EARwitness

EARwitness Listening & Architecture

John Marshall

[ 28.01.11 | U30099 ]

A dissertation presented to the Department of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University in part fulfilment of the regulations for BA (Hons) in Architecture.

Statement of Originality This dissertation is an original piece of work which is made available for copying with permission of the Head of the Department of Architecture.

Signed

Content

Foreword Introduction Silence

1 2-7 8-35

Sound Space

36-45

Sound Mind

46-55

Conclusion

56-61

Bibliography

62-65

Figures / Appendix

66-67

Fig.1

Foreword My fascination with sound extends as far as I can remember.

One of the first recollections is that of acquiring a cassette deck and listening to music. Blissfully unaware of everything else, I used to cycle up and down my cul-de-sac playing the same tape with its distinct repeating melodies. In this case their linkage with sound has strengthened my memory of place and event. Throughout growing up music has played an important role in the clarity of such memories: from holiday car journeys to birthday parties and school discos. Furthermore, it had a significant role towards my understanding of emotion.

During my teenage years I purchased some vinyl turntables and began to mix my favorite tracks. This simple hobby provided a channel for expression and social interaction.

After sometime, opportunities arose to play in venues, which developed into more regular dj bookings. Not only have these fulfilled some part of my social needs but they have also distinguished events in time and place.

The connection between architecture and sound was more consciously made at the beginning of my degree. The first project began with site analysis of a busy street in Oxford. In response to the element Air, I carried out a sound recording along the length of the street. From this track I extracted keynote sounds identifying the areas characterful nature.

The resultant design project developed into a place for rest and sonic exploration. Two floors provided isolation pods for silence and a wandering landscape permeable to the sounds of the local environment. Since this initial exploration, sound has continued to be apart of my design considerations.

The topic of this dissertation was chosen out of my passion of sound, directly influenced by these encounters amongst numerous others.

1

‘Sound is intrinsically and un-ignorably relational: it emanates, propagates, communicates, vibrates, and agitates; it leaves a body and enters others; it binds and unhinges, harmonizes and traumatizes; it sends the body moving, the mind dreaming, the air oscillating. It seemingly eludes definition, while having profound effect.’ (Labelle 2006, p.9) 2

Introduction The term ear-witness denotes a person who is able to testify to something on the evidence of hearing (OED 1989). In this definition two key points establish the focus for this dissertation: person hearing. It is not, as extensively researched, a study in the science of acoustics but the human experience of architecture by listening. Augoyard and Torgue (2006, p.9) believe that ‘the eagerness to approach sound like any other object.. is largely responsible for the loss of focus and unlikely relevance of a term endowed with a particular and precise meaning’. Before topics of the built environment can be explored it is useful to establish an understanding of the ears capabilities and the nature of sound. This will highlight some of the complexity behind the subject in order to ground following discussions.

Many philosophers and scholars theoretically approached the definition of sound prior scientific influence and discovery.

One of the first known thoughts came from the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322BC) who ‘defined sound as a determined movement from two bodies, which crash one against the other’ (Tronchin, Durvilli & Tarabusi 2008, p.1).

Around three hundred years later the Roman architectural engineer Vitruvius (80-15BC) studied aspects of acoustics.

He defined the sound of the voice as ‘a flowing breath of air, perceptible by the hearing by contact. It moves in endless number of circular rounds.. which keeps on spreading indefinitely from the centre unless interrupted by narrow limits, or by some obstruction which prevents such waves from reaching their ends’ (Vitruvius 1960, p.138).

A following theory proposed by the German scholar Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680AD) was based on Aristotle’s notion, but began to consider deeper detail. Though 3

preceding the theory of oscillations he made the relationship between frequency and pitch. This later founded the scientific nature of sounds as waves (Tronchin, Durvilli & Tarabusi 2008). Following the exacting science, modern scholars have been attending to the expansion of these thoughts and their meanings to perception. Matthew Nudds’ (2007, p.3) definition states that it is ‘determined in a law-like way by the physical nature of the object and the nature of the event that caused it’. Events occur by vibrating solids, liquid displacement and aerodynamic shift (Gaver 2001).

The intensity of event cause interacting with the instigating object’s properties creates a unique pattern of sound.

Unifying both avenues of explanation, Casey O’Callaghan (2010, pp.17-25) identifies sound as; properties in philosophy and waves in science. The former contains phenomenological information and epistemological beliefs.

This view implies sound as ‘particular individuals that posses the audible qualities of pitch, timbre, and loudness, possibly along with other inaudible properties’. The latter wave ‘is a particular that persists and travels through the medium’.

‘Sound is intrinsically and un-ignorably relational: it emanates, propagates, communicates, vibrates, and agitates; it leaves a body and enters others; it binds and unhinges, harmonizes and traumatizes; it sends the body moving, the mind dreaming, the air oscillating. It seemingly eludes definition, while having profound effect’ (Labelle 2010 p.9).

In summary of these varying notions we can certify that sound is a movement of phenomenon that propagates in all directions. The cause of inception creates distinguishing characters, and the medium contains this information to be perceived by a listener. For simplicity, sound will only be considered as a vibration of solids, more relative in the discussion of physical architecture. In this state sound is a 4

transfer of vibration from an object to the body and ear. It could be considered that the body is a membrane through which sounds travel. ‘Touch is the most personal of sense.

Hearing and touch meet where the lower frequencies of audible sound pass over the tactile vibrations. Hearing is a way of touching at a distance’ (Schafer 1994, p.11).

In a chapter titled ‘Acoustic Space’ Carpenter and McMullan (1960) describe our immediacy to neglect the capability of the ears and how sight is trusted as the primary sense. A trust formed out of the eyes ability to perceive absolute truth, in contrast of the ears ambiguity to question. Nevertheless, in the directional nature of sight many objects may go unnoticed when obstructed or not focused upon. Whereas, sound comes from all around, it highlights action from the places that cannot be seen. ‘Audition surpasses vision in the ability to detect change and in the ability to monitor multiple sources of information’. (O’Callaghan 2010, p.9). It places the person at the centre of experience, rather than at a distance from the perceived. However, it is not my intention to promote a bias for hearing and neglect sight, but to explore its potential for epistemological development in architecture for an equality of the senses.

The underlining foundation behind this dissertation is how the capabilities of human hearing can be applied for enhancing architectural experience and design. The context of this discussion will predominantly focus on the domestic environment as relational place. This will be explored in three main chapters that regard: listening, perceiving and thinking.

The first section will begin by investigating the existence of silence to question its meaning and effects. The alternative composer John Cage will inform the search for methods to experience familiarly ordinary sounds of the everyday home in new ways. To further understand our encounters 5

with architecture through hearing, the second section will focus on the perception of sound and how the properties of a space may be perceived by listening. The information contained within sound effects, having interacted with space, will be examined to identify how it may be used to perceive spatiality. By reference to the sonic artist Alvin Lucier, various methods of spatial investigation will be used to support the identification of personalities of different spaces. The final section will regard the affects sound may have upon the mind. The metaphysical boundaries of sound will initiate discussions in social interactions and how they may be affected by sound. The ambiguity of sound heard from afar will be investigated to understand how it may provoke action.

This distant hearing will also inform the exploration of how it may be used functionally for surveillance and security, for peace of mind.

6

7

Fig.2

8

Silence ‘Silence is nothingness, but nothingness is sheer possibility’ (Idhe 2007, p.223) ‘When there is nothing to hear, so much starts to sounds. Silence is not the absence of sound but the beginning of listening’ (Voegelin 2010, p.83) It is a winter’s dusk and I am far from the cities bustling noise.

Located in the midst of an open field surrounded by a snowy landscape and dense forest, the light fading and air still. A static image sits before my eyes as if time has stood still, but be it not for my ears. Even though there is little to be heard, stillness and concentration give rise to the faintest of sounds: cracks of fauna moving amongst the trees, distant hums of a lone car and trickling water from the melting snow.

The definition of the term silence states an absence of sound, but try as we may to consider the reality of this condition it proves difficult. The use of the word found its way into common discourse, literature and poetry only when it became something precious and rare (Kubisch 2002). Western society has gradually become louder, increasing in volume to the extent that modern mechanical machines suppress human sound (Schafer 1994). Furthermore, the recent portable entertainment and communication generation, with devices such as iPods and iPhones, is disconnecting listeners from their aural environment, thus limiting social interactions and sensory investigations.

In opposition to contemporary culture, the monastic lifestyle incorporates few developments from the modernised world.

Silence in these secluded communities is abundant due to 9

Fig.4

Fig.5

10

the austere order of interiority for spiritual harmony. “A life constructed around simple rituals, repetition and an absence of what is not necessary… Monastic life takes the everyday rituals of life and formalises them, harnessing the potential for gravitas in the simplest of actions.” (Pawson, 2003).

The documentary film ‘Into Great Silence’, produced by Philip Groning in 2006, is an insight into the Grande Chartreuse monastery, located in the French Alps. More than a mere depiction of the monastery, the documentary embodies the notions of monastic life through its methodology; in its overall duration, long still shots, and near silence, be it not for the sounds of nature, Gregorian chants and resonating bells. It creates a brief meditative immersion into the slow and silent life of monks. However, we live in a culture that is eager to expel sound, which would rather speak than listen (Back 2007). According to Schafer (1994), this negative approach is the result of wanting to dismiss the thought of being alone, the fear of solitude and life’s nothingness. If considered positively, he suggests that it offers the chance for concentration, thought and listening, a state under threat by the mass of noises.

The experimental composer John Cage (1978, p.8), creator of the soundless composition 4’33”, believed that it is not possible to experience complete silence, stating that ‘there is no such thing as an empty space or an empty time. There is always something to see, something to hear. In fact, try as we may to make silence, we cannot‘. His blank composition instructs no action upon the orchestra. The audience is left to sit in silence for the duration of the piece amongst the nonintentional sounds of the music hall, be it a cough, creak or scratch, with the intention of demonstrating the prevalence of the medium. Even in the quietest known places on earth, which are manmade echoless anechoic chambers with their absorbent surfaces, sounds such as the heartbeat and blood 11

circulating within the body remain present. Only without activity and people would places become silent. As users of this world, without the capability of closing the ears, humans are subject to sound perpetually. However, despite sounds incessant presence we can be selective and control what we listen to. How can listening contribute to our experience of architecture? What can listening tell us about our location?

Distance and Duration One immediate reaction to silence is its creation of tension. By reference to Henri Bosco’s prose-poem ‘Malicroix’ Bachelard (1994, p.43) identifies the power of tension in silence, that in solitude it creates a sense of spatial immensity. ‘There is nothing like silence to suggest a sense of unlimited space.. we are seized with the sensations of something vast and deep and boundless.’ Without nearby activity to produce sound, local space becomes redundant for the search of something further away. It is in this state that the reality of space can become augmented. From the immediate surroundings, our ears travel deeper into to space to find a source of sound.

This expansion of a perception redefines its edge to a distant location beyond our direct connection.

During the closest encounters of silence, when sounds are barely audible and those remaining are too faint to recognise, time begins to present itself at the forefront of awareness. Blasé experiences, that ignore listening, can become arresting when sound disappears, as though time has unexpectedly stopped (Tonkiss 2003). An early morning walk through the city presents experiences such as this, when the world is at rest in preparation for a new day.

This state of consciousness raises questions about the perception of duration. For instance, when considering a frantic situation of activity where the mind is occupied with 12

dynamic interaction, it may be difficult to comprehend the amount of time elapsed, as though instantaneous.

Conversely, when unoccupied and sitting still in the surroundings of silence, time may feel extended. A minute’s silence is a reminder of how long a short amount of time takes to pass. A minute feels much longer when silent. Zakay (1989) investigated time estimations by exposing participants to auditory metronome tempos. The results showed that estimated time intervals were shorter when exposed to a slow tempo (30bpm), and longer when exposed to a fast tempo (120bpm). A slow tempo causes time perceived to be longer than time experienced.

Time is evident in the properties of sound, its velocity introduces a time factor between emission and arrival.

Furthermore, reverberant remanence endures the existence of sound. In contrast, light to our perception appears as an instantaneous phenomenon, dissipating immediately regardless of the number of reflections (Blesser 2009).

Sounds in their regularity and rhythm can also assist unconscious time keeping. The heart is a rhythmic timekeeper, beating away like the seconds on a clock. Familiar daily events that occur at known moments can give an indication of the time. Similarly, repeating sounds throughout the day denote a pattern and the passage of time. As soon as these routines are broken, knowledge is fragmented and time questioned. The world becomes timeless. ‘Silence focuses our attention on our very existence.. matter, space and time fuse into one singular elemental experience, the sense of being’ (Pallasmaa 2009, p.52). Silence therefore realises the notion of I am here now.

Listening ‘Wherever we are, what we hear is mostly noise. When 13

we ignore it, it disturbs us. When we listen to it, we find it fascinating’ (Cage 1978, p.3). Silence comes to represent the most lucid moment of sonic production and experience and offers the position of intersubjectivity. This occurs from being in the soundscape and listening to it at the same time.

‘What I hear is discovered and not received’ (Voegelin 2010, p.83). Listening becomes a conscious and attentive activity of exploration. For example, library desires for concentration to read or write can be disturbed by the smallest of sounds. As soon as these sounds are listened to they become a method of exploration. A weave of invisible networks to the sound sources, providing an intimate awareness of the environment, which connect the listener to the dynamic activities of life (Blesser 2007).

When we consider movement in visual terms it is the displacement of matter, whereas sound emerges from silence and returns back to silence. Therefore unlike sight, where objects are seen before contemplation, listening cannot contemplate the phenomenon after its production, but for in memory, because it only becomes apparent after listening (Voegelin 2010). This ephemeral character, sounds subsequent dispersal, demands attention for experience, to hear otherwise passing sounds. Static objects offer multiple opportunities of perception that can be revisited at will. The ever-fleeting nature of sound requires attentive engagement for it to be heard and experienced.

In Wim Wenders short film ‘If Buildings Could Talk..’ the building takes on its own narrative and speaks to the viewer as though it does subliminally to its users. Many of the people seen within the film stop to listen as though something has caught their attention. Wenders (2010) description identifies the rarity of listening in architectural experience: ‘Buildings, like people, are subject to time and exist in a threedimensional world.. It’s an invitation to wander around, to 14

experience and to listen for once’. Attention is rarely applied, due to prior occupations or simple ignorance. Everyday sonic experience is deafened through its repetition and familiarity.

It is easy to become so used to objects and phenomena, due to its continual presence, that blasé experiences lead to not understanding things from a new perspective. ‘We need to find more considered ways to engage with the ordinary yet remarkable things found in everyday life’ (Back 2007, p.7).

How can oblivion of the familiarly ordinary be altered, to modify preconceived experiences of everyday rituals?

Familiarly Ordinary Just as humans require time to sleep to renew their physical energy, quiet is equally required for mental composure (Shafer 1994). Concentration is easily hindered by excessive noise, affecting the minds ability to process information quickly and clearly. The city is an uncontrollable array of sonic interference, continuously feeding the ears with aural data. Sounds can arrive from all directions at unpredictable moments. There are very few locations that offer a place of escape from the barrage of sonic intrusion, maybe in a park or the countryside, but nowhere can guarantee refuge as the home does. More than a place to simply dwell and carry out the functions of life it is a ‘counter-balance to the dynamics of exposure.. giving comfort and reprieve from the demands of the exterior world’ (Labelle 2010, p.48). The home is the geographic centre point from which daily activities are enacted, a place that envelops and secures well-being. ‘Our house is our corner of the world’ (Bachelard 1994, p.4). It is a personal place that represents the ordinary of the occupier, an architectural heart from which we enter the world and balance our experiences against. Each home is full of its own unique familiarities, each with its own characteristics that defines its identify. Subtle details of the homes sonic personality become apparent through occupation.

15

16

The following aural accounts are of the home 6 Marston Street Oxford, as experienced by its four tenants, who have been its earwitnesses:

17

18

“Thunderous front door slam”

19

20

“Metallic mail flap slap”

21

22

“Distant boiler heating hum”

23

24

“Piercing bathroom door squeak”

25

26

“Rain patter on skylights”

27

28

“Clanging cutlery in drawer”

29

Despite the visual nature, these written aural accounts aim to provide an evocative acoustic image of the auditory environment and document the sensations of sounds.

Despite the tenants regular encounters with the home sounds still manage to engrain themselves within memories, be it through repetition, annoyance or distinct character.

To consider how it might be possible to refresh the experience of a place through listening and providing continuous development, it is necessary to examine the methodology of attention in experiencing sound. Two phenomenological philosophers Edmund Husserl and his student Martin Heidegger proposed their own differing approaches. The Husserlian emphasis was in reduction to focus, whereas the Heideggarian emphasis was at letting be (Idhe 2007).

The former focusing on a single entity, a severe reduction, compared to the enmeshed experience of the latter. When considering these two methodologies of phenomenology with regard to the ordinary, focusing may come to limit a wider experience, whereas letting be offers the possibility for multiple phenomena to contribute to an immersive experience.

This offers possibilities for change, in that focusing confines experience to what it is, a continuous familiarity of the ordinary compared to, as in the former, a displaced familiarity of the ordinary. The displacement of familiarity occurs through the differentiating combinations of sounds. When one sound is listened to alone many times, it remains relatively the same.

The same sound heard in conjunction with another produces a completely different result. Transfer this to the endless possibilities of amalgamation, and immersing oneself in many sounds has the potential for providing ever-changing experiences. Listening is not about discovering the source, to focus and differentiate, but rather sounds heard, for one to become immersed within a whole sonic spectrum.

30

Composition Bachelard (1994, p.206) suggests that ‘each new contact with the cosmos renews our inner being, and that every new cosmos is open to us when we have freed ourselves from the ties of a former sensitivity’. It is through this mode of listening that we can discover ordinary and what seem familiar encounters anew. If we, as R. Murray Shafer (1994, p.205) proposes, ‘regard the soundscape of the world as a huge musical composition, unfolding around us ceaselessly.. simultaneously its audience, its performers and its composers’, maybe then will the dynamics of life provide refreshing encounters on a daily basis.

The active consideration and selection of sounds as components can provide for the possibility of a new composition to be performed or heard each day; such as the merged sound of a humming fridge and squeaking door or slamming door and trickling shower water. An example of this can be found in Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s (1991) film ‘Delicatessen’. Set in a post-apocalyptic French suburb, this surrealist black comedy is about the landlord of an apartment building who is a cannibalistic butcher and prepares human delicacies for his odd tenants. The introvert nature of their restrictive lifestyles means they live amongst each other and often come into close contact. A network of ventilation pipes permeates throughout the building creating aural links between rooms. These connect the personal sounds of each room with another, where at specific openings the events and activities occurring at a given moment can be heard. At any moment a different arrangement than the last, dependent upon what is happening within each room, can be heard.

Listening applied in this manner has the ability to continuously change the experience of a place, as no two sounds are the same. Subtle changes in time deliver new possibilities of 31

experience, offering different sounds to be brought together.

Each subjective approach selecting how and what is heard.

This ever-changing soundscape not only provides new ways to engage with the building but also establishes ones perception of place.

32

33

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

34

“Slurping paint roller”

“Carpet beating slap”

“Airy pump pressure”

35

‘Sound performs with and through space: it navigates geographically, reverberates acoustically, and structures socially, for sound amplifies and silences, contorts, distorts, and pushes against architecture; it escapes rooms, vibrates walls, disrupts conversation; it expands and contracts space by accumulating reverberation, relocating place beyond itself, carrying it in its wave, and inhabiting always more than one place; it misplaces and displaces; like a car speaker blasting too much music, sound overflows borders. It is boundless on the one hand, and site-specific on the other’ (Labelle 2006, p.11) 36

Sound Space When the sounding of events is detected, the signals and the space they propagate within become subject to perception.

Lucier (1995, p. 416) states that ‘each space…has its own personality that tends to modify, position, and move sounds by means of absorptions, reflects, attenuations, and other structurally related phenomena’. The characteristics of a place are not only determined by the original events and subsequent sounds, by also by the sonic effects as a result of interaction with a specific context. Sound responds to the environment that it occurs within, and is dependent on the properties of the space. The common and saturated approach of investigation to sound and space has been focused around how space changes sound, with little discourse on how sound can make space audible. Beyond scientific principles, that can be used to create purpose-built acoustic environments, it is important to examine the micro epistemologies of effects, in an attempt to understand a phenomenology of aural space.

How do spaces speak and what do they say? What can be heard, rather than seen, within a space?

Instrumentation The sound installation, ‘Playing the Building’ (2007), is a simple interplay by David Byrne, that explores the literal sonic personality of a built space. The pieces transform empty building space into giant instruments. Multiple electronic devices are attached to the structure of the building and service components such as columns and pipes. From a connection to a vintage organ, cables can trigger these devices to sound the elements through blowing, vibrating and striking. The result of this allows for the entire building to be investigated aurally. It can be played to discover its material and spatial characteristics. As Emmett explains, ‘the sound 37

of a building portrays its volumes, mass, materiality, function and design – its presence. It captures sound and reflects it, absorbs it, emits it’, (Emmett 2007, p. 206). This responsive interaction is intuitive, and allows for all to investigate a space through sound. Although Byrne’s technical approach may not be directly transferable to ordinary situations, it does highlight the potential possibilities for understanding space by simple interactions. Transposing this investigative method to encounters with an everyday environment, such as the home, could reconsider it as an instrument, playable to discover unique sonic characters. Haptic interactions provide a felt experience of material reactions. Furthermore the resultant sound productions might begin to reveal another perspective to perception beyond the presupposed.

Response The anechoic chambers lack of sonic feedback, from surface absorption, restricts sound to its original character and location of production. The absence of resonant surfaces prevents sound from collecting information from the environment it has travelled through. In a controlled situation such as this, sound becomes a direction and immediate phenomenon. It takes on a fixed route from emission to arrival, which eradicates the probability of temporality. As a non-effected pure sound it raises the possibility of associative focusing where awareness concentrates on the event and its location rather than the sound itself.

When considering what it might be like to experience such a place without sight, questions arise about the definition of space. The dimensions of a space in visual terms are given; we are bounded by the extents of physical constructions.

However, aurally without response, these boundaries become undeterminable. Sound and space are therefore intrinsically linked. Space without sound looses its parameters 38

of perception and becomes spaceless. When sound and space are interconnected they dynamically respond together ‘bringing auralitity into spatiality and space into aural definition’ (Labelle 2006, p.123). Auditory perception contributes to the experiential identity of an environment and definition of space.

The audible effects of sound can communicate many details about space. Wishart (1996, p.137) defines them as ‘contextualising cues which permit us to identify a particular landscape’. The absence of effects would result in a homogenous experience, where sounds would only be associated with their cause. Space in aural perception would feel dead due to the loss of dynamic and temporal characteristics. Augoyard and Torgue (2006, p.11) states that ‘the sonic effect produces a common sense because it gathers together into unified and harmonious listening, what other disciplinary knowledge divides. It also gives everyday listening pragmatic value’. Effects contain various inputs and combine this multifarious content into a single entity that can be perceived to understand aural spatiality (the experience of space by listening (Blesser 2007)). Once aware of these effects and understood, everyday listening can be considered an integral part in the perception and experience of architecture. This might in turn establish stronger memories and aid discourse in the description of space.

Personality Alvin Lucier devoted a number of years to the creation of works that investigated the acoustic characteristics of architectural space and spatial characteristics of sound. Four pieces within the collection are of significant importance to the consideration of architectural experience. ‘Vepsers’ investigates echolocation exploration in dark spaces.

‘Quasimodo The Great Lover’ deals with distance and the 39

transformation of sound after travelling through variously treated spaces. ‘Outlines of Persons and Things’ applies obstruction to create sound shadows in the identification of objects.

The most famous, ‘I Am Sitting In A Room’ (Appendix), involved recording a vocal speech into a tape and playing it back into a room. The sound from the tape and spatial response was then rerecorded. The process was then repeated until all remenance of the original sound was filtered out, leaving only the resonant harmonies and tones of the room audible.

It is as Lucier (1995, p.86) describes, ‘every room has its own melody’. When applied to an architectural space, with a fixed sound source, it begins to reveal its unique personality.

Scientifically speaking, sounds are waves and vary in frequency. When an object is subject to a sound frequency that matches its own natural frequency of vibration, it will oscillate in synchronisation. The timely arrival of these sound waves propels the object, providing increased energy after each cycle. Frequencies that do not correspond with the object dampen and become filtered, resulting in the emphasis of the frequencies that relate to the spatial resonance. Lucier (1995) was not interested in the resonant characteristics of spaces, in a scientific consideration, but to the sound situations experienced within rooms. When the dimensions of a room relate to a played sound and its wavelength, it will be reinforced. By repeating the process, certain frequencies are reinforced and the others are eliminated.

Space in this application is used as an acoustic filter, turning distinguishable sound into abstract sound, a sound of the space. If tested across a number of rooms, varying results will be produced, and in turn, identify the different characteristics of each space. The rate of transformation is not constant either the recording process will also locate differences in 40

time, providing quicker results of some pure resonances than others. By repositioning the point of playback and recording, or changing the vocal speech, a different outcome will incur.

Beyond the fundamental science, this method of sound investigation is an explorative way of listening to a space; a heightened discovery of it’s otherwise hidden personality. It is a literal and objective technique that draws attention to, and utilises, the acoustic characteristics of space. It surpasses the relational associations of sound and provides a purely sonic experience.

From an organic approach, Lucier’s ‘Quasimodo and The Great Lover’ produces comprehendible outcomes that can be expected from typical encounters with architecture.

Through the interaction with various objects and geometries, sound transforms into message bearing matter that can communicate where it has been and what it has touched.

This is most identifiable in the instance of an echo responding from a distance wall, as it often reveals, in some detail, the location, size and surface of the wall that it has travelled from. The spatial acoustics can alter the way in which space is perceived and add aural texture to experience, from the fixed given of the seen to dynamic flux of the heard.

Acoustic objects and geometry can produce aesthetically recognisable attributes. Sounds from these sources introduce aural texture to be perceived by the ears, the same as the counterpart sight would see and examine with the eyes.

These sonic textures contribute to the personality of a space and define areas. The changing conditions that occur within space can be local or global, serving specific nodes or an entire volume (Blesser 2007). Without these differences space would become uniform and repetitive. For example, despite the unconscious selection with regards to aural consequences, furnishing and fittings within a home can radically alter the soundscape, creating changing sound 41

Fig.9

Fig.8

42

effects in different locations. The most adapted surface that can be controlled is the floor. The multitude of floor finishes combined with the interaction of movement, creates a variety of sound responses. Carpets can soften an environment through absorption, whereas hard tiles reverberate sound.

These subtle material applications can be used to control and modify sound as desired. For example, areas for conversation might benefit from absorption in an attempt to limit excessive feedback for the maintenance of clairaudient communication.

Spatiality Spatial distortions are familiar results of sonic effects. Sound has the ability to expand and contract space. This becomes most clear in the action of cupping the hands to project ones voice. The formation of enclosure around the sound focuses the direction and provides a reflective surface to layer the sound energy, resulting in increased amplitude (Gibbs 2007). An enlarged version of the megaphone, the ‘Gigaphone’ was designed and installed in a public square

by The Norwegian School of Science and Technology. It can be used to amplify sound, be it the voice, music or physical activity. Comparatively, a collective group of architects, Fantastic Norway, proposed a roofscape of conical forms to cover a public space, which would concentrate sounds of the surrounding environment, be it the sky or adjacent city, to listening points below. This amplification creates illusions of distance, bringing the distant closer to the listening body.

Conversely, the very nature of sound implies an expansion of space through its ability to extend beyond defined visual boundaries, as identified by Lawrence (2007, p.195) ‘sound implies an extension of space into an unseen realm’.

Furthermore, excessive feedback can expand the perception of space. The amalgamation of reverberations can become corrosive, overloading the direct sound, thus making it seem 43

quieter and further away. This condition can also disrupt detection where reverberation envelops the environment, causing direct sound identification to become masked by the mass of noise.

When objects and geometry are identified and perceived directly they can aid navigation and orientation. Their geographical location sends messages of distance and direction, which are changeable, dependent on the position of the listener. The resolution of the human auditory system is capable of detecting vector changes of two degrees (Andrews 2010). This occurs when there are differences of wave characteristics between the two ears. In most situations this acute sense enables a whereabouts of sources, excluding sonic illusions. Matthew Nudds (2007) suggests that we cannot position the occurrence of sounds, but rather that we identify where the sounds come from. Whilst the original sound source remains audible through wave diffraction, continually readjusting the listening position and grouping the received sounds can form an overall outline of solid forms. Lucier’s ‘Outlines of Persons and Things’ provided this experience by introducing a listener to the sound shadows created behind an object.

Blesser (2006, p.16) states that ‘a space does not react to our visual sense’, without auditory cues navigating through space would be impossible. In some situations, when sound signals are absent, it is necessary to introduce a sound source. Lucier’s ‘Vespers’ provided the opportunity of space perception through echolocation. Handheld devices would emit clicks upon request; the responding echoes would give an impression of the volume and its surrounding surfaces.

In typical experiences of architecture, without these devices, our own bodies, from the clapping of the hands or whistling voice, could be utilised and considered as quasi-scientific instruments. In instances of darkness, when sight is prevented, 44

the implementation of this technique might be necessary. ‘Left in the dark, I need to explore what I hear. Listening discovers and generates the heard’ (Voegelin 2010, p.4). Walking through the home at night following the removal of light immerses sight into pitch black. Striking footsteps provide an auditory perception of space, in addition to cognition, preventing the body coming into contact with potential danger.

‘While your palace remains unknown to you and unknowable, you can try to reconstruct it bit by bit, locating every shuffle, every cough at a point in space, imagining walls around each acoustical sign, ceilings, pavements, giving form to the void in which the sounds spread and to the obstacles they encounter, allowing the sounds themselves to prompt the images’ (Calvino 1995, p.42).

45

‘Vestibules, stairways, loggias, corridors of the palace have high, vaulted ceilings; every footstep, every click of a lock, every sneeze echoes, rebounds, is propagated horizontally along a suite of communicating rooms, halls, colonnades, service entries, and also vertically, through stairwells, cavities, skylights, conduits, flues, the shafts of dumbwaiters; and all the acoustical routes converge on the throne room. Into the lake of silence where you are floating rivers of empty air, stirred by intermittent vibrations. Alert, intent, you intercept them and decipher them. The palace is all whorls, lobes: it is a great ear, whose anatomy and architecture trade names and functions: pavilions, ducts, shells, labyrinths. You are crouched at the bottom, in the innermost zone of the palace ear, of your own ear; the palace is the ear of the king’ (Calvino 1992, p.38) 46

Sound Mind Sound in space allows for the listener to identify its properties.

The information received from sound also becomes subject to individual interpretation and reaction. Bohme (2003, p.5) states that ‘the space of moods is the space which, in a sense, attunes my mood, but at the same time it is the extendedness of my mood itself. The space of actions is the space in which I can act, but also the scope of my possibilities. The space of perceptions is the space in which I perceive something, but also the expansion of my involvement with things’.

Having considered various approaches to the perception of spatial properties, as a result of sound effects (outward), it is appropriate to consider the opponent and the ways in which sound can affect the users of space (inward). The interconnections between people in familiar scenarios will be identified to help understand how sound may come to impact the usability of and social relationships within space. How can sound influence the behaviour of a person and their sound production? When there are a number of people, what social impact does sound have between the inhabitants of a space?

Metaphysical The boundaries of space are typically implied by the provision of opaque matter. These physical demarcations are the containers of objects, confining them within its surrounding enclosure. The activities of people within space and their subsequent movements are restricted by its size and shape.

Blesser (2007) states that physical boundaries are essentially a visual concept. Sight is linear and projects direct focus on a single object. It is obstructed by all material except those seldom few that are translucent. Sound propagates in all directions, creating a spherical volume around its centered source. It has the ability to permeate and travel beyond the 47

Fig.10

48

extents of what can be seen, in which solidity is otherwise confined. It is able to penetrate even the densest of materials through its vibrational energy. The boundaries of space in sonic experience are only limited by amplitude and the ability of the ear and how far one can hear.

Aside from the perceivable constraints of form, there are immaterial demarcations that inhibit the transmission of phenomena. Hearing ends either at the point when a competing sound source becomes more dominant or sonic energy diminishes. The equivalent of sight would be through the prevalence of darkness, and the absence of object illumination. Between these points and the sound source denotes a region of sonic propagation that can be accessed and heard upon entering. Shafer (1994, p.214) identifies that ‘the acoustic space of a sound object is that volumes of space in which the sound can be heard’. A notion defined by Blesser (2007) as an Acoustic Arena bounded by its Acoustic Horizon.

These virtual volumes are merely representational, but as Bohme (2003, p.7) describes they exist and are ‘experienced as spaces of bodily presence’. Unhindered sonic propagation would result in the production of a spherical arena. The possibility of pure volume such as this is unlikely with the probable presence of objects and enclosure. These do not prevent the passage of sound entirely however, due to it’s ability to permeate around form, and through small cracks and crevices. This enables the extension of its arena into adjacent spaces. Furthermore, even with a loss of energy and clarity, otherwise sealed spaces may be subject to the acoustic horizon through sound vibrations. The acoustic arena is one that defies physical boundaries and is in a constant flux. It is an imperceptible space until encountered by the ear. Despite the intangible nature of acoustic arenas, they can be controlled by design and during use.

49

Their size and shape depends upon the environment in which they exist and the sonic behaviors of the sound source. The legibility of sound is controlled by the quality of production and potential interference, be it from another sound or the personality of space. The environmental influence occurs from spatial acoustics and propagating sound. The form and materiality of the physical environment modifies sonic propagation, which alters the arenas horizon. Similarly, competing sources can suppress sounds full potential creating a dynamic border between arenas. Furthermore when sonic production is related to the users of space they have the ability to change the output, whether increasing the voice or controlling a sound emitting object.

This production is also subject to spatial properties as Shafer (1994, p.217) identifies ‘space affects sound not only by modifying its perceived structure.. but it also affects the characteristics of sound production’. Although space has no direct control over production it can influence the behavior of people who emit sound. A highly reverberant space such as a cathedral might induce lowering the volume of speech to prevent being overheard or disturbing others. The delineation of an arena is dependent upon many contributors and conditions. Despite their invisibility they represent a space of sound in which a person may encounter sound and its behavioral affects.

Social The occupation of acoustic arenas can be public or private, which subsequently will include or exclude others from sharing the same auditory channel. A single listener creates a link between themselves and the sound source. When a secondary person is able to hear the same sound, the link is extended and connects the two people together, via 50

the source. When consciously attending the same arena, it becomes a social space in which multiple listeners are subject to the same sound. Interaction between these people creates a cohesion that unifies their individual encounters into a single shared experience. The quality of an acoustic arena is dependent on the level of background noise. An isolated arena has limitless space in which to spread, and such opportunities can be liberating, allowing one to produce sound at any level desired.

Arenas often exist in multiples, especially in urban environments and the home. It is important to consider the impact that sound production, and the resultant acoustic arena, can have upon others. Expanding the acoustic horizons of activities may overpower the hearing abilities of people nearby. For example, noise from a neighbouring dwelling is a common cause of domestic disruption. The expansion of acoustic horizons may be used to bring people together, enabling social inclusion. Alternatively, consideration of those who do not wish to be included is vital to maintain their personal privacy. The equality of sonic space depends on the eradication of ignorant sound production, and a conscious view of the social context in which it is made.

The affects caused by excessive noise can be incurred through a lack of awareness of other people’s arenas. The visual connotations of claustrophobia and agoraphobia are easily recognizable to the compression of ones personal physical space. It is comprised of a phenomenological gestalt and equally applies to sound. The presence of multiple arenas and their surrounding enclosure of one can create a feeling of compression. The physical space observed in sight might be that of openness, but a noisy soundscape can suppress the perception of personal space. Chaotic cities are typical environments where sound can be found in abundance. Busy transportation networks sit adjacent to pedestrian routes, and 51

the multitude of people add to the barrage of uncontrollable noise. Julian Treasure (2009) identifies that excessive sound can result in a loss of energy due to the extra cognition that is required to process information amongst the noise.

Aside from the social causes, the physical environment may also contribute to these affects. Sound transparency can remove the sense of confinement. A bar I encountered during a recent trip to Porto featured toilets that were located to the side, but still within the main space. The tight nature of their location demanded a thin division, which resulted in framing that was clad in perforated metal sheets. In addition to its space saving properties, the double layer of metal prevented explicit visual perception, whilst maintaining a sonic connection to the bar. The cubicles gave an impression of an expanded space, and continuity of experience, where one could feel as if they were connected to the social activities that continued outside.

In social spheres, vocal communication is vital for interaction as a means to share thoughts with others. Shafer suggests (1994, p.219) that ‘the size and shape of interior space will always control the tempo of activities within’. The speed of communication and its associated actions are subject to control by the environment in which they occur. To elaborate, Shafer considered reverberation giving the illusion of permanence to sounds. This extension of sound implies longer intervals between each production, resulting in an overall slower output. Conversely, dry and direct environments enable quick clear responses where the absence of delay enables a faster output. Spaces that have specific uses will require certain acoustics to coincide with the activities that occur. A library, for example, may benefit from reverberation to slow the pace of movement and potential conversation.

Sport facilities on the other hand may desire a limitation of feedback to allow speedy communication and action.

52

Overhear In addition to the creation of spatial domains, sound can communicate information of varying events, subsequently provoking the actions of a listener. The drive of sight for total knowledge leaves little freedom for the imagination, whereas sound, driven by discovery, requires the mind to create its own trajectories. The ambiguity of sound incites intrigue, leaving interpretation to the imagination. ‘Sound narrates, outlines and fills, but it is always ephemeral and doubtful’ (Voegelin 2010, p.5).

In the opening scene of Delicatessen, we become aware of the importance of the butcher’s business in times of food shortage, setting the context for future events. During this short sequence, we encounter an individual who is able to hear the activities of the butcher in his preparation room below. The sound of sharpening knives travels through the buildings ductwork until they reach the ears of the paranoid mind. In addition to his paranoia, the awareness of these unfamiliar sounds causes him to conjure a clear idea of the butcher’s agenda. In fear for his life, he acts in haste and ceases the opportunity to flee. After hearing garage disposal vans, he devises a plan to escape inside a bin, and therefore prevent detection. In doing so, he inadvertently contains himself for discovery and capture by the butcher.

This is greatly reflective of the concept that the porosity of a building can contribute greatly towards the provocation of action. The free permeation of sound means that sonic cues remain ever present. Though sounds posses no direct instruction, their ability to communicate current events enables a listener to infiltrate and establish ideas from afar. These subjective preconceptions, whether true or not, contribute to ones beliefs and may come to influence the decisions and actions in a later time.

53

In addition to the provocation of action, overhearing can be utilised for sound surveillance. The ability to hear from afar enables a listener to remain inconspicuous, whilst preventing the disturbance of another’s actions. One of the earliest accounts of acoustic surveillance can be found in the legend ‘Ear of Dionysius’. It is believed that this limestone cave in Sicily, measuring 65m long and 22m high, originally functioned as a prison in around 400BC. The inner plan resembles the cochlea of a human ear, sweeping into the rock in an ‘S’ shape. Its wedge section extends from a wide base to a narrow opening at the top. This shape, along with its smooth surfaces, enables sound at ground level to be focused and therefore, amplified to the opening at roof level.

Every sound, be it a whisper or shuffle, could be heard by the guards above. They were able to overhear the prisoner’s conversations and movements providing an awareness of their actions without coming into contact (Shafer 2003). Two millennia later, in a time of common treachery, Athanasius Kircher proposed the designs for tubes through walls that would discreetly transmit speech from courtyards and rooms to a listening point.

In Italo Calvino’s story of a throne bound King, he elaborates many accounts in which listening enables the King to perceive the entire castle without having to move. Isolation leads him to suspicion and imminent attack. Sound and listening in this scenario represents psychological security, ‘perhaps the threat comes more from the silences than from the sounds.. perhaps danger lurks in regularity itself’ (Calvino 1992, p.44). When it becomes possible to hear the events beyond ones locality, listening enables preemptive detection. This ability to anticipate may provide a sense of comfort around the otherwise unpredictable future. The mind can rest in the knowledge that danger will be detected before it can surprise. ‘Interiority is guaranteed through 54

the implied presence of additional circuits that monitor the cracks and breaks of the home, those hinges that make the home a porous and vulnerable site’ (Labelle 2010, p.79). In primordial cultures this would have been a vital skill where an abundance of predators lurked out of sight ready to pounce.

Despite the stability and interiority of the contemporary domestic environment, danger still exists. No other time instills fear quite as during the darkness of night. Without the clarity of sight, the ambiguity of sound leaves the mind in an unknowable domain attentive for the detection of unwelcome noise.

‘Sound has both utopian and dystopian associations: it enables individuals to create intimate, manageable and aestheticised spaces to inhabit but can also become an unwanted and deafening roar of threatening the body politic of the subject…Thinking with our ears offers an opportunity to augment our critical imaginations, to comprehend our world and our encounters with according to multiple registers of feeling’ (Ball and Back 2003, pp.1-2)

55

‘The cool of the evening does not arrive as far as the throne room, but you recognize it from the summer evening hum that does reach you even here’ (Calvino 1992, p.52) 56

Conclusion Throughout the preceding chapters sound has featured as the primary phenomena in the discussion of exploring architectural space and its experience. However, the implications of silence must not be forgotten. Even though silence does not exist in a true sense of the term, it must be considered a state in which attentive listening begins. Silence is the space in which sound acts. It enables events to be detected and lucid production. John Cage’s approach to sound has been highly influential in the reconsideration of silence. His alternative sonic compositions provided the opportunities to commence a critical analysis of sound experience. ‘The critic of sound is invited to consider the dynamic of perception rather than the monument of its materiality’ (Voegelin 2010, p.100).

In arresting situations during the awareness of absence, existential questions arise. The evident augmentation of distance and duration give value to the space and time we occupy and use. Approaching silence with intention may remove its fear inducing tendencies and offer a chance to reevaluate the given, offering a continual rejuvenation of experience.

The significance of sounds absence indicates the importance of engagement for its ephemeral experience. Blesser (2007) identifies that blindness does not enhance hearing perception alone but requires personal desire and attentive listening in order to develop the ears ability. Once listening begins, by breaking from ignorance and auditory entertainment, can the sounds of everyday environments begin to speak. Sound prejudice can easily occur through supposed familiarity from repetition. When the Heideggarian method of perception is applied to listening it indicates that immersion in the soundscape offers a gestalt experience. Through the use of home references it was proposed that sounds within house 57

could be utilised as a medium for creating new ways to encounter the ordinary. This amalgamation of sounds and their different arrangements provide ever-changing compositions.

‘The unification of sound phenomena must happen through a rediscovery of the pre-categorical approach to listening. A listening practice that starts with a return to the consciousness of early listening’ (Augoyard and Torgue 2006, p.13).

Beyond everyday events and their associated sounds, interactions with the environment of propagation give rise to spatial presence and properties. By simple interplays with built environments we can begin to investigate the sounds of a place. To gain a deeper understanding, the effects of sound, having responded with space, needed to be examined. There has been a focus around the science of sonic effects, but seldom discourse in experiential aspects of sound in architecture. With reference to anechoic chambers, the importance of response was identified in the definition of spatial awareness. The lack of reply poses a reappraisal of spatial boundaries.

The works of Alvin Lucier explored the acoustic characteristics of space and spatial characteristics of sound. ‘I Am Sitting In A Room’ acknowledges the unique sonic personalities hidden within space through the realisation of their natural resonant frequencies. Further works established discussions in auditory experience and perception including textures, spatial distortions and navigation. Each highlighted the functional use of applying sound perception to space. In doing so the identification of different environments would become apparent, providing a means to differentiate spaces through sound. The conscious perception of sound space may lead to an increase in awareness of and establish aural personalities, providing matter for memories and discourse.

In addition to the perception of physical boundaries, notions 58

of metaphysical sound arenas provided the definition of representational spaces to be encountered. Within these invisible arenas sound has the capability of psychological impact for changing personal behavior. By reference to the durations of spatial effects, the tempo of action might seem to change. This raised interesting conflicts between the affects of design in a social sense. For example, a reverberant library might induce slower behavior, however, this would be undesirable for the increase of noise and its disturbance.

This highlights the need for thoughtful design decisions to be made in order to consider and provide a suitable solution.

Conscious awareness of ones acoustic horizon identifies who is included or excluded in the social sphere. This enables consideration of the affect noise production has upon others, in that it might create a sense of compression and discomfort.

‘The babel of the crowd and the wordless solitude of the individual in a noisy city capture in sound a larger urban tension between collective and subjective life’ (Tonkiss 2003, p.304). The construction of physical space also alludes to connotations of claustrophobia, in that sound permeability extends beyond the perceived space of the seen. When sight is not possible the sense of hearing can come to provide information to determine current events. The film Delicatessen highlighted that the simplicity of hearing an event has the power to provoke action. Auditory cues let us know what is going on, thus what decisions and movements to make. The functional use of overhearing can be applied for security and surveillance, where the distant sounds preempt what is to come.

The theoretical project ‘Mix House’, designed in 2006 by Karen Van Lengen, Joel Sanders and Ben Rubin, incorporates many of the aural considerations mentioned previously. The brief behind the project was established to challenge the dominance of vision in architectural design and experience.

59

The outcome was a domestic environment that would provide aural transparency in addition to the visual. By means of numerous audiovisual windows and tubes, the sounds of the surrounding interior and exterior environment could permeate through the house. By choice, this functionally would offer control over the desired domestic soundscape. Furthermore, it promotes a creative and collaborative interaction with the house and its inhabitants. The overall outcome is for the ‘potential to know the domestic environment in an unfamiliar way that calls into question traditional distinctions between nature and culture, music and noise’ (Sanders and Van Lengen 2008, p.19). Lucier (1995, p.422) conceived a similar notion following his investigation of space and sound, proposing: ‘It is interesting to imagine a new music composed with architecture in mind or visa versa. Rooms with moveable walls could be constructed to position, move, and modulate sounds. Walls, floors, and ceilings could be thought of as acoustic lenses whose focal points are determined by reflective time’ By considering sound, in addition to light and sight, during the conception of architecture, design may coordinate aural and visual factors to provide a comprehensive engaging experience. The application of auditory perception aids the functional, sociable and memorable connection to spaces and places. The personal investigation of space through sound, as those identified by artists, may lead to a more developed understanding. It can be used in conjunction or dependent of the other senses to enhance our encounters with architecture. ‘Democracy of the senses are likely to notice more and ask different questions of our world’ (Back 2007, p.8).

The history of sound is still very young in comparison to 60

its counterpart sight, where paintings preceded the ability to record and share sound. The development of visual technologies has undergone rapid development, with visual displays and computer software to generate images.

Comparable sound technologies have remained complex and expensive proving difficult for their incorporation into the design process. However, before we are able to develop a direction aural architecture we must first open our ears and listen. ‘Glamorous glossy photographs of modern architecture appear silent and often still, and in doing so totemise the building as an object. Not to think about sound is to erase an immediate felt experience of architectural space’ (Pollard 2007, p.191) This dissertation has comprised of various notions and theories from a wide range of fields including art, architecture, philosophy, psychology and sociology. It is not a definitive text in which to design or experience, but intended to initiate ideas for doing so through the realisation of the significance in being an ear-witness.

61

Bibliography Andrews, T. (2010). Reality? Or Soft Focus?. [Online] Funktion One Research Ltd. Available at: <http://www.funktion-one. com/dl/files/1819.pdf> [Accessed 01 October 2010] Augoyard, J. and Torgue, H. eds. (2006). Sonic Experience: A Guide To Everyday Sounds. Translated from French by Andra McCartney and David Paquette. Montreal: McGill-Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s University Press, 2006.

Back, L. (2007). The Art of Listening. Oxford: Berg.

Ball, M. and Back, L. eds. (2003). The Auditory Culture Reader. Oxford: Berg.

Blesser, B. and Salter, L. eds. (2007). Spaces Speak, Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural Architecture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Byrne, D. (2007). Playing The Building. [Online] Available at: http://www.davidbyrne.com/art/art_projects/playing_the_ building/ [Accessed: 10 January 2011] Calvino, I. (1992). Under The Jaguar Sun. Translated from Italian by William Weaver. London: Cape Cage, J. (1978). Silence: Lectures and Writings. London: Boyars.

Carpenter, E. and McMulhan, M. eds. (1960). Explorations in Communication. Boston: Beacon Press Emmett, M. (2007). Soundscape of 2 Marsham Street. In: Littlefield, D. and Lewis, S. Architectural Voices: Listening To Old Buildings. Chichester: John Wiley. pp.204-207.

62

Gaver, W. (1993). What in the World Do We Hear? An Ecological Approach To Auditory Event Perception. [Online] Available at: <http://www.cog.brown.edu/courses/cg195/ pdf_files/fall07/Gaver-Whatdowehear.pdf> [Accessed 23 January 2010] Gibbs, T. (2007). The Fundamentals of Sonic Art & Sound Design. London: Thames & Hudson Groning, P. (2006). Into Great Silence. [DVD] New York: Zeitgeist Films Jeunet, J-P. (1991). Delicatessen. [DVD] London: Momentum Pictures Kubisch, C. (2002). Uber die Stille 1997. In: Labelle, B. and Roden, S. eds. Site of Sound: of Architecture and the Ear. Los Angeles: Errant Bodies Press in assoc. with Smart Art Press. pp.30-35 Labelle, B. (2006). Background Noise: Perspectives On Sound Art. New York: Continumm Labelle, B. (2010). Acoustic Territories: Sound Culture and Everyday Life. New York: Continumm Lucier, A. (1995). Reflections: interviews, scores, writings.

Köln: MusikTexte Nudds, M. (2007). Sounds and Space. [Online] Edinburgh Research Archive. Available at: <http://hdl.handle. net/1842/1774> [Accessed 06 January 2011] O’Callaghan, C. (2010). Sounds: A Philosophical Theory.

Oxford: OUP 63

Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. (1989). [Online] Oxford: OUP. Available at: <http://www.oed.com:80/Entry/59071> [Accessed 26 January 2011] Pallasmaa, J. (2009). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. Chichester: John Wiley Pawson, J. (2003). Essays: Monastery. [Online] Available at: <http://www.johnpawson.com/essays/monastery> [Accessed 27 April 2010] Pollard, L. (2007). Random Thoughts of Background Noise.

In: Littlefield, D. and Lewis, S. Architectural Voices: Listening To Old Buildings. Chichester: John Wiley, pp.194-197.

Sanders, J. and Van Lengen, K. (2008). Making Sense: The MIX House. Architectural Design, 78: pp.16–19. doi: 10.1002/ad.668 Schafer, R. (2003). Open Ears. In: Ball, M. and Back, L. eds.

The Auditory Culture Reader. Oxford: Berg.

Schafer, R. (1994). The Tuning of The World: The Soundscape.

New York: Knopf Tonkiss, F. (2003). Aural Postcards: Sound, Memory and the City. In: Ball, M. and Back, L. eds. The Auditory Culture Reader. Oxford: Berg. pp.303-310 Tronchin, L. Durvilli, I. Tarabusi, V. (2008). The Marvelous Sound World in the ‘Phonurgia Nova’ of Athanasius Kircher.

[Online] Intellagence Technologies. Available at: < http:// intellagence.eu.com/acoustics2008/acoustics2008/cd1/ data/articles/000807.pdf> [Accessed: 20 October 2010]

64

Treasure, J. (2010). Shh! Sound Health in 8 Steps. [Video online] Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/ eng/julian_treasure_shh_sound_health_in_8_steps.html [Accessed 20 October 2010] Wenders, W. (2010). If Buidlings Could Talk. [Online] Available at: http://www.wim-wenders.com/news_ reel/2010/07-july/2010-07-If-Buildings.htm> [Accessed: 10 January 2011] Vitruvius (1960). The Ten Books On Architecture. Translated

by Morris Hicky Morgan. New York: Dover.

Voegelin, S. (2010). Listening To Noise and Silence: Towards A Philospophy of Sound Art. New York: Continuum Zakay, D. (1989). Subjective Time and Attentional Resource Allocation: An Integrated Model of Time Estimation. In: Levin, Iris and Zakay, Dan (ed.). Time and Human Cognition: A LifeSpan Perspective. North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers. pp.365-397

65

Figures 1. John Marshall on bike aged 5: Howard Marshall (1991) 2. Les Hogues Countryside, France: John Marshall (2010) 3. Monk In Doorway: Groning, P. (2006). Into Great Silence. [DVD] New York: Zeitgeist Films 4. Anechoic Chamber: (n.d.) [Image online] Available at: <http://www.tunedcity.net/?page_id=353 > [Accessed: 9 January 2011] 5. Ceiling Painting: Jeunet, J-P. (1991). Delicatessen. [DVD] London: Momentum Pictures 6. Beating Mat: Jeunet, J-P. (1991). Delicatessen. [DVD] London: Momentum Pictures 7. Tyre Pumping: Jeunet, J-P. (1991). Delicatessen. [DVD] London: Momentum Pictures 8. Fantastic Norway Soundscape: (n.d.)

[Image online] Available at: <http://archiblender.blogspot. com/2008/10/fantastic-norway-soundscape.html> [Accessed: January 16 2011] 9. Trondheim Gigaphone: (n.d.) [Image online] Available at: <http://folk.ntnu.no/einarbye/> [Accessed: January 16 2011] 10. Metaphysical Space Sketches: John Marshall (2010) Front Cover â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Casey Cripe (n.d.) [Image online] Available at: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/caseycripe/3703955360/> [Accessed: 10 October 2010]

66

Appendix Lucier, A. (1990). I Am Sitting In A Room: Voice On Tape.

[Sound Recording] New York: Lovely Music

67