The most common definition of noise is ‘unwanted sound’. However, since the term implies a subjective interpretation, this definition is not satisfactory. And so question is – according to who is noise ‘unwanted’? For this reason one may argue that noise is never just noise! But noise becomes wanted or unwanted according to the listening context. It thereby becomes clear that the term noise signifies something more than itself; it is a product triggered by a certain activity, which is either wanted or unwanted. Therefore, treating noise as unwanted implies the denial of all its immanent qualities. The inverse of this attitude leads to a paradoxical situation since it involves an identification of ‘non-noise’, implying that noise can never be just unwanted. But it is – as a mediator of qualitative information – always something more than itself.
I propagate for a structural approach to sound issues in general, and more particularly to urban sonic ambiences. In most cases, acoustic research focuses on developing methods that aim at the measurable dimensions of sounds i.e. defining and encapsulating the sound world in quantifiable systems and units. This concerns not only the technical dimensions of sounds (physical acoustics) but also perceptual criteria (psycho-acoustics). Though, it is not a matter of opposing these fields of research. Instead, the intention is to extend the subject by theories concerning the transient nature of sounds.
What is asked for is a critical discussion on urban matters, e.g. on the collective space, relations between private and public space, aspects of actors, urban structures, spatial and temporal qualities, and strategic planning methods. These aspects presuppose interdisciplinary qualitative tools, which can be adapted to various forms of the urban space. Sounds are generated both unintentionally through activities, and consciously as artefacts. We seldom perceive sound as isolated phenomena but interpret them in their context and related to situation, surrounding and human interaction. Understanding urban sound requires, thus, an interdisciplinary approach, involving acoustics, music, art, design, architecture, sociology, anthropology, issues of sustainability, etc.
Therefore, it is time to strike a blow for Noise Design in order to challenge conceptions that are generalised and formalised into quantitative values. Noise Design represents a communicating interface between the sounding object, the receiver, and the designer, which indeed is an interactive process with the receiver as a co-designer; the object is ‘created’ in regard to the receiver’s power of imagination.
Rhetorically speaking, noise design promotes supportive and creative approaches to sounds. That is to say, by entering deeply into the very complexity of the “world of noise”, we pursue knowledge that does not hide our relation to this world, but rather reveals its riches. Noise is more than noise. Abstract and yet universal, the sounds around us express information that may be social in character, but may also unleash aesthetic experiments. Noise develops networks of relationships that are vital for our actions in physical space. Noise Design examines our rich and complex sound world. It adopts a structural approach to sound-related issues in general, and particularly to urban sonic ambiences. It explores the concept of transparent and fluid space as a central principle for urban conception. Urban acoustic space is seen as transient and immaterial, making public and private spaces less predictable, less monotonous.
.
REFERENCE
2003, Hellström Björn, Noise Design – Architectural Modelling and the Aesthetics of Urban
Acoustic Space, Bo Ejeby Publisher (it is possible to order the book at www.ejeby.se)
|
