this as a reminder is very important. To be able to listen to, and appreciate, what is not for us as Anglo-European scholars and artists is one of the most imperative things I have been taught to accept and practice.”
I brought some texts to our biweekly reading group, brainworms! The texts were an introduction to deep listening by Pauline Oliveros and Geopolitics and the Anthropocene by AM Kaangieser. These texts are part of my research to develop outdoor listening, navigation and exploration activities. I will record one this weekend for my audio paper!
I was really interested in people’s interpretation and feedback of these texts. In Sound Studies we tend to be isolated in a community that takes subjective truths for granted. Bringing people outside of this field to interact with these ideas can reveal subjectivites.
People immeditately found Pauline’s call for quietness and centeredness exclusive: what about neurodivergent people who have different abilities when it comes to sensory information processing? People also felt uncomfortable by Pauline’s call for Deep Listeners to be involved in urban planning. While most people agreed that the city is loud, some people find this consoling while others find this exhausting. Women in the group said that the noise can be a sign of life and presence which helps them feel safe at night. One woman mentioned that she has to tune out the harassment of beeping cars and yelling men. How do these realities meet Oliveros’ practice of Deep Listening? People were generally excited to think about sound in this way and said that it stimulated new ideas.
In the reading of Kaangieser’s text there was mixed opinions. People liked their politics and the recognition of subtle inequality. Kaangieser claims that activism is blindly driven by activity, and urges for more reflectivion and “passivity”. Some people found this to be reductive of the scope of activism and also priviledged. It is clear that many social movements in history have been highly active and effective, but also well planned and reflective. This tension between thinking/acting or rest/rebellion is a common discussion in contemporary activist circles and it was interesting to hear it play out. I believe everyone has their own place in what they find comfortable or meaningful.
People felt uncomfortable with the poetic aesthetics of Kaangieser’s text, which they thought aligns with the call for passivity. Who really has the agency to rest, or be reflective and even passive? Are these the only people who should be leading social movements? Listening to people’s ideas has been fascinating and reminds me to remain in discussion when I am doing my own research. Finding commonality and difference in opinion is clearly a way to keep making sense.
I noticed again that my own language and ways of communicating are becoming more niche and intellectual, making it harder for people to understand what I am talking about. I want to actively be clear and accessible, especially if I want to fascillate activities or group excercises. This must be an active process in choosing simpler ways of saying things.
I am also realising that themes of environmental destruction and social alienation are heavy and subjective. After my last presentation in uni, a classmate said my discussion of my project felt “condescending.” They didn’t mean to say I was cruel, but that these ways of looking at the world are complicated and need to be brought up lightly to not feel confrontational. It made me realise that lot’s of people are probably aware to a certain extent of these issues but also need their own way of coping with them. At the same time, confrontation is not always negative. I thought afterwards that when spreading certain ideas there could be a softness and something fun in it too. It has made me think differently about my listening activities. I imagine them to be fun and open to the magic around us too, along with those painful and neccessary truths.
