-
-
2.)
Micro-Exhibition 2
Brandon LaBelle
Brandon LaBelle
-
The power and poetics of sound partially reside in weaving together the private and the public – sound disregards these distinctions by transgressing the boundaries of bodies and spaces. Such transgression might be said to create a horizon of sharing, dislocating the constraints of difference and allowing possibilities for new forms of collectivity. Exploring these themes the workshop will generate a process of acoustical sharing, where sounds are passed back and forth amongst participants through translation, interference and mishearing.
Each day of the workshop students were asked to produce a sound of 1 to 3 minutes based on a theme or set of instructions. The following day these sounds were then passed along, so each student gave their sound to another while receiving a sound from another student. The new sound then became the basis for a further sound.
The first day was based on making a “personal” sound – opening up the sonic imagination to the private space of the individual, to memory or fantasy, making sound a kind of portrait of the individual. This was followed on the second day by the idea of field recording and environmental sound: each student received a “personal” sound from another, and was asked to make a field recording that complemented this personal sound. Students had to locate an existing sound environment, which they felt was echoing or complementing the first sound, to be recorded. This was followed again on the third day by the theme of “synthetic” sound – students further passed their environmental tracks to another, and in response, each had to use this sound in a synthetic way in order to contrast the environmental: ideas of noise, disruption, abstraction and silence were introduced as means for treating, contrasting and fictionalizing a fourth sound. As a final sound, participants were asked to make a “voice” sound in response to the synthetic work: to describe, narrate, sing, or speak over the synthetic sound work. The inherent abstraction of the synthetic work created an opportunity to explore ways of describing sound, of listening and making sound in response based on language. As a final gesture, the sounds were returned to the first student, and offered as a gift.
Each day of the workshop students were asked to produce a sound of 1 to 3 minutes based on a theme or set of instructions. The following day these sounds were then passed along, so each student gave their sound to another while receiving a sound from another student. The new sound then became the basis for a further sound.
The first day was based on making a “personal” sound – opening up the sonic imagination to the private space of the individual, to memory or fantasy, making sound a kind of portrait of the individual. This was followed on the second day by the idea of field recording and environmental sound: each student received a “personal” sound from another, and was asked to make a field recording that complemented this personal sound. Students had to locate an existing sound environment, which they felt was echoing or complementing the first sound, to be recorded. This was followed again on the third day by the theme of “synthetic” sound – students further passed their environmental tracks to another, and in response, each had to use this sound in a synthetic way in order to contrast the environmental: ideas of noise, disruption, abstraction and silence were introduced as means for treating, contrasting and fictionalizing a fourth sound. As a final sound, participants were asked to make a “voice” sound in response to the synthetic work: to describe, narrate, sing, or speak over the synthetic sound work. The inherent abstraction of the synthetic work created an opportunity to explore ways of describing sound, of listening and making sound in response based on language. As a final gesture, the sounds were returned to the first student, and offered as a gift.
-
3.)