Me and Pablo Infante have been developing an investigation initially based in the phenomenological scope of Schaeffer’s theories (and formerly of Husserl) about the sonic world and the audition in general.
Our starting point lays in the difference that exists between the real sounds of the world and the perception of these. From this distinction, we can talk about “mental sound objects”. These kinds of objects are created in our minds from the manner in which we relate ourselves with the real acoustic phenomena. However, these mental objects are completely different and independent from the real event. The independence and complexity of these objects permit us to talk about a real “intelligence of sound” (which is able to give shape to these objects with it´s own categories) as being much more than a simple “perceptive capacity”.
We want to produce a representation of our investigation, for this purpose we consider to use a presenter that will symbolize the core of our investigation (the subject that cognizes the mental sound object). He will read a manifest on top of a stage. We are preparing several methods of dynamic projection (mapping) over the host and elastic strips arranged in the presentation location. These strips will symbolically connect the “mind” of the host with the environment (the context) and with the audience (see pictures).
Our emphasis here will be on the non literal illustration of the different and complex dimensions created in our mind when we hear and how they differ from what we really hear in reality. But mostly we will focus on the expression of the questions about how we hear the world and the possibilities of a “new hearing”. We encourage ourselves in rather to have a reductionist attitude toward sound, to have an open and holistic position to “the being of hearing”. Therefore, during the course of our entire project (and specially in the presentation, where we can enrich the appreciation of the work in terms of an audio visual experience) we will include the use of visual references, elements putted out of their context, speech, sound, infrasound, etc.
Pablo Infante: is a 27-year-old musician and philosopher. Lives in Santiago de Chile directing he’s own recording and production studio. In 2010 he graduated with a major in philosophy by Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile presenting a phenomenological thesis called The ontological status of the musical work (text available here:http://polmusik.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/tesis-pablo-infante.pdf ). Some of the works made by Pablo can be found here: www.compiuters.com, www.efectosespaciales.com, www.polmusik.net
we need to make clear that our investigation is not essentially philosophical we certainly prefer the developing of our project throughout different practical experiences, our main goal is to understand and apply concept in an artistic context.
we are developing this conceptual map so we can be able to see the whole complexity of the auditory intelligence but also to be able to interconnect concepts that are not usually connected.
current Ideas and notes
how one could perceptually experience something heard as something that is or could be seen.?
You hear a sound as the sound of something that could be seen or brought into view, and that has visible features.
Perceiving doesn’t just involve vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste working in parallel and in isolation. It involves extensive cooperation and coordination among modalities. Unimodal approaches risk missing the significance of an important class of multimodal perceptual phenomena.
you cannot bring certain other kinds of parts of that more encompassing event into earshot. For instance, you cannot bring the visible surfaces of objects involved in that event, or changes to shapes, colors, solidity, or texture, into earshot.
In seeing a table’s surface, we become aware as of the table. In seeing unhidden bits of building, we see the building. Similar claims hold for events. Seeing the baseball game doesn’t require seeing every moment or every part of it. One can blink, step to the restroom, or focus on the catcher and still see the game. So, in hearing the sound, we hear the automobile collision or the grinding of the gears. We hear that more encompassing event by hearing an audible part of it. The sound is akin to the facing surface of an object. Through awareness of the parts, we become aware of the whole
auditory abilities as a domain of intelligence
sounds aren’t audible properties of material objects but instead are complex audible individuals
sometimes you perceptually experience the thing you hear as being the very same thing you see
(When watching a movie with sound) If the movie is a poorly dubbed foreign film, or if its soundtrack is temporally offset from the appropriate visual cues, you go from having one experience to a another one. Crossmodal identification breaks down. But movies (and lab scenarios with video screens and headphones) involve illusory crossmodal binding, since the visual and auditory stimuli lack a common source. Watching and listening to everyday talkers, however, involves veridical crossmodal binding.
from lessons from beyond vision (sounds and audition) Casey O’s Callaghan
Seeing something to be red while feeling something to be rough.
Perceiving the very same thing seen to be red as also feeling rough.
in this both examples we could hear the same sound from two same sources with different color.
current exercises to boost our auditory intelligences in terms of creativity
The McGurk effect is a profound illusion in which vision alters the speech sound you auditorily experience
Ventriloquism involves an illusory auditory experience of spatial location that is caused by the visible location of an apparent sound source (see Bertelson 1999)
The senses are discrete, experientially encapsulated modes or channels of awareness.
We reflexively turn to look for the source of a sound, or duck out of the way when we hear something coming from behind, but it makes no sense to look for or duck from a sound. Part of audition’s function is to tell us about what is going on in the extra-sonic world. Lots of empirical evidence suggests that auditory experience is organized in a way that cannot be understood without considering sound sources.
The objects of perceptual awareness are more diverse than an exclusively visual perspective suggests.
What sort of thing is a sound, construed as an immediate object of auditory awareness?
Sound [is] a quality belonging, not to the medium, but to the object that makes the sound. . . . [W]e should conceive of sound as like colour, rather than as like light. . . . That is to say, we should continue to treat sound as the object of hearing, and we should think of sounds as existing within the object that ‘‘makes’’ them. (Strictly, on my view, we should say that objects have sounds). (Pasnau 1999, pp. 309, 316)
Sounds are audible attributes of ordinary material objects such as bells, whistles, and firecrackers
‘‘Physical objects are the direct objects of perception,’’ as ‘‘absolutely true.’’
The main obstacle is (2). Sounds, the immediate objects of auditory awareness, aren’t ordinary material objects. A sound is perceptually unlike a table or a goat
Hearing ordinary material objects and happenings requires hearing sounds.
Material things are heard indirectly by hearing the sounds they make.
We plug our ears to cease hearing sounds we regard to persist; sounds exhibit constancy for loudness, timbre, and pitch across changes to perspective and listening conditions; sounds are shared topics of conversation, and commonly are a public nuisance. Sounds, unlike headaches, can be hallucinated or misperceived.
It is less common to hear more than a few sounds at different audible locations at any given time
You probably don’t hear sounds to have detailed three-dimensional shapes and determinate sizes.
Everyone grants that hearing is far less spatially acute than vision.
In characterising the contrast between auditory and visual experience in the way that I have I am attempting to draw attention not merely to the fact that the auditory experience has a different spatial structure, but that it has a structure that is non-spatial. . . . [W]hen we hear (or appear to hear) a sound we simply hear the sound, and we don’t experience it as standing in any relation to the space it may in fact occupy. (Nudds 2001, pp. 213–214)
I am of the opinion that perception at a distance is uniquely visual in type. All other varieties of perception encounter their object without spatial mediation. . . . I believe, and will in what follows attempt to prove, that this holds at least for the case of sound. (O’Shaughnessy 2009, p. 114)
We absolutely never immediately perceive sounds to be at any place.
In some way or another audition is deficient with respect to spatiality. context? or the object itself? neither, both?
A purely auditory experience would be aspatial and that spatial notions have no inherently auditory significance:
The line of thought thus concludes that it is intuitive, on phenomenological grounds, to understand sounds as private features, by which one perceives or which one associates with material objects.
If sounds do not auditorily appear to inhabit the same space as material things (in the world beyond the ears), this lends support to the intuition that they are private, like headaches, rather than public.
It would be a phenomenological mistake to say you see a material object or its parts by virtue of being visually aware as of anything else, including private features (individuals or properties).
A purely auditory experience lacks the materials for awareness of objective particulars
how we like to set up. We project images on a dual projector system, which cover the area in which the strips are located, The whole performance use the strips as a platform where the whole process of mental hearing is described, the tapes divides the scenario in several areas each one representing a concept. The strips are also arranged across the room (from the presenter to the public) fig2. we will use a mapping application specially designed for this presentation based on the program language Max6, we will also use dinamic projection over the face of the presenter so his brain symbolize the information flowing between the real world and his mind. For this purpose we use a kinetic camera with a face tracking algorithm also based on Max6. most of the presentation is scripted and controled by the host with a wiimote, Within the presentation there are several moments in which only sound will be use as a medium therefore complete darkness is requiered. fig1, StagePlan
we are applying several digital techniques for this presentation, as for the presentator we are developing a software for projecting dynamically over the presentator face , this means that the projection will adapt and follows the face movements in realtime based on a face/eyes tracking technique.