Applying Acoustic Ecology
In their analysis of the intervention site, students were introduced to an acoustic ecology understanding of lo-fi sound environments. Truax describes an acoustic environment as lo-fi when it is “of poor quality, high noise, and distortion [that] encourages feelings of being cut off or separated from the environment” (Truax 2001: 23). Students were asked to consider what impact a lo-fi listening environment might have on those people immersed in the acoustic space. To develop a deeper appreciation for the site’s sonic conditions, students engaged in a number of exercises developed by acoustic ecologists as tools for connecting listeners with soundscapes. These include soundwalking, listening, and sound mapping. Interestingly many students commented that they had never noticed the sound of the exhaust outlet before; however, on becoming aware of the sound, they were surprised by the extent to which it dominated their perceptions of the space. Students noted that, similarly, their friends also didn’t notice the sound. These observations are conducive with Truax’s view that people in urban, lo-fi environments tend to become passive rather than active listeners:
The introduction of low information [lo-fi] background sounds suggests a trend toward homogenous environments with poor acoustic definition. Such environments do not encourage more active types of listening, and their prevalence may prevent listeners from experiencing any alternative. (Truax 2001: 27)
This observation became part of the incentive to develop an intervention that would somehow diversify human experiences, hopefully stimulating alternative listening experiences for those who encountered the altered environment.
The activist intentions of acoustic ecology were made clear to the students. R. Murray Schafer states in his seminal text The Tuning of the World that “[a]coustic design [...] is a matter of the retrieval of a significant aural culture, and that is a task for everyone” (Schafer 1977: 206). The actual method for applying a creative approach to diversifying the soundscape was sourced from one of Schafer’s lesser-known texts: Voices of Tyranny, Temples of Silence. There he states that “the basis of all soundscape design ought to be to develop the artful patterning of what is already there” (Schafer 1993: 103, my italics). In accordance with these two statements, students were empowered with the title “soundscape designer” and asked to employ the concept of “repatterning” to the existing noise source.
The term “repatterning” was used as a conceptual means of combining the acoustic ecology and “sound effect” approaches. Rather than “artfully patterning,” which could suggest an absence of patterns in everyday life, the students were asked to appreciate the existing pattern of the soundscape and work towards its repatterning as a means to introduce diversity into the space. As such, any judgment of the soundscape was eschewed in favor of willingly interrelating with what exists, as it exists.[1]